Maison Martin Margiela x H&M

[margielamike2004]

I've seen the men's leather belt VOGUE28. It has to be the belt that has a wider design on one side??

It is a great piece....and timeless....it will always be in style and always easy to wear....but??

From my perspective....i think a much better investment might be the crazy black dress that has 2 halves that do not match. It's truly a really fun....and incredibly interesting dress to wear. It's obviously a considerably strange dress....but it's certainly unique and a great conversation starter.

Also...without seeming sexist....a girl can always add another great black dress to her wardrobe. Classic...fun to wear....ahead of it's time....unlike any other....and always in style. You can wear it for an important holiday or party, too.

If you're not a "wearing a dress" type of girl...think of the same dress as a layering piece, too. You could wear the dress over a pair of jeans.... or over a pair of dress-trousers....you could also wear a classic white blouse underneath the dress so it doesn't show too muck skin.

I'm not sure what the retail price is for the dress....but considering it is a black dress and timeless...it might be a better investment that the beige leather belt??

JUST MY OPINION.

 

[Phuel]

^^^VOGUE28 is a man.

I always liked the concept of MMM-- but not so much the actual garments. The very notion that you're paying so much money for these clothes, which are only sold at the most high-end stores, totally defeat and runs contrary to the concept of MMM. To me anyways.

I loved that during his first shows, he sent models out to the audience wearing jackets/coats made of garment bag plastic that were taped together with duct-tape just 15 minutes before because, he thought it was such a waste to throw away the plastic bags. His concept was a genuine do-it-yourself and make it work for you. But when people are spending thousands of dollars on designs that are already "made-for-them", i think that completely defeats the purpose of thinking for yourself. It's like people are only willing to wear vintage, army-surplus and self-made pieces that only look that way on a superficial level-- but is actually made by a famous high fashion designer that they paid a lot of money for... People like that just come off phoney and more of a fashion-victim to me than authentic, or daring.

To keep on topic, I think these H&M pieces are totally fun and disposable. I don't think any designer should be above such collaborations. Even if Helmut Lang should be the next H&M victim, I would gladly anticipate-- if only out of curiosity, to see what happens. I'll know I have the real thing, and nothing mass-produce can touch that.

Anyway, about the plexi-heels being uncomfortable: wouldn't a structured insole fix that problem for you ladies? I can understand such insoles would look unsightly on the shoe version, but no one can see it on the boot version.

 

[margielamike2004]

This is the black dress I'm referring to, VOGUE28

It looks like a very stylish...and also very fun...dress to wear...i/m/o.

http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2012/10/17/margiela-h-and-m-collection-pictures-revealed/gallery/32

 

[margielamike2004]

OOPS...sorry VOGUE28....I thought you were a female....LOL

 

[margielamike2004]

I will certainly agree with you, Pheul......about MM pieces only being marketed in high-end boutiques and department stores....a bit pretentious and contrary to MM esthetic.

Obviously....many of his pieces were being massed produced many years ago.....but not in the same mass quantities as you would find at other middle-market retailers.

In some instances...we had pieces in the boutique that only had 1 pieces, per size. Meaning...we had a size small...but only one of them....we had a size medium...but only 1 size medium in the boutique, etc.

Many of his pieces were incredibly DIY....but in some way...I think it was Martin's intention. It gave the consumer the option to purchase the piece...or....it also gave inspiration if someone wanted to make one, of their own.

I have the ability and the knowledge to sew, myself. Others are not so fortunate. I would see pieces that I can actually make on my own....and some pieces were drastically too ambitious for me to attempt. Trust me...I tried on my own and failed, miserably....LOL

You are correct about Margiela not finding it practical..or sensible...to throw away the plastic bags.

Another collection he once presented was........the models were directed onto a small flat tray of red paint. The models were asked to step into the paint (Tabi boots on their feet)....and proceeded to walk the white canvas-covered runway.

The following year...Margiela saved the white canvas from the runway....and made several garments afterwards...with the red paint footprints.

 

[margielamike2004]

But.....there is also another perspective to look upon, too.

Without coming across as snooty.....Margiela's pieces were exclusively found at high-end boutiques simply b/c...within a high-end boutique atmosphere...there will typically be a die-hard fashion clientele. Not ALL of the customers.....but several of them...looked upon fashion as a major priority to them.

Other people look upon clothing as merely...a necessity.

Margiela was never easy to understand....and it always took a very unique breed of client to appreciate his pieces.

