Matthew M. Williams - Designer

On a different note, I suddenly don't want Givenchy or any brand to be as big as Dior. What's the point of being that big only to sell logos flip-flops to make a few billionaires get richer?

I understand what you're saying but there are also a lot of positives that can come from a brand reaching big financial milestones. For example, the cultural impact of the brand and its legacy reaches a broader audience through activities like destination cruise shows, travelling exhibitions, and cross-cultural partnerships with artists and filmmakers, etc.

From a retail point of view, more money allows more ambitious plans to be realized. In the case of Dior: Maria Grazia's financial success allowed things like the Avenue Montaigne flagship to be finally developed with the museum on the top.

Financial success also allowed Dior to renovate and expand their "Dior Heritage" (Archives), and gave the custodians of the archives more room to acquire garments and items. The team extend invitations to not only VIP clients but also students from fashion schools around the world. This is pretty extraordinary.

Givenchy has the potential to reach this kind of level, but unfortunately the people working there just don't have the vision or the desire to see beyond their very short term goals. The worst part is that most of them there are probably using Givenchy as a springboard to move into other positions. It's clear that nobody working there has a passion for the heritage or for the founder.
 
I understand what you're saying but there are also a lot of positives that can come from a brand reaching big financial milestones. For example, the cultural impact of the brand and its legacy reaches a broader audience through activities like destination cruise shows, travelling exhibitions, and cross-cultural partnerships with artists and filmmakers, etc.

From a retail point of view, more money allows more ambitious plans to be realized. In the case of Dior: Maria Grazia's financial success allowed things like the Avenue Montaigne flagship to be finally developed with the museum on the top.

Financial success also allowed Dior to renovate and expand their "Dior Heritage" (Archives), and gave the custodians of the archives more room to acquire garments and items. The team extend invitations to not only VIP clients but also students from fashion schools around the world. This is pretty extraordinary.

Givenchy has the potential to reach this kind of level, but unfortunately the people working there just don't have the vision or the desire to see beyond their very short term goals. The worst part is that most of them there are probably using Givenchy as a springboard to move into other positions. It's clear that nobody working there has a passion for the heritage or for the founder.

I think what you mentioned regarding Dior, that kind of strategy has just turned it into a Las Vegas of fashion - pure entertainment and marketing, storytelling, museums, cafés... but the core, the fashion, is as clichéd and "basic" as you can get. There is no forward-thinking creativity as there once was, because the current customer wouldn't understand that and they don't want to alienate them. Givenchy has the opportunity to be that smaller yet interesting "Paris fashion" brand, a bit like Céline was under Phoebe, if they can find the right people. I don't think they should aim to the same heights as Dior or Chanel. LVMH's current portfolio desperately needs a touch of that different kind of creativity and fashion credibility, because they are lacking in that when compared to Kering and Prada.
 
Last edited:
Easy, but it can't last when the brand has lost its luxury cache and street cred.

I skip his stuff and buy Tisci tee's, which actually sell higher on the secondary market than Matthew's stuff. lol

I only see people who are die hard Alyx fans talking about Givenchy.

Alyx fans are the worst. On one of the official channel's videos, they called someone who complained about Matthew's work a "purist", because they hated the overuse of logos. They also quoted Alexander McQueen to defend Matthew rejecting the house codes. They also martyrize anyone who expressed dislike towards the music he uses.
 
I think what you mentioned regarding Dior, that kind of strategy has just turned it into a Las Vegas of fashion - pure entertainment and marketing, storytelling, museums, cafés... but the core, the fashion, is as clichéd and "basic" as you can get.

Personally I find the idea of engaging more of an audience through dedicated museums and/or spaces to be both interesting and inclusive in a way that feels quite modern. It allows (and has allowed) people who have an interest in fashion to engage with it even if they aren't able to buy the clothes. They can visit the museum, or the cafe, or buy a book about the history of that brand. These facets of the brand might be denigrated as "entertainment", but at the end of the day, it encourages education and creative responses to the brand. I don't see it as a bad thing per se.

And as much as I love Phoebe Philo's Céline, I don't think you can say objectively that it was "more" creative than whatever Maria Grazia is doing at Dior. It was a different language and branding strategy but at the core it was still pretty cliched and basic. There was a few runway pieces that were interesting in terms of cut and texture, but most of what they were selling in the boutiques was the very classic and basic pieces like wool pants, cashmere sweaters, wool coats, etc.

