Gucci F/W 2015.16 Milan

[rebel]

 

[Creative]

^Type of fur? Alf's bangs' hair.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

It's not perfect but there are some beautiful clothes and some excellent accessories.

The whole retro nerd Wes Anderson secretary look is a bit costumey and distracting, but otherwise it's a nice fresh mood. I like this new Gucci. I hope Michele learns and builds from this. And maybe hires a different stylist.

For the record I much prefer this over Raf's Dior.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I'm seriously intrigued as to how Gucci will play this collection out and how this collection will turn out for them. Will this attract new customers and a new demographic? Will this alienate their previous demographic? Will loyal customers depart? How will the ad campaigns look? Is this a brand new Gucci, a brand revolution at some sort? How will Gucci further promote this collection? Will they use celebrities to wear these? One thing though, I'm quite certain that we won't be seeing any or much Gucci dresses on any events (red carpet or not) this season. Before the pieces of Gucci under Frida were red carpet ready and were worn by almost every celebrity out there.. but I'm not that quite sure with this one. I highly even doubt that J.Lo, a Gucci girl, will wear this.

Ideally, his second collection will most likely answer these questions. If he reverts back to the old Gucci aesthetic then most probably sales went down after this one, but if he still does the same style and direction then most probably all went well or if not, nothing's changed.

This is a really bold move to be quite honest. I am not defending the collection whatsoever, I still find it distasteful, tacky, and cheap, but I commend his audacity to take on something different other than what the brand has already established. Because if I were in his place, I'd stick to the established image of Gucci because if my risk (this risk) doesn't pay off then my job is on the line.

They fired Frida because what she was doing was flatlining at retail. They promoted Michele so he could give the brand a new look. They're repositioning the label to go head to head with Ghesquiere's Vuitton, it's a new approach and ideally a new customer.

Though I'm not certain this new Gucci will give management what they want. I think it misses more marks than it hits them.

But I'm curious to see in September how much of this reflects all the other product that drives the business and wasn't shown.

 

[Spike413]

this guy should be doing film costumes...
the styling the colours the textures...they're all magnificent...
all of this would look great on film...

real life?
not so much...

Is there a Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? remake in the works that I don't know about??

 

[Zazie]

Wow…I can't believe the amount of vitriol heaped upon Michele….

There are a few things he has already done right with this collection.

1) Garnering positive reviews from the fashion press

2) Repositioning Gucci away from a dated, shiny, flashy "rich socialite" vibe that isn't doing well at the retail level for Gucci. Emilio Pucci has fired Dundas for the very same reason, there is a shift again in the taste of the luxury market.

3) What Michele showed is an "old money" luxury positioning, he is going after the Hermes/Dries van Noten/The Row "aristocrat", cerebral, refined customer. This is why there is a worn-in feeling to the clothes, but the discerning eye can absolutely tell that the cut, materials, finish are all first rate. These are clothes that won't get "dated" soon, but will fit perfectly into anybody's wardrobe.

For a very small, not very ambitious debut collection, I didn't see any poorly executed pieces here (except for a few awkward bows), and the colors and textures, from fur to point d'esprit, are stunning in an understated way. The blues are just the right blues, the greens the right greens, the reds are the right reds, and how the right shades, prints, accessories, etc. are matched and mixed together is beautiful.

Those eccentric fur slippers are all over the Milan runways. I don't see the purpose in zeroing in on one item to diss the whole.

No innovation here, no rocking of the boat or a sea change, just highly refined tweaking, like a good debut collection should be.

 

[Spike413]

Wow…I can't believe the amount of vitriol heaped upon Michele….

There are a few things he has already done right with this collection.

1) Garnering positive reviews from the fashion press

2) Repositioning Gucci away from a dated, shiny, flashy "rich socialite" vibe that isn't doing well at the retail level for Gucci. Emilio Pucci has fired Dundas for the very same reason, there is a shift again in the taste of the luxury market.

3) What Michele showed is an "old money" luxury positioning, he is going after the Hermes/Dries van Noten/The Row "aristocrat", cerebral, refined customer. This is why there is a worn-in feeling to the clothes, but the discerning eye can absolutely tell that the cut, materials, finish are all first rate. These are clothes that won't get "dated" soon, but will fit perfectly into anybody's wardrobe.

For a very small, not very ambitious debut collection, I didn't see any poorly executed pieces here (except for a few awkward bows), and the colors and textures, from fur to point d'esprit, are stunning in an understated way. The blues are just the right blues, the greens the right greens, the reds are the right reds, and how the right shades, prints, accessories, etc. are matched and mixed together is beautiful.

Those eccentric fur slippers are all over the Milan runways. I don't see the purpose in zeroing in on one item to diss the whole.

No innovation here, no rocking of the boat or a sea change, just highly refined tweaking, like a good debut collection should be.

But in a strange way that highlights the issue I believe many people are having with this. Those three labels you mentioned have never compromised their image, whether that image has related to the dominant mood in fashion or not. And in all of those cases -- although in all fairness Hermes is at a totally different level than both Dries and The Row -- they have built a clientele that will buy what they're selling whether it's fashionable or not.

