Future Vintage - Buying Fashion as Investment

[Muse_Views]

Which designers' work do you consider worthy of buying as long-term investment?

In other words, whose future vintage pieces will be worth as much if not more, in say, 10-30 years time?

And, WHY?

I would vote for Lacroix and McQueen, for starters, because they create works that are:

1) aesthetically beautiful
2) exquisitely crafted
3) canonically fall within the history of design

 

[Dkammern]

chanel i guess... it's precious vintage already and still will be.
i am sure Tisci's romanticism and goth aesthetic would be a great investment too. the clothes are exquisitely crafted, the materials are always rich, it's trendy but there's also a lot of passe-partout pieces: lbd, straight dressy pants, leather jackets, blouses...

my guess is you either have to go for the very timeless (a Galliano bias cut dress) or the most trendy (think balenciaga ss07) which will eventually be worn by the random agyness-of-the-moment in 20 years or so and look cool and trendy (again)

 

[seanutbutter]

As both an admirer and collector of vintage clothing, this is a question that never ceases to get me thinking. I've come to the conclusion that, while the designer undoubtedly plays a huge role in how much an item will sell for, what really matters is if the piece reflects its era or not.

Consider this scenario: If you were given the choice between two dresses from the 1920s, one being a classic flapper shift dress with intricate details, the other a simple jumper that looks like something from Target's latest collection, which are you more likely to pick? Most would probably go for the former, and for good reason--if one wanted a modern look, they would go to, well, Target.

Like I mentioned, though, the name does matter, even if we don't like to admit it. Surely a vintage Emilio Pucci dress from the 1960s is going to sell for more than a no-name dress from the same era, even if they're of a similar style. In fact, looking on eBay, I count at least three Pucci dresses from the sixties--all ending within the next 24 hours--that are going for over $100 each. One has even reached $450 at the time of writing, which is astounding considering it is, admittedly, not the most unique dress I've ever seen.

So, to answer the original question, we have to look at the outstanding trends and silhouettes of this current decade. Maxi dresses and skirts have exploded back onto the fashion scene, so in 20 years, give or take, one in reasonable condition would probably fetch some good cash. That's just one example--this decade is unique in that there is no set style for clothing, and people are given the freedom to wear what they want, so anything goes.

 

[Jamess]

No other living designer's clothes hold their value like Vivienne Westwood's!

Me and my sister have collected Vivienne Westwood stuff for a few years, as our parents had a few pieces from the 80s. Were currently selling a lot of it off on ebay and at auction houses, and the prices for pieces 3-5 seasons old are getting more than retail, let alone the vintage things. Theres a CULT of fans who will buy anything of hers, especially if its an important piece from the collection. I cant think of any other designer who's work is 'collected' in such a big way by so many people. Especially in Japan, where prices for most of her vintage stuff are insane! (Think 2-4 times original retail).

Every collection she does is almost iconic and adds something to her history- Ive bought things at retail and sold them on ebay for over twice as much only a year later. Its kind of wierd how people become obsessed with collecting her stuff- I know 3 or 4 people who have between 300-600 peices of her clothing. And they are men. People buy her dresses to add to their 'archives' rather than wear.

Couture does not really hold its value, so dont think craftmanship will add much, most vintage Westwood peices are terrible quality! Modern Haute Couture pieces can sell for under £1000 at a top auction house, and I saw a huge Chanel Haute Couture ballgown sell for £1200 recently (granted it was about 20 years old)

Also, Tom Ford for Gucci seems to do very well if you look on ebay, the iconic things like the kimono dresses, that are still so modern looking. I wouldnt really recommend Galliano/Mcqueen/Givenchy unless its very early and iconic (Recently, a full outfit from Galliano's Incroyables DEGREE show didnt even make £900 at auction).