There are very few original thinkers working in fashion at this level. Even Craig Green and Rei seem to be stuck on repeat the last few seasons. IMO only people like Nicolas Ghesquiere seem to be producing things that feel genuinely "new". He can do that however because he's backed by a Maison that makes most of its money selling printed canvas bags. You walk into a Louis Vuitton boutique now and about 1% of what is on the boutique floor is from Ghesquiere's actual runway show. Most of what's there is absolutely garbage, let's be honest.
 
Personally I find the idea of engaging more of an audience through dedicated museums and/or spaces to be both interesting and inclusive in a way that feels quite modern. It allows (and has allowed) people who have an interest in fashion to engage with it even if they aren't able to buy the clothes. They can visit the museum, or the cafe, or buy a book about the history of that brand. These facets of the brand might be denigrated as "entertainment", but at the end of the day, it encourages education and creative responses to the brand. I don't see it as a bad thing per se.

And as much as I love Phoebe Philo's Céline, I don't think you can say objectively that it was "more" creative than whatever Maria Grazia is doing at Dior. It was a different language and branding strategy but at the core it was still pretty cliched and basic. There was a few runway pieces that were interesting in terms of cut and texture, but most of what they were selling in the boutiques was the very classic and basic pieces like wool pants, cashmere sweaters, wool coats, etc.

There are very few original thinkers working in fashion at this level. Even Craig Green and Rei seem to be stuck on repeat the last few seasons. IMO only people like Nicolas Ghesquiere seem to be producing things that feel genuinely "new". He can do that however because he's backed by a Maison that makes most of its money selling printed canvas bags. You walk into a Louis Vuitton boutique now and about 1% of what is on the boutique floor is from Ghesquiere's actual runway show. Most of what's there is absolutely garbage, let's be honest.
Nicolas Ghésquire is from a completely different generation, that being at Balenciaga has made him into a S-tier technician. His work isn't often appreciated since the modern fashion industry wants very simple, easy, direct collections and Ghésquire is the opposite of that.
 
What's the point of being that big only to sell logos flip-flops to make a few billionaires get richer?

This should be embroidered on a banner by Lesage. You have identified the crux and the crack in the foundation of modern fashion.

All of these corporate-owned leather goods and couture houses are in a race to become billion dollar global businesses. They'll slap their name on any old stupid sh*t to make a few bucks. Of course the joke is that any time a brand's name printed on a good is a bigger selling point than the design and make of the good itself, said brand has already drifted over into fashion hell. They've crossed the line and have entered the void.

They might produce and stage some other worthwhile collection and runway show, but if what they're actually selling is flip flops, ball caps, tote bags and logo tees then sure, they might call themselves a couture house or whatever, they may have had a legacy or a heritage, but really they're just a glorified DisneyWorld gift shop. They may as well be sold off a push cart in a mall in Dubai.
 
All of these corporate-owned leather goods and couture houses are in a race to become billion dollar global businesses.
I remember reading a couple of years ago that when Prada (I believe, don't fully quote me on this) first reached a revenue of 1 billion, they were looking to make another billion in the next year or two. After reading it, I just thought what the point of that really was? Maybe they know that customers have become increasingly easier to fool due to their ignorance and sheer negligence of the going ons of this side of the industry, but I really wondered if we are honestly that stupid.

It seems to be working, seeing as there are a slew of people wanting celebs dressed in Williams' Givenchy for some reason and the sheer praise that hideous green striped Prada merch pack has been getting. It honestly baffles me, and makes me depressed knowing this is the state of fashion. People just want easy clothes sold at exorbitant pricing to validate their stupidity for the sake of clout or prestige. Why bring people out of mediocrity when you can take complete advantage of it.
 
I remember reading a couple of years ago that when Prada (I believe, don't fully quote me on this) first reached a revenue of 1 billion, they were looking to make another billion in the next year or two. After reading it, I just thought what the point of that really was? Maybe they know that customers have become increasingly easier to fool due to their ignorance and sheer negligence of the going ons of this side of the industry, but I really wondered if we are honestly that stupid.

