Jil Sander for sale again *Update* Sold to Onward Holdings Co.

[*sayan]

Jil sander back where she belongs would be my beacon of hope.

 

[candyandcouture]

Thank god I've found people who've always voiced what my inner thoughts won't say out loud. I was looking at Candy Pratt Prices' top accessories for fall '08 and what immediately struck me about Jil Sander's bags was "this... again!?!" Those minimalist bags have the same utility as a plastic grocery bag... I can fit lots of stuff in it... and have to dump it all out to find it again. The ad campaigns for Jil Sander are genius though..

 

[chessmess]

^well
im not saying the bag designs will change much perse
i mean
it is a MINIMALIST label to the highest degree
they just need to loosen up the prices and make them more relateable to the average NON JIL SANDER UNIFORM woman

 

[candyandcouture]

i dunno, that's the whole problem. They aren't relatable to non jil sander uniform women. Nobody's ever going to lower the price tag on them because theyd start losing money. Plus...its like the minimalist art movement theres only so many times you can paint a large cube red, stick it in a gallery and declare it to be art. lol, and it's not like anyone can afford much of anything nowadays considering the obnoxious gas prices...

 

[sstrang]

Jil Sander transcends clothing; it's a life philosophy--as is minimalism. The very concept of reductionism is being lost in today's world, as more and more people associate quantity with pleasure. The idea of quality--artisanship--is being lost as cheaper, inferior products flood the market.

Jil Sander has always stood for artisanship that conveys a life philosophy. It is the only label, aside from Helmut Lang, that has so beautifully perfected the meaning of minimalism: taking an object to its natural, skeletal form.

The desire to decorate and add details often leads to clutter; this applies not just to literal situations, but, more abstractly, to our thoughts as well.

A pure, simple mind (in the sense of being rational and without confusion, chaos, etc.) allows for comfort and clarity. The same is true of art, architecture and clothing. It is this truth that Sander has always aimed to affirm.

It is no coincidence, then, that in an industry where corporate needs have trumped the artist's creativity (recall YSL's reason for leaving the industry), both Jil Sander and Helmut Lang were forced out of their own label, which had been purchased by Prada.

Sander, as I see it, represents so much more than clothing--it's an attitude, a philosophy...an intellectual statement. We should all hope that Jil Sander stays around.

 

[masquerade]

^Well thats all and good if the fans of the brand see it as more than a clothing company, but that is what it is. Companies need profit to stay in business, and if Sander can't sell beyond the obsessed fanboys and fangirls, then that is a problem.

most people out shopping are looking at clothes, not a philosophy

 

[Fabulyss]

If only I was wealthy, I would help keep Jil Sander in business!!

 

[clay]

I think Jill Sander under Raf is doing even better, than they hoped it would. Any of you out there know how well it did before Raf? JS is about a way of life and the business side is well on its way under Raf to make major dough! But These business assholes just wanted to make a quick hundred million. Thats all they had in mind and Raf made it happen. Impractical as the shoes may be, he did his job well, the company is doing well ( any company doing over a hundred million is doing well ), and the next owner should be smart enough to keep Raf, if he wants to stay.

 

[disco54]

raf is a fashion critique favorite but I have been to Jil Sanders stores and I wasnt impressed . The clothes are too arty and severe for real life , the accessories are horrendous , I mean I saw a bag which looked like a GLAD garbage bag , the ethos that Jil Sander represents is much better honed at Akris where practicality , artiness and appeal meet.

 

[sstrang]

^Well thats all and good if the fans of the brand see it as more than a clothing company, but that is what it is. Companies need profit to stay in business, and if Sander can't sell beyond the obsessed fanboys and fangirls, then that is a problem.

most people out shopping are looking at clothes, not a philosophy

But why do people spend money on particular clothing items? If people only wore clothing for purely functional purposes, style would be irrelevant.

People choose the clothes they wear based on the public image they wish to project. The Versace wearer is attracted to glamour and probably secretly fantasizes about living (or they already do live) the jet-set lifestyle.

Likewise, the person who chooses Jil Sander doesn't just do it for the clothing, but they also do it for the social or political statement. Clothing is an instrument through which people express their beliefs, interests, etc.

The point I was making in my original post is that the philosophy Jil Sander represents, has seen a steady decline. No longer is it common to see high quality fabrics and construction, or well-built homes, or fine-tuned superior engineered cars.