People with other priorities would find it too bizarre to actually want to wear a dress...or a trenchcoat....with 2 halves that don't match, intentionally. They would look upon it as absurd...or ridiculous. They are more inclined to wear something more classic....and less thought provoking. They wear clothing...not "concepts" of fashion.

In other words...placing a Margiela piece within the confines of a mass-market department store...simply wouldn't sell, presumably.

Everyone has different priorities.

Some people will think nothing of spending 30 grand for an automobile....or hundreds of dollars for music....but because of "priority"...these same customers would never spend 400 dollars, on a black dress. Clothing and fashion are of no concern, to them.

 

[margielamike2004]

Ultimately...I'm just a regular Joe-Schmo just like everybody else....but...I also just so happen to LOVE fashion.

I shop at private boutiques with unimaginable price tags....but I also walk into Sears when I need to buy a washing machine.

Sears HAS a clothing department...but I'm not foolish enough...or pretentious enough...to consider finding pieces by Helmut Lang, Margiela, or Drien Van Noten dispersed amongst the racks. Marketing these designers within Sears....to a typical Sears Client (and there is nothing wrong with being a Sears client)...would be insensible. Margiela pieces...and understanding them...would probably fly right over their heads.

I'm a fashion person...but it doesn't make me any better than a non-fashion person.

As I stated prior, it's merely based upon one's priorities.

 

[Jinadaze]

^ BUT H&M clients are wearing clothes, not 'concepts of fashion', as you said.
That said I think most of buyers of MMM x H&M collection are actually buyers because it's a very known brand and mostly they don't even know anything about it. It's a contradiction.

 

[lucy92]

does anyone else think its weird that this is H&M's least commercial collection with the most distribution? pretty much all the items except for the red sneakers and the candy wrapper purse are still at my local two stores today.

___
from wwd...



In America, H&M for the first time made the collection available in 40 stores. The Marni launch, for example, was available in only 26 stores nationwide. In Manhattan, all 11 H&M stores were selling the collection. Several of those units are in close proximity, which cut down on lines. “For the first time, we’re giving people the opportunity to discover the collection,” said an H&M spokeswoman. “With 11 stores, we had a more even flow.”
We are pleased with the selling of the collection; it is exactly what we expected,” a spokeswoman said. “We’re also [pleased] with the reception from our customers for the launch in the 230 stores worldwide.”
Van den Bosch feigned ignorance when asked about the next designer partnership. “We’re taking a little time off,” she said. “We have had so many launches, we decided not to do anything for spring. For fall 2013, we’ll do something.”

 

[honeycombchild]

Oh, I was expecting a spring one. Well I hope this means next fall's is a great one.

 

[LagerfeldBoy]

does anyone else think its weird that this is H&M's least commercial collection with the most distribution? pretty much all the items except for the red sneakers and the candy wrapper purse are still at my local two stores today.

___
from wwd...



In America, H&M for the first time made the collection available in 40 stores. The Marni launch, for example, was available in only 26 stores nationwide. In Manhattan, all 11 H&M stores were selling the collection. Several of those units are in close proximity, which cut down on lines. “For the first time, we’re giving people the opportunity to discover the collection,” said an H&M spokeswoman. “With 11 stores, we had a more even flow.”
We are pleased with the selling of the collection; it is exactly what we expected,” a spokeswoman said. “We’re also [pleased] with the reception from our customers for the launch in the 230 stores worldwide.”
Van den Bosch feigned ignorance when asked about the next designer partnership. “We’re taking a little time off,” she said. “We have had so many launches, we decided not to do anything for spring. For fall 2013, we’ll do something.”

OR "we know the masses aren't going to appreciate the clothes and we know it's going to have a sh*tty sales report, so by putting it in more stores, we hope it actually sells".
My god, I went to the Beverly Center here in Los Angeles yesterday just to see what leftover pieces remained and oh by was I surprised. The whole collection (both women and men) still remained at the store with the exception of the sneakers (let's be real. Those were the most coveted items in this). There were hoards of people still trying pieces on, but it was SO evident they had no idea who about Margiela or the label and they looked like fashion victims trying it on. There was so much hype surrounding this, especially with the NY event with the art performances and those random H&M employee events that were happening around the world to support the collection. Yikes.