It seems to be working, seeing as there are a slew of people wanting celebs dressed in Williams' Givenchy for some reason and the sheer praise that hideous green striped Prada merch pack has been getting. It honestly baffles me, and makes me depressed knowing this is the state of fashion. People just want easy clothes sold at exorbitant pricing to validate their stupidity for the sake of clout or prestige. Why bring people out of mediocrity when you can take complete advantage of it.

Exactly! And I find Prada to be one of the more tolerable offenders!

It's about money. Making lots of money.

The industry has been here before with licensing in the 80's. A lot of our fabled designers lost money on the collections but made fortunes through rampant licensing (YSL was notable for his almost total dependency on licensing revenue).

All those licenses were bought back and closed or taken in-house and now the brands are controlling their masstige themselves. They may have cut out the middle man but the damage is still the same.

This Givenchy is exhibit A. And no, based on LVMH's last earnings report I don't think it's working. At least not yet.
 
Considering how much the prestigious houses despised the outcomes of the extreme licensing they put themselves through up until the 80s, they have somehow shot themselves in the foot by doing the exact same thing all over again but it is packaged as a "logomania redux" or "branding" exercise.

Whether it's a sandwhich press, a Vespa or yet another hoodie or book bag, it's an exercise in over saturation of their logo-isms. Even sponsorship and philanthropic ventures fall within this in some way. The huge push they have towards making prestige for that aura, they pull bullsh*t like which does not make sense. Pierre Cardin still hasn't fully recovered from this foray.

I suppose what gets them the most money and best tax break it'll keep on going seeing as that is what they care about. A shame too, considering these conglomerates are merely becoming puppet masters as opposed to relishing and valuing their heritage as much as they should.
 
Interesting Read!

Will You Give Matthew M. Williams a Chance?
The designer of Givenchy wants to outlast fashion’s high turnover.

merlin_213782526_ff68aee2-915e-456f-8dd6-a451fb3494b4-superJumbo.jpeg

BY JESSICA TESTA / OCTOBER 1ST 2022

PARIS — Matthew M. Williams will, under the right conditions, be open and generous and vulnerable. He will show you his slightly messy bedroom and fix you an iced coffee that he cold-brewed himself and tell you about his sometimes tortured love life and lean back on his big Brutalist couch so that a sliver of one of the most vulnerable parts of the body (the stomach — his is taut on account of his exercise routine, which he’ll also describe if you’d like) is revealed beneath his fitted white T-shirt.

But he will not talk about his contract with Givenchy.

Employment contracts are a dreaded topic for any designer in Mr. Williams’s position. In June 2020, the tattooed-all-over American millennial and former Kanye West acolyte was appointed the creative director of Givenchy, a French fashion house best known for Audrey Hepburn’s little-black-dress-with-pearls image, or as a favorite label of A-list celebrities between the late aughts and 2010s.

Yet some people still don’t know Givenchy at all. Founded in 1952 it is considered a less defined brand — though still lucrative at times — within the broader stable of LVMH-controlled fashion houses, which include Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior.


Today, designers appointed to luxury fashion brands like Givenchy are typically given three-year contracts. That is how long Mr. Williams’s predecessor, Clare Waight Keller, famous for designing Meghan Markle’s wedding dress, stayed in the position. If the pattern holds, Mr. Williams has less than nine months before his employment is officially extended or not.

While LVMH does not disclose revenue by brand, its semiannual financial reports offer a qualitative idea of how each house is doing. In 2021, for example, sales at Marc Jacobs had a “highly impressive surge,” while Celine, Loewe and Fendi each had “a record year.” But there has been no mention of sales when it comes to Givenchy’s clothing and accessories under the direction of Mr. Williams and Renaud de Lesquen, who became the company’s president and chief executive a few months before Mr. Williams’s appointment.

Analysts in the luxury industry are more clear: Givenchy has “underperformed,” said Mario Ortelli of Ortelli & Company.

Luca Solca of Sanford C. Bernstein, whose firm tracks, among other things, how often brands are discounting their products said: “For the moment, the brand has yet to find a winning formula.” Givenchy is ranked among the luxury brands with the “strongest negative momentum,” according to the firm’s research. “It isn’t a disaster but probably a work in progress,” Mr. Solca said.

Critics haven’t totally dismissed Mr. Williams’s work for Givenchy. Opinions may be mixed, but they rarely present as purely negative; there are qualities of his utility-goth, streetwear-meets-evening distressed aesthetic that always earn praise, like the sharp tailoring and the cool metal signatures of his accessories. It is the coherency of his broader vision that is more often questioned.