I WISH I had bought some of Theysken's Rochas clothes, and also that Lanvin collection (maybe 04-05) with the ribbon dresses.
A good reference for modern-vintage would be Daphne Guinness' charity auction where she auctioned off a big chunk of her wardrobe, but I dont know where you might find details of that online, maybe email Kerry Taylor and ask for a catalogue and list of hammer prices (there was quite modern Mcqueen, Versace, Dior, etc etc)

 

[masquerade]

Clothes are really not a good "investment" in the sense that they depreciate in value over time. There are very few instances where this is not true.

If you are just investing in them because you want to wear them forever, than I guess something like Chanel would be best.

If you are looking at something aesthetic to invest in, art is a better option.

 

[BerlinRocks]

^^your post is really interesting.
i kind of understand the Westwood debut collections .... but even the collections of those recent past years ?! i'm very surprised .... as I am about your words on Galliano and McQueen .... especially their 90s collections .... I am really surprised.
and the Kimonos by Tom Ford ?! I just don't get the auctions .... I would prefer the velvet collection !!!!

i would bet on Comme des Garçons .... and YSL !!!! his death will, imo, make the auctions go upper, non ?!
Lacroix is, indeed, a good bet .... but i would try to hunt what he does for theatre....
I would bet on early JPG's collection, as well ....
and what about Versace (Gianni's time) and Dolce&G.'s 90s collections ... ?

art is a better option.

art market is more and more insane ....
and to be honest the prices are HUGE..... especially when the artists are NOT dead and young.
I just don't get people buying Damien Hirst for 40millions and a POUSSIN (POUSSIN, guys !!) for much much less !!!

 

[Jamess]

Yeh Art prices really irritate me too. As does Damien Hirst! I did laugh recently when I heard he spend £80,000 on vintage Westwood/Mclaren and it turned out to be fake!

Westwood's recent collections are quite important for her, since about Spring 2005 theyve been really strong I think. And from 05-6 she began introducing her political 'manifesto' into the clothes, and there are pieces from each collection which end up really in demand a few seasons later. Normally therell be an iconic print for every collection, and items made in it are quite collectable normally. Seriously, you would not believe the cult following she has! Ive only been really aware of it recently as Ive been trying to sell things to these people.

If you check ebay and auctions regularly, 90s Mcqueen/Galliano go for very little. Infact I once bought a Mcqueen show peice dress, floor length made from ruffled chiffon, for £155! (I forget the date, but it was the one where the models were shown in a glass box with wraps around their head- Jacquetta Wheeler wore it). Even items from the Joan of Arc collection (I think its that one) such as suits/coats sliced across the chest with tulle inserts, are around £200-300. A coat in that style sold a few years ago for little more than £100. A taupe satin Kimono by Galliano (a really famous and iconic peice) just sold for £700 and I sooo regretted not buying it!

I forgot about YSL and Comme, also Alaia holds its value pretty well. Vintage Yohji and Miyake sell well aswell, but still probably a loss since their prices are so high!
JPG dosnt sell for much to be honest, infact it really surprises me how little his stuff sells for second hand, unless its something really signature.

Also, how about Margiela? Im getting itchy fingers looking at that horse print dress on net-a-porter! LOL
AND Christian Carol Poell, since is stuff is near impossible to find being sold retail!

 

[masquerade]

I have definitely seen decades old Comme being sold for around 300 at Wasteland in LA (though not in my size ). Maybe it was being undersold though.

 

[style_expert]

I'd say any of the more extreme Ghesquiere for Balenciaga show pieces should be a pretty good investment as well..I expect some of them to be worth quite a lot in a few decades

 

[fashionista-ta]

I do not buy this way, but if I did I would go for Alber Elbaz and any Rochas I could get my hands on (well, any of the good stuff).

 

[Dkammern]

^elbaz and rochas (i imagine theyskens) seem like a good idea!

 

[morgan38]

Ok I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me here but, the idea of buying clothes as an "investment" is really silly. Clothes very very rarely maintain much less gain value.