The tricky thing with Gucci is that, because its image became rather muddled due to Frida's instinct for chasing quick trends rather than building a consistent image, they no longer have that sort of core customer base who will always identify with the brand regardless of what trends happen to be dominating fashion. So I can understand the thinking behind making a very declarative statement, but while this statement may be very honest and personal for Michele it doesn't feel particularly honest for Gucci. In fact it feels a bit like when a musician sells out just to fit in. It feels like posing.

 

[Sweet rus]

this hairy footwear is surely very aristocratic

 

[Not Plain Jane]

there are some good pieces here, but the styling is definitely not what one would expect and may throw people off the collection entirely. i don't really see any sort of comparison with the minimalism and sophistication of the row or hermes' customers, but perhaps there is a link with dries van noten's, because of the mutual bohemian eclecticism. still dries pitches to a different customer than what this appears to do. to me, this is very youthful, with an almost nerdy librarian chic aesthetic. it's like something i'd expect to see from band of outsiders, even. anyhow, it'll be interesting to see if it sells and/or where he goes from here.

 

[Zazie]

this hairy footwear is surely very aristocratic

This perfectly illustrates my point about the majority of Gucci's critics snarkily zeroing in on one element instead of thoughtful discourse on the collection.

And yes, insofar as aristocrats are eccentric, I do see the Olsens spotting these furry slippers with their long dresses. Well, not J Lo of course, but I won't exactly consider her or Tom Ford the fashion icon of this decade.

To address the other posts above (Spike 413 and Not Plain Jane), it seems Gucci is running, not walking, as fast as their legs can carry, away from that market position and image. Of course if the transition is not as abrupt it would be less awkward, but fashion directions simply do not wait for the brands to play catch-up.

Hermes under Lemaire is minimalist, but don't forget their prints, their staple and icon, the Hermes scarf, all celebrate aristocratic pursuits and the fashion romantic. These pieces fit in perfectly with that aesthetic, and I can see that in the bags as well as the latest ads.

I am more of a Jil Sander/Lutz Huelle,/Antwerp type but I could see how some of the coats here are more desirable and unique than the COS sensibility and I'm ready to buy Gucci for a change.

 

[Zazie]

If anything, this collection reminds me of what Kenzo could have been if Antonio Marras managed to transition to a younger sensibility. There is a niche in the luxury market for this.

 

[Lola701]

Wow…I can't believe the amount of vitriol heaped upon Michele….

There are a few things he has already done right with this collection.

1) Garnering positive reviews from the fashion press

2) Repositioning Gucci away from a dated, shiny, flashy "rich socialite" vibe that isn't doing well at the retail level for Gucci. Emilio Pucci has fired Dundas for the very same reason, there is a shift again in the taste of the luxury market.

3) What Michele showed is an "old money" luxury positioning, he is going after the Hermes/Dries van Noten/The Row "aristocrat", cerebral, refined customer. This is why there is a worn-in feeling to the clothes, but the discerning eye can absolutely tell that the cut, materials, finish are all first rate. These are clothes that won't get "dated" soon, but will fit perfectly into anybody's wardrobe.

For a very small, not very ambitious debut collection, I didn't see any poorly executed pieces here (except for a few awkward bows), and the colors and textures, from fur to point d'esprit, are stunning in an understated way. The blues are just the right blues, the greens the right greens, the reds are the right reds, and how the right shades, prints, accessories, etc. are matched and mixed together is beautiful.

Those eccentric fur slippers are all over the Milan runways. I don't see the purpose in zeroing in on one item to diss the whole.

No innovation here, no rocking of the boat or a sea change, just highly refined tweaking, like a good debut collection should be.

Such a cliché!
I mean this is GUCCI and for the last 10 years, their RTW represented the worst in the democratization of fashion. It was almost "niche" before Frida.
Gucci cannot be compared to Vuitton in the RTW as Vuitton RTW is very exclusive and the exclusivity of it allowed MJ to show high quality clothes.

This has nothing to do with new or old money as rich people just want to look good and have something exclusive.

Gucci today is a bit alone in that place. Their goal today is to gain a bit of hype but they will never get the super-rich clientele of Azzedine Alaia, Chanel or Tom Ford.

They cannot be suddenly aristocratic. They cannot afford that today because being aristocratic or cerebral means take risks, but not only marketing risks but creative risks.

Don't forget that Hermes has an heritage (horse-riding) but their RTW is adapted to the creative director. Eric Bergere's Hermes didn't looked like Margiela's one. Gaultier's Hermes didn't looked like Lemaire's one...etc.

For a longtime, Gucci's only competition was Prada but now, i think they should follow Fendi which is imo the most interesting Leather goods company right now.

 

[squilliam]

Wow…I can't believe the amount of vitriol heaped upon Michele….

There are a few things he has already done right with this collection.