As such, Mr. Williams’s fate has been the subject of gossip for at least a year. In an industry so obsessed with momentum and consumption that it has invented new seasons — “pre-fall,” for example — much depends on continued enthusiasm from editors, celebrities and shoppers. Even if it takes time to see financial results from new leadership, Mr. Solca said, “from a creativity viewpoint, you should see indications that the brand is getting traction with retail, with media, relatively quickly. If that is not the case, then you’re off to a rough start.”

And so Mr. Williams and his team have made a plan.

On Sunday, the designer will present a runway show for women’s clothing, held during the afternoon at a Parisian park. This is a departure from his first two live-audience shows, which were lengthy, featuring both women’s and men’s collections, held at night inside a slickly designed, bass-thumping arena on the outskirts of Paris.

The clothing presented will also be an evolution: more svelte and sexy — or “feminine and sophisticated,” as Mr. Williams said — with less of a tough New Yorker girl vibe and more of a new-to-him Parisian chic. It’s as if his intensity has been plugged into Google Translate. (Or as if he suddenly got more female co-workers.) The collection will be styled by Carine Roitfeld, the influential French editor whose version of Parisian chic is a woman on the prowl: slinky skirt, smudged eyeliner, cigarette between her fingertips.

This new plan also comes with a kind of plea, one that Mr. Williams will only subtly make on his own behalf. “The thing with only having a few shows outside of Covid, and still not having a show just with women: There hasn’t been enough time for the industry to make a fair judgment on what it is,” he said. “You have to give somebody time to, like, make the album.”

What if, when the album does come out, people still don’t like it? “A lot of people, when they see something new for the first time, they don’t know that it’s good right away because it’s unfamiliar, and they need validation from their peer groups,” Mr. Williams said. “Imagine how much strength it takes to take risks at this level, with the pressure of the industry or the company or your career. Every time you have to be ready to lose everything. There’s not many designers that do that.”

His supporters are more direct. “I think he’s a special designer,” said Nick Knight, who has photographed campaigns for Givenchy through his ShowStudio. “I really pray and hope that he gets given the space to show that.”

Kim Jones, the designer of Fendi’s women’s line and Dior’s men’s line (also owned by LVMH), said: “There’s some really key items I’ve seen him develop at Givenchy. It just takes time.”

“I just pray,” Mr. Jones continued, echoing Mr. Knight’s piety, though these interviews were conducted separately, “that companies give people time.”

‘The industry doesn’t really know me.’

Born in Chicago and raised in California, Mr. Williams, 36, is self-taught, with a résumé not built on fashion school or ladder climbing at ateliers but on working in production and retail, then in creative direction for Lady Gaga (an ex-girlfriend), Mr. West and Mr. Knight. He helped found a D.J. collective with fellow future fashion stars Virgil Abloh and Heron Preston.

“This wasn’t somebody who was hankering for a bygone era,” Mr. Knight said, recalling his first impression of the social-media-savvy Mr. Williams. “He was trying to do modern things.” Their projects together included a short film set to a heavy metal soundtrack starring the model Lara Stone demonstrating Krav Maga while dressed in high fashion. Once, Mr. Williams drank red wine while being tattooed so he would bleed more, allowing Mr. Knight to make a print of the bloodied tattoo on a white paper towel.

In 2015, Mr. Williams founded his brand 1017 Alyx 9SM, more commonly called Alyx, named after one of his two daughters. The following year, he was a finalist for the prestigious LVMH Prize for young designers.

Doors were opened. A Nike collaboration dropped in 2018. The same year, Mr. Jones introduced a Dior saddle bag featuring hardware by Mr. Williams — a bid to make the bag “more masculine and more interesting for a new consumer,” Mr. Jones recalled. It was adapted from a popular roller-coaster-inspired buckle Mr. Williams used in Alyx designs.

Mr. Williams is known for being well connected; his first ad campaign for Givenchy starred famous friends like Bella Hadid, Kendall Jenner and Playboi Carti, who styled themselves in his clothes. He is also well liked — his friends often bring up his sweet disposition and good looks — though to outsiders he can seem guarded and barbed.