Society, as a whole, is more interested in surface appearance than they are real substance (which explains how wildly popular knock-off goods are). I think that's why Jil Sander never did well from the start, in comparison to "mainstream" brands like Versace or Gucci.

At the end of the day, many of the Versace, Gucci, Prada, etc. fans (not all, but many) are interested primarily with the LOOK, not the philosophy.

I consider Jil Sander and Helmut Lang to be clothing for a far more intellectual crowd, than say, Dior or Gucci.

Even Lagerfeld, without his fame at Chanel and Fendi, I suspect, might be in a similar position as the Jil Sander brand: he's very intellectual and arcane...his personal style does not suit the vast majority of people. I'm actually curious about how well the Karl Lagerfeld line does, in comparison to mainstream brands.

 

[bedtimestorynyc]

^ very well said!!!! but..... i'd wear Jil Sander for the LOOK as well I love the clean cut minimalistic look. i view it as practicality too - i do NOT like to accessorize too much (besides my bag and shoes), i like to wear pants and a shirt - i want them to make enough statement in themselves, which Raf's clothes do! (mind you, i do NOT own, sadly, a single Jil Sander piece .... if i had money my wardrobe 60% would've consisted of Jil Sander stuff - i just love the brand too much)

 

[masquerade]

But why do people spend money on particular clothing items? If people only wore clothing for purely functional purposes, style would be irrelevant.

People choose the clothes they wear based on the public image they wish to project. The Versace wearer is attracted to glamour and probably secretly fantasizes about living (or they already do live) the jet-set lifestyle.

Likewise, the person who chooses Jil Sander doesn't just do it for the clothing, but they also do it for the social or political statement. Clothing is an instrument through which people express their beliefs, interests, etc.

The point I was making in my original post is that the philosophy Jil Sander represents, has seen a steady decline. No longer is it common to see high quality fabrics and construction, or well-built homes, or fine-tuned superior engineered cars.

Society, as a whole, is more interested in surface appearance than they are real substance (which explains how wildly popular knock-off goods are). I think that's why Jil Sander never did well from the start, in comparison to "mainstream" brands like Versace or Gucci.

At the end of the day, many of the Versace, Gucci, Prada, etc. fans (not all, but many) are interested primarily with the LOOK, not the philosophy.

I consider Jil Sander and Helmut Lang to be clothing for a far more intellectual crowd, than say, Dior or Gucci.

Even Lagerfeld, without his fame at Chanel and Fendi, I suspect, might be in a similar position as the Jil Sander brand: he's very intellectual and arcane...his personal style does not suit the vast majority of people. I'm actually curious about how well the Karl Lagerfeld line does, in comparison to mainstream brands.

oh please, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are superficial and unintelligent. Maybe that is the problem of these brands, they are even too pretentious for the pretentious set. As for Lagerfeld, its been pretty well documented his problems with his label. It doesn't do well.



anyway, back to the topic. I went to the Barney's warehouse sale today and I saw a disproportionate amount of Jil on the racks. It definitely wasn't selling...

 

[fashionista-ta]

But why do people spend money on particular clothing items? If people only wore clothing for purely functional purposes, style would be irrelevant.

People choose the clothes they wear based on the public image they wish to project. The Versace wearer is attracted to glamour and probably secretly fantasizes about living (or they already do live) the jet-set lifestyle.

Likewise, the person who chooses Jil Sander doesn't just do it for the clothing, but they also do it for the social or political statement. Clothing is an instrument through which people express their beliefs, interests, etc.

The point I was making in my original post is that the philosophy Jil Sander represents, has seen a steady decline. No longer is it common to see high quality fabrics and construction, or well-built homes, or fine-tuned superior engineered cars.

Society, as a whole, is more interested in surface appearance than they are real substance (which explains how wildly popular knock-off goods are). I think that's why Jil Sander never did well from the start, in comparison to "mainstream" brands like Versace or Gucci.

At the end of the day, many of the Versace, Gucci, Prada, etc. fans (not all, but many) are interested primarily with the LOOK, not the philosophy.

I consider Jil Sander and Helmut Lang to be clothing for a far more intellectual crowd, than say, Dior or Gucci.

Even Lagerfeld, without his fame at Chanel and Fendi, I suspect, might be in a similar position as the Jil Sander brand: he's very intellectual and arcane...his personal style does not suit the vast majority of people. I'm actually curious about how well the Karl Lagerfeld line does, in comparison to mainstream brands.