1) Garnering positive reviews from the fashion press

2) Repositioning Gucci away from a dated, shiny, flashy "rich socialite" vibe that isn't doing well at the retail level for Gucci. Emilio Pucci has fired Dundas for the very same reason, there is a shift again in the taste of the luxury market.

3) What Michele showed is an "old money" luxury positioning, he is going after the Hermes/Dries van Noten/The Row "aristocrat", cerebral, refined customer. This is why there is a worn-in feeling to the clothes, but the discerning eye can absolutely tell that the cut, materials, finish are all first rate. These are clothes that won't get "dated" soon, but will fit perfectly into anybody's wardrobe.

For a very small, not very ambitious debut collection, I didn't see any poorly executed pieces here (except for a few awkward bows), and the colors and textures, from fur to point d'esprit, are stunning in an understated way. The blues are just the right blues, the greens the right greens, the reds are the right reds, and how the right shades, prints, accessories, etc. are matched and mixed together is beautiful.

Those eccentric fur slippers are all over the Milan runways. I don't see the purpose in zeroing in on one item to diss the whole.

No innovation here, no rocking of the boat or a sea change, just highly refined tweaking, like a good debut collection should be.

1. I don't think the critic reviews count since fashion critics aren't always honest because there are things like money at stake. If someone from style.com writes something bad then gucci might pull their ads out of vogue, and Conde Nast would lose money, so they're not gonna write anything bad.
2. It actually looks like he's going the saint Laurent by Slimane route and trying to get the young hipster crowd, I don't see much timelessness.
3. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they want clothes that look "worn in", they usually want something that can be seen as impeccably cut by anyone. These clothes don't look well made, and that may just be the odd fit of the clothes. Brands like hermes and the row, you can see the quality and effort that went into the garments even from a bad internet picture, that doesn't seem to be the case here

 

[MulletProof]

Ha, the cattiness in this thread. One of the reasons why I always stayed away from Gucci threads.

I spot a bunch of good pieces, always preferred 70s Gucci over 90s Gucci, and I can barely remember what Gucci was about in the past 10 years. Surely the styling gets tedious... as anything with touches of or by Wes Anderson can be, but once you get past that, and it can't be that hard to get past of that removable furry thing on some otherwise basic Gucci loafers, many of these pieces are almost archive pieces... the suits, jackets, coats, shirts, skirts, dresses, far more versatile and long-lasting (visually) than any of the comparisons brought up in the thread, especially Saint Laurent, same formula yes, minus the acknowledgement of the stupidity of a luxury brand, which you can see here, much to the insult of everyone, and which Hedi tries to avoid in his desperation to capture youth and stay relevant through their music. Weirdly enough, vintage Gucci and Gucci classics are up there with the normcore uniform of the week in LA areas and among the people Hedi's trying so hard to appeal to, 'so uncool it became cool again', and this guy (forgot his name) is feeding them just that. I wouldn't say he's going for a more refined, intellectual clientele, but he certainly seems to want to leave behind the woman with a men-eater complex that goes clubbing and lives for cocktail dresses, deep necklines and gaudy heels (and who wouldn't..).. he's going after millennial money and trying to make things 'hip'. Once a suicidal challenge (circa Paolo for Chloé), but a viable way to revive things now.

 

[anlabe32]

Honestly, i've watched videos of every big show in Milan, but I can't make myself to even watch this show in motion.
It's so depressing.

 

[Vitamine W]

^ and that pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.
Now let's rejoice and watch Bottega Veneta also slip into muddy hipster territory the coming seasons since Lucifer, I mean Katie Grand, is pulling some strings there now.

 

[pcharles108]

oooof...

 

[Creative]

There is a niche in the luxury market for this.

A niche? We are in 2015 already. This sort of fashion is already too demodé. This hipstery-"cerebral"-not-wanting-to-look-i-am-trying-hard-but-i-am-actually-trying-very-hard is so out of the loop.

Even Prada has gone away from it...

This sort of naive women with fur "vintage" coats, pleated-midi-skirts with weird shoes,cardigans and frame glasses are unbearable and I don't want to see any of them anymore... UGH. Gimme a rest.


And I don't see the resemblance to any "old-money" house... like... at all. More like a desperate attempt to appeal to a hipster clientele who's willing to pay thousands for a basic because Gucci is (or is supposed to be) cool know. If it has Slimane's allure I can understand it but... this?

 

[Zazie]

Let's not get personal here and agree to disagree.

My own take can be summed up as J Lo (old Gucci image) vs Olsen Twins (new Gucci target market).

To me, this isn't anything like Slimane for YSL, as he brought an L.A. rock chick/hipster to the revered House, whereas Michele's is what I would consider to be a younger heiress to Antonio Marras' collections for Kenzo, or a younger Dries van Noten clientiele. This is a radical departure, but I bet sales have been hurting to prompt such an about face. I hope the new Gucci identity coalesce with the next few collections, I'm one of the few on here looking forward to it!

 

[zacatecas570]

this hairy footwear is surely very aristocratic

OMG!