But if you ask him, he has “a lot of acquaintances, but very few close friends.” Sitting on his canopied, tiered slate couch made by Michele Lamy and Rick Owens, which requires one to sort of climb on to in order to sit, Mr. Williams gazed out at his large terrace, with its titanic view of Paris. This was a major selling point of the apartment, he said, along with it being a short walk from Givenchy’s offices.

His life in Paris was lonely at first. He moved here in 2020, in the early and most isolated days of the pandemic. Mr. Williams had always been nomadic, but now he was a newly divorced father, alone in a new city with a new high-pressure job who couldn’t easily travel to see his children. His two daughters, ages 5 and 8, live in London with their mother — Mr. Williams’s ex-wife formerly oversaw sales for Alyx — while his teenage son with a previous partner lives in the United States.

“I think the industry doesn’t really know me, who I actually am,” Mr. Williams said. “I think they have an idea of who I am from photo shoots” — perhaps from the Givenchy fragrance released earlier this year that was, somewhat unusually, named after him — “but I spend all my free time with my family, my kids, and then I work.”

When the girls visit (every other weekend, Mr. Williams said), they tend to the strawberry plant on the terrace’s garden that he began growing as a kind of single-dad hobby. He also takes cooking lessons.

If his life sounds quaint, bear in mind that he’s equally enthusiastic about a water filtering machine from Japan that he said keeps his blood at “a neutral pH.” “It’s like 3,000 or 4,000 euros, but then you never buy water,” he said.

New York City, which he recently visited for a Givenchy party, still feels the most like home to him, he said. The party was on the rooftop of the city’s new cool hotel du jour, Nine Orchard, though Mr. Williams went to Brooklyn afterward to see a show at a rave venue he likened to one of Ibiza’s massive clubs. New York is where he started Alyx, something he felt the curators of the Met Costume Institute overlooked when they didn’t include him in last year’s exhibition celebrating a wide swath of American fashion designers.

“I think sometimes maybe the Americans forget that I’m American,” he said.

“I don’t know if there’s a younger person in the industry that’s heading a maison,” he said, wondering out loud about the ages of Jonathan Anderson, the creative director of Loewe, and Demna, who designs Balenciaga.

They are both slightly older than him.

To the archive!

At the moment, according to the stylist Carine Roitfeld, American fashion is essentially “hoodies and big jeans.”

This is not her style. “I’m more than French,” she said, needlessly. That day at Givenchy’s showroom, she was wearing a golden camisole dress folded down over her hips like a slip skirt, with a fitted black top and tights.

Sunday’s Givenchy show, which she has been working on since the summer, represents a “clash” between her Frenchness and Mr. Williams’s Americanness, she said, like wearing a chic skirt with sneakers.

Ms. Roitfeld, 68, was also one of the people who encouraged the company to split men’s and women’s runway shows this year.

Yet ask Ms. Roitfeld who the Givenchy woman is and she cannot answer, despite having done much styling (and occasional modeling) for the brand under a previous creative director, her friend Riccardo Tisci. “That’s the problem,” she said. “It’s not a strong DNA.” There is no endlessly re-workable, re-sellable totem, like Chanel’s tweed suits.

Yet a talented designer at the right moment can reinvigorate a stagnant brand virtually overnight, with a single collection, like Tom Ford at Gucci or Phoebe Philo at Celine.

The last time Givenchy was considered truly commercially successful was under Mr. Tisci, who was there for more than a decade. His first few years, it should be noted, were troubled; his debut, in 2005 was criticized as “painful,” “pretentious,” “a special form of cruelty to models.”

But Mr. Tisci’s later success never relied on a core house identity. The Hubert de Givenchy archive wasn’t so important to him, Ms. Roitfeld said. He transcended it by doing his own bad-boy thing. He was one of the first major designers in Paris to attract a hip-hop clientele, effectively changing the face of the front row.

It seemed, at first, that this was the route Mr. Williams would also take. His first live-audience runway show in 2021 featured a freaky, frenetic collaboration with Josh Smith, an abstract painter and sculptor. Mr. Williams chose Mr. Smith because he liked his work, not because Mr. Smith’s work had anything in common with Givenchy. The soundtrack was a brand-new Young Thug song.

But times have changed. Mr. Tisci may have attracted the coolest clientele in fashion — whose coolness was then absorbed back into the brand — but today, every major brand courts rappers, celebrities and artists. Designers can’t bank on buzz by association.