But isn't the philosophy you're describing pretty much Bottega Veneta's, and look how well they're doing ... I don't think it's the philosophy that's the problem

 

[fashionista-ta]

If you have any interest, I'll be glad to give you a "guided tour" of some of the more interesting items via private messaging.

No. I don't like the turn the last collection took. And I'm not going to buy it- at least not if it looks like the runway. But it would pain me to see the line forced into accessory heavy mode just to stay afloat.

Actually I would love to see you post a few pix here to illustrate your points

I anyway am not suggesting "accessory heavy mode," but I think the accessories they have should really work & be desirable. To me the current situation damages the Jil Sander reputation (and bottom line) ...

 

[aris]

But why do people spend money on particular clothing items? If people only wore clothing for purely functional purposes, style would be irrelevant.

People choose the clothes they wear based on the public image they wish to project. The Versace wearer is attracted to glamour and probably secretly fantasizes about living (or they already do live) the jet-set lifestyle.

Likewise, the person who chooses Jil Sander doesn't just do it for the clothing, but they also do it for the social or political statement. Clothing is an instrument through which people express their beliefs, interests, etc.

The point I was making in my original post is that the philosophy Jil Sander represents, has seen a steady decline. No longer is it common to see high quality fabrics and construction, or well-built homes, or fine-tuned superior engineered cars.

Society, as a whole, is more interested in surface appearance than they are real substance (which explains how wildly popular knock-off goods are). I think that's why Jil Sander never did well from the start, in comparison to "mainstream" brands like Versace or Gucci.

At the end of the day, many of the Versace, Gucci, Prada, etc. fans (not all, but many) are interested primarily with the LOOK, not the philosophy.

I consider Jil Sander and Helmut Lang to be clothing for a far more intellectual crowd, than say, Dior or Gucci.

Even Lagerfeld, without his fame at Chanel and Fendi, I suspect, might be in a similar position as the Jil Sander brand: he's very intellectual and arcane...his personal style does not suit the vast majority of people. I'm actually curious about how well the Karl Lagerfeld line does, in comparison to mainstream brands.

very well said!!!!

 

[sstrang]

oh please, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are superficial and unintelligent. Maybe that is the problem of these brands, they are even too pretentious for the pretentious set. As for Lagerfeld, its been pretty well documented his problems with his label. It doesn't do well.



anyway, back to the topic. I went to the Barney's warehouse sale today and I saw a disproportionate amount of Jil on the racks. It definitely wasn't selling...

I'm sensing a bit of hostility; I think you misunderstood my statement--I did not say disagreement equates to a lack of intellect. My point was simple: Jil Sander and Helmut Lang represent a style that emphasizes form, philosophy and abstraction (i.e. let the viewer determine value according to the experience)--which represents minimalism in the most pure way.

The fashion industry has been destroyed by profit motive. Those who go against the status quo end up irrelevant, or worse, without a design house. It's quite sad how marketability (e.g. Gucci under Tom Ford) trumps the designer's vision in fashion, which was perhaps the last great bastion for free thought. Again, this was Yves Saint Laurent's observation when he decided to call it quits.

A more important point to make, I would argue, is this: whether a fan of Sander or not, her brand should serve as a lesson and warning--when fashion goes in the direction of marketing and trends, the art and creativity is lost.

If one wants clothing, they can go to Kmart or H&M. But if one seeks philosophy and art in their clothing, they turn to fashion. But where do we turn when fashion sells out, and becomes just another corporate-owned commodity, no different than a television or a fast food joint?

 

[chessmess]

None the less, these companies cannot exist without some income and profit.
Its very ignorant, imo, to say that when marketability is added, all vision is lost. Especially when jil herself is famous for using ad campaigns to fund her fashion house and minimalist vision...

 

[fashionista-ta]

I'm sensing a bit of hostility; I think you misunderstood my statement--I did not say disagreement equates to a lack of intellect. My point was simple: Jil Sander and Helmut Lang represent a style that emphasizes form, philosophy and abstraction (i.e. let the viewer determine value according to the experience)--which represents minimalism in the most pure way.

The fashion industry has been destroyed by profit motive. Those who go against the status quo end up irrelevant, or worse, without a design house. It's quite sad how marketability (e.g. Gucci under Tom Ford) trumps the designer's vision in fashion, which was perhaps the last great bastion for free thought. Again, this was Yves Saint Laurent's observation when he decided to call it quits.

A more important point to make, I would argue, is this: whether a fan of Sander or not, her brand should serve as a lesson and warning--when fashion goes in the direction of marketing and trends, the art and creativity is lost.