 

[Scott]

to be honest,the marketing is really backfiring on H&M if reading the stories are an indication. i think they really are trying to overcompensate for the lack of familiarity and the price range,hence the driven campaign on tv and of course the collection being available more widely. truth be told,i don't see how on earth they thought that was a good strategy anyway because as we've seen so much the wider it is in this country the least people are going to respond,especially a collection this idiosyncratic. middle america is not an audience for this sort of work....it's too niche. and that's not snobbish stance but it's reality. i think they should have scaled the collection back a bit,kept the collection within the more commercial vein of the work they've been doing of late and kept it exclusive to the major cities as before,then maybe it would have been a little more successful. i mean the archives sound great in theory,especially for fans of the era,but we can't forget MMM was not all that popular then,so why would it all of a sudden become popular now just because it's on an H&M level? it's still a conceptual line.

 

[Street_a_Licious]

I only just realized the shearling jacket isn't actually shearling, it's fake!
How can it be suede and yet be 70% polyester?

probably glued it to the suede? it's an utter shame, it only strengthens my resolution to not buy it until i hits €50

i would have also pegged Dolce to collaborate ages ago... with their tax issues and such...

but Givenchy would be REALLY interesting. especially after their recent hype...

 

[margielamike2004]

No word of a lie, but....I heard that either Target or H&M is slated to do a collaboration with Hermes.

A friend of mine works at the Hermes store in San Francisco....and his store manager told him the news.

That's hysterical!!!

 

[margielamike2004]

to be honest,the marketing is really backfiring on H&M if reading the stories are an indication. i think they really are trying to overcompensate for the lack of familiarity and the price range,hence the driven campaign on tv and of course the collection being available more widely. truth be told,i don't see how on earth they thought that was a good strategy anyway because as we've seen so much the wider it is in this country the least people are going to respond,especially a collection this idiosyncratic. middle america is not an audience for this sort of work....it's too niche. and that's not snobbish stance but it's reality. i think they should have scaled the collection back a bit,kept the collection within the more commercial vein of the work they've been doing of late and kept it exclusive to the major cities as before,then maybe it would have been a little more successful. i mean the archives sound great in theory,especially for fans of the era,but we can't forget MMM was not all that popular then,so why would it all of a sudden become popular now just because it's on an H&M level? it's still a conceptual line.

You're absolutely correct, Scott. The collection is a bit too idiosyncratic for standard H&M clientele.

I remember a few years ago, I was strolling through the H&M here in Boston...and I was wearing a pair of MM over-sized fold-over pants with an MM Aids T-shirt and the hair-necklace...and the peeps shopping there were snickering at me. I also had on a pair of 900 dollar Carpe Diem boots.

As I stepped outside...I smirked and said to myself....they must all assume I'm homeless, while what I'm wearing and what it cost me could feed a large family in a 3rd world country!! Jeesh...LOL

 

[margielamike2004]

I also remember a time when the Aids-t-shirt (correctly known st "the Positive" t-shirt)...was reasonably priced at 35 dollars.

Margiela intentionally marketed the t-shirt at a reasonable price.....so that it would be more likely that anyone from any income bracket might purchase one...and 100% of the money from the sale of the t-shirt went towards a local Aids-charity.

And..the reason why the t-shirt can't be read by anyone was also intentional, too.

Whenever someone "tried" to read the t-shirt...it was hard to read or understand. It would engage the viewer to ask..."what does your t-shirt say??."

The subject of the t-shirt is about the Aids epidemic...a subject that too many people don't want to talk about.

Why didn't H&M market the Aids t-shirt in the collection?? It's always been a Margiela staple in all of HIS collections??

Considering that all the profits from the shirt are intended to be donated to charity...I wonder why H&M company didn't follow Margiela's example??

I'm not actually looking for an answer to my question...I'm being sacastic.

 

[Phuel]

But.....there is also another perspective to look upon, too.

Without coming across as snooty.....Margiela's pieces were exclusively found at high-end boutiques simply b/c...within a high-end boutique atmosphere...there will typically be a die-hard fashion clientele. Not ALL of the customers.....but several of them...looked upon fashion as a major priority to them.

Other people look upon clothing as merely...a necessity.

Margiela was never easy to understand....and it always took a very unique breed of client to appreciate his pieces.

People with other priorities would find it too bizarre to actually want to wear a dress...or a trenchcoat....with 2 halves that don't match, intentionally. They would look upon it as absurd...or ridiculous. They are more inclined to wear something more classic....and less thought provoking. They wear clothing...not "concepts" of fashion.