When asked about the idea that, compared with other fashion houses, Givenchy has historically lacked a signature visual identity, Mr. Williams suggested that high turnover is to blame. Before Mr. Tisci’s 12 years as creative director, Julian McDonald had about two, Alexander McQueen had five and John Galliano had one.

This is essentially what drove Mr. Williams, for this upcoming women’s collection, further into Hubert de Givenchy’s archive than ever before, resurrecting some forgotten seductive silhouettes from the 1950s to 1980s. It’s all part of his bid for longevity.

“Isn’t that exciting to have somebody reinterpret something in a modern way? Right?” he said. “We don’t need more old clothes. Right? We want new clothes.” He laughed with some urgency.

“Maybe there just needs to be somebody here long enough to really expand on those codes and reinforce them.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES
 
His interview reads as quite desperate. It's clear that his contract is at serious risk of not being extended past the three year period due to the banality of his output and the fact that he has not left a discernible mark on the house.

What's more his streetwear aesthetic is not selling and so now they have to pivot back to a "feminine and sophisticated" take, which will be styled by Carine Roitfeld in a last bit attempt to make Givenchy relevant? Bizarre.

Williams is just not that talented lets face it. And on top of that he is a excrutiatingly pretentious and self-absorbed designer. The man named a Givenchy fragrance after himself for goodness sake. Height of narcissism right there!
 
"Mr.Williams,Mr.Williams,Mr.Williams..." God, how many times Jessica Testa has to write "Mr.Williams" to try to make him a respectable designer???

This guy is a farce. He is not a fashion designer, but a...let´s say "hardware designer"? (to call him something), with very good connections. Such a long article about a fashion house...but they don´t remember to talk about something as basic as clothes?? (apart from Carine saying she is gonna mix skirts with sneakers for the new collection...groundbreaking!).

The victimized tone is not going to repair the fact that he has absolutely no talent for being at Givenchy. You can tell he is worried not because he is interested about developing himself as a creative director; but because he wants to keep his status (so he can keep buying those overpriced stupid water filters).
 
Last edited:
LOL. The fact that he named a Givenchy fragrance after himself (whereas no fragrance exists called Hubert de Givenchy) just says all you need to know about this guy.

View attachment 1217798
GIVENCHY
The second he leaves, I hope every single one of those units are recalled and burned, environment be damned.
 
It doesn't make any sense? Why is he only reworking his formula now after two years, nine collections and five runway shows? Doesn't he and his team react to how his collections sell and are received?

The average artistic director tenure is around 3 to 4 years, that makes around 6 to 9 seasons (excluding pre-collections, menswear and Haute Couture). Ok, the first season is messy, odd and all over the place, that's normal. But in theory, the second season should a large improvement, with the third and fourth being a "perfection" of the new vision. If the new vision isn't perfected by that point, that tenure is doomed to fail, with very few exceptions.
“Will You Give Matthew M. Williams a Chance?”

Actually we all did but he fails time after time.
I didn't. I knew he was hot trash from the second I saw him.
 
I got through the first quarter of that article and I had to stop. This reads as so desperate, a complete sh*t licking of a write up that is a waste of time. That opening paragraph was just cringe inducing as well. I don't want to hear about the plight of an overly privileged individual who is realising that they can't always get their way.

He can’t design whatsoever and I can’t fathom why people won’t admit it in the industry. Nick Knight and Kim Jones saying “he needs time…” is so stupid. Matt just needs to accept that he really isn’t that special at all. Lacks talent, knowledge, skill, everything! All these friends, collaborators and acquaintances need to stop enabling it. It’s just going to lead to humiliation.
 
Maybe if you presented something good and not that desperate trash that you sent out maybe we'll give you a chance.

The clock is ticking fast for Mr. Williams.

Working with Carine won't help him relive the house's former glory past. Even a great stylist like Carine won't do any help. She can only elevate good clothes, and she can't do that given the thing she has to work with.

And please exclude Riccardo from this mess. He maybe not have heavily relied on Hubert's legacy, but he has the vision, and he has the skills to back it up.

I chuckled when Carine said hoodies and jeans are not her styles. Who are you trying to fool babe? That's the same tired tricks you've been using at Tom Ford.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top