An unpopular opinion maybe, but Daniel's offerings for Burberry aren't - or should I say weren't, since they are barely promoting/selling them - that bad at all and I am not really blaming him for how the brand is performing.
To me, it's a situation different than, say, Raf at Calvin, because Lee did present things that are in line with what Burberry is as a house and didn't turn it into an unmarketable fever dream. Ok, the duck beanie was a joke and the 1st show overall wasn't a hit in its frumpiness, but most of the stuff I've seen in person looks solid, from his takes on plaid to the variations of loafers with metal plates. People are kind of omitting he is rather capable of putting together things that are grounded, yet desirable (his Bottega was quite strong across many categories and laid the base for its current success + he was obviously responsible for a lot at Céline) and that is very much what's needed at Jil Sander. The Meiers have turned it into a brand of
decorative minimalism, a lane crowded by trend chasers who think keeping it reduced means having permanently wet-looking hair, a meticulously curated feed and a coat with no buttons so that you (have to) hold it and look aloof.. while Jil was all about creating things that should be equally functional and aesthetically pleasing due to the focus on fabrics and cuts with a few chosen details. Which is what Daniel did well - his confidently cut shirts, outerwear and tailoring with the signature V were more than satisfying - before he started feeding into the hype machine at BV and then tried to repeat it at Burberry.
View attachment 1321493 View attachment 1321494 View attachment 1321496 View attachment 1321497 View attachment 1321498