But if by "investment" you mean which ones will hold up the longest and give you your money's worth, I'd say Chanel or Hermes...especially the accessories.

 

[Jamess]

I have to disagree, if you know what to buy it can hold its value very well! Although I do agree that it shouldnt be the only reason to buy the clothes. Most of the clothes Ive bought as an investment have never been worn (because its mainly womenswear) and I bought them to check out the construction or because I was interested in the design, or occasionally to sell them make money

It depends really whether you intend to keep the clothes as collectable pieces or as something to wear. Whether you would get your moneys back in 10 years time really shouldnt be a deciding factor if your planning to get use out of it.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I would be snapping up everything Ghesquire has done past and present, Marc's past few season's of work, Raf's work for Jil Sander, Stefano Pilati for YSL, Hedi Slimane's work and Dior Homme, and Rick Owens. Oh, and old Helmut Lang. These designers are going to prove to be increasingly important their work for the most part will be consider landmarks. That's just my opinion.

OH, and Margiela!

 

[Muse_Views]

Ok I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me here but, the idea of buying clothes as an "investment" is really silly. Clothes very very rarely maintain much less gain value.

But if by "investment" you mean which ones will hold up the longest and give you your money's worth, I'd say Chanel or Hermes...especially the accessories.

To be honest with you, I don't think collecting fashion/couture is any more silly than collecting nearly 75% of the rubbish that populate contemporary art galleries, and even museums, in the world!

Oh, don't get me started with contemporary arts or the FS' Server will crash

 

[Jamess]

( A bit off-topic, but if you live in the UK theres a documentary on Channel 4, Sunday night called The Mona Lisa Curse, presented by Robert Hughes, about the 'commercial' art market, and people buying into 'modern' art like Damien Hirst for a short-term investment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/09/18/nosplit/bvtvhughes18.xml )

 

[Muse_Views]

( A bit off-topic, but if you live in the UK theres a documentary on Channel 4, Sunday night called The Mona Lisa Curse, presented by Robert Hughes, about the 'commercial' art market, and people buying into 'modern' art like Damien Hirst for a short-term investment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/09/18/nosplit/bvtvhughes18.xml )

Ooooooh, nope, am in the States now. But, perhaps you will get to watch it and tell us all about it

Also, thanks for the Tel article; there is, indeed, light at the end of the tunnel: "idea of the inviolability of the modern art market is a fantasy."

 

[Dkammern]

i dont know if it's a good investment or not... but i wish i had the opportunity to get my hands on more Dior Homme by Hedi clothes in the past... god knows when are we going to see him back!

 

[gius]

it would be interesting how to store these though
i was reading an article some weeks ago about a museum in the U.S. that had several units for storage for their clothing archives...
some were made of metal or PVC and could off-gas, affecting the silk garments beside it, etc.

 

[Miss C]

“I’m not a shopper, I’m a collector”

I read this phrase last week during FNO and it got me thinking…
I’ve always bought a lot of clothes thinking of it as an investment and always thought of my wardrobe as my (art) collection... and yes, by investment I did think of as possibly increasing in price someday (judging by how much a lot of vintage shops charge). I read a great article [LINK] that tells it as it is and I since then (3 days ago) I’ve stopped using this “excuse”.
However, I have now possibly found a loophole: collaborative pieces between fashion designers and fine artists. Citing the obvious: Marc Jacobs (Louis Vuitton) and Takashi Murakami, Richard Prince, Julie Verhoeven, Steven Sprouse, to name a few…
First things first, is this art or is it fashion? (Is it a case of ‘art beyond the gallery’ or of branding/marketing?)

Since the price for these artists work rise shouldn’t the price of the bags do the same? (For example, a LV-Richard Prince bag from a limited-edition of 15 compared with a Richard Prince print from a closed-edition of 15.)

What does the future hold for them: a place in a grand museum or a under a pile of cast-aways in Oxfam?