If one wants clothing, they can go to Kmart or H&M. But if one seeks philosophy and art in their clothing, they turn to fashion. But where do we turn when fashion sells out, and becomes just another corporate-owned commodity, no different than a television or a fast food joint?

Tom Ford isn't the poster boy for marketability, is he?

I was reading the other day some comments from him about how he brought Tomas Maier to Bottega to do what he really would have liked to do at Gucci, but couldn't due to the brand identity ... Still, when you compare Tom's approach and Frieda's ...

I don't believe that we will ever get to a place where all fashion is commodity. There will always be enough people who are passionate enough about fashion as wearable art to prevent that from happening ...

 

[style_expert]

just received this

Change Capital Partners LLP (”Change Capital Partners”), the private equity firm specialising in retail
and consumer industries, is pleased to announce that it has reached agreement to sell Jil Sander AG
(“Jil Sander”), the iconic fashion house which provides luxury women's and men's ready-to-wear,
accessories, footwear and fragrances, to Onward Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Onward”), the Tokyo-listed
apparel group, and its European subsidiary, GIBO’ Co. S.p.A. (“GIBO”), for an equity value of €167
million. The transaction, which will be structured through Onward’s acquisition of Violine S.à.r.l., is
expected to close shortly.

edit: it's also on WWD
http://www.wwd.com/business-news/jil-sander-has-new-owners-1732340?module=today
I can't read the entire article though

 

[visconti]

From Bloomberg-

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNR1L0O_8AeA&refer=home

Hopefully they won't go too overboard with the accessories and such.


Change Capital Triples Investment on Jil Sander Fashion Label

By Sarah Shannon
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Change Capital Partners LLP, the private-equity firm selling Jil Sander AG, will reap more than three times its original investment in the fashion brand, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction.
Japanese apparel maker Onward Holdings Co. yesterday agreed to buy Jil Sander from Change Capital for 167 million euros ($244 million). That's more than triple the 50 million euros the London-based buyout firm paid Prada Holding NV for the company in 2006, said the people, who declined to be identified because the deal isn't complete.
While Jil Sander was owned by Change Capital, which was started in 2003 by former Marks & Spencer Group Plc Chairman Luc Vandevelde, the fashion company returned to profit and raised the number of directly-owned shops in Japan to 13, the most in any market. Onward will support Asian expansion and capitalize on Japanese affinity for the brand's accessories.
``We wanted to keep this, but we had some unsolicited trade buyers'' making offers, Stephan Lobmeyr, managing director at Change Capital, said yesterday by phone. The buyout firm expects further purchases from luxury retailers to cosmetics, he said.
Raf Simons, 40, helped revive the brand after he was named creative director in July 2005. The label was deserted twice by its eponymous founder under Prada's ownership. Jil Sander, who opened her first shop in Hamburg in 1968, sold the brand in 1999, left in 2000, rejoined in 2003, and quit in 2004.
Including debt, Jil Sander has a so-called enterprise value of 210 million euros in this transaction, the people close to the deal said. The buyout firm is backed by France's Halley family, the main investors in retailer Carrefour SA, and plans a 400 million-euro fund this year.
$1,445 Handbag
Jil Sander had earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization of 6.1 million euros in 2007 compared with a loss of 12.9 million euros in 2005. Jil Sander added stores in Germany and Italy and relocated outlets in London, Paris and New York while it was owned by Change Capital.
Jil Sander's X-Large Patent Tote retails for $1,445 on the Web site of U.S. luxury department store Barneys.
The brand's sales are forecast to grow 2 percent this year and 5 percent next year, Jil Sander's finance chief, Armin Mueller said in a phone interview from Milan. Jil Sander has 61 stores, of which 26 are directly owned by the label rather than franchised.
Mueller said directly owned stores account for 35 percent of Jil Sander's revenue versus 65 percent for sales through franchisees or other retailers, and he'd like to bring that ratio to 50-50.
Tokyo-based Onward makes men's and women's ready-made suits, sports goods and cosmetics. The company acquired British fashion brand Joseph in 2005, the same year it bought shoemaker Iris, which makes footwear for Marc Jacobs and John Galliano.
Nomura Holdings is acting as banker for Onward, while Rothschild & Cie Banque is advising Change Capital. Franco Pene, chief executive officer of Onward's U.K. GIBO unit, couldn't be reached by Bloomberg yesterday.