In other words...placing a Margiela piece within the confines of a mass-market department store...simply wouldn't sell, presumably.

Everyone has different priorities.

Some people will think nothing of spending 30 grand for an automobile....or hundreds of dollars for music....but because of "priority"...these same customers would never spend 400 dollars, on a black dress. Clothing and fashion are of no concern, to them.

I do admire his womenswear immensely. His menswear is rather forgettable.

Martin's one-of-a-kind type designs I find interesting and covetable-- very charming, but not pretentious at all. And many of Martin's amazingly-structured pieces are deserving of their high prices, of course, I don't mean to give the impression his designs aren't deserving of designer pricing. I just mean that certain pieces; the fusion pieces, white-painted pieces... are very much about the spirit of sustainability, do-it-yourself, and individuality, that having it "already-made" for you-- comes off like an extreme caricatures of the fashion victim accoutrements, to me. It's like buying already ripped and shredded jeans for thousands of dollars. It's buying a false sense of individuality. It's the essence of phoneyness.

Now, I'm aware there are people who genuinely appreciate creativity, but aren't creative themselves, so they rely on others to help them express their love of being creative. But, it's still phoney to me. I can't sew to save my life, but I still alter designer pieces by adding something new to it with the help of a great tailor. I would respect someone so much more if they "infused" pieces themselves, making it their own. I can't help but think unless it has the MMM label on it, some people just won't wear it.

Strangely, I find the H&M versions of the fusion-pieces much less fashion-victim-y: They're inexpensive, more along the lines of a knock-off, just fun and not about a statement since they're mass-produced. It also turns Martin's concept and intentions for these pieces into a novelty, since I can't see anyone wearing them without getting bored of them quickly.

 

[honeycombchild]

H&M have an entire line each year dedicated to raising money for aids charities don't they? Fashion Against Aids.

 

[margielamike2004]

Great post, Pheul.

Well?? I definitely agree with you that MMM collections for men are considerably tame, boring, and forgettable....but....that statement can also be applied to ANY designer who presents a woman's collection and a men's collection under their label.

Why, you may ask??

If you look throught the history of men's fashion...especially after the 1930's.....fashion for men hasn't changed much, considerably. Fashion for men hasn't progressed....and it also hasn't re-gressed. Since the 30's, it has stayed...the same.

Proportions and volume in construction might change....such as the ultra baggy suit during the 1980's...or the ultra slender suit you might find from prior collections from Dior Homme (Hedi Slimane's direction...not Chris Van Asche)...but...the presentation of men's wear has remained stagnant.

Fashion has (more-or-less) been left into the hands of women to experiment with. With women's wear...the creativity and the room for experimentation are boundless.

Much of this has much to do with the roles we are expected to live up to, by society....as men and women.

A woman can wear a men's 3 piece suit...with a necktie...and she is looked upon as being "socially acceptable" by society. Keep in mind she is wearing head-to-toe menswear.

But...on the flip side..if we apply the same equation...a man is a dress would be made fun of and deemed inappropriate.

It's a very sexist perspective.

In some regards (although very few will admit it)....men are the gender who is more important. Women are merely 2nd class citizens. It's okay if a girl desires to be boyish...but not okay if a boy desires to be girlish. In essence...the unsaid statement is..."you were born a man...why would you want to degrade your importance in life by wanting to be a woman??"

It's not something that I personally believe...but it is a generalization and one point of view.

As far as fashion for men....they are incredibly limited....and the majority of men tend to also be...quite conservative. Men can also be very restricted to certain colors that are not considered as socially acceptable.

A man can wear a black suit....and he is looked upon as being socially acceptable....but by merely changing the same suit...into a different color lets say bright yellow, for instance...he would most likely become a mockery. It's the SAME suit....ONLY THE COLOR...has been changed.

Bright colors and wild patterns hold memory.

A lady will be remembered by something she wore because of it's color...or for it's pattern (polka-dots, for instance)......men tend to want to fade into the background, more. Case in point?? A man might wear a paisley necktie to be remembered...but....if he likes the paisley tie....why wouldn't he wear a paisley sport-coat, instead.

In my opinion...ALL of most mens wear is forgettable...not just Margiela.

One of the few exceptions that does come to mind is Comme Des Garcons Homme Plus....but I don't see the majority of men wearing her collections. It's always been a brand that has never been for the meek-at-heart.

 

[margielamike2004]

@HONEYCOMBCHILD.......

even MORE of a reason to add a charity piece.