Rachel Clark

[smartarse]

I agree with you.....and thank goodness Rachel is one of the good ones (IMO)....a turn towards the beautiful side instead of models just for shock or attention.

i too mentioned that Rachel doesn't fit the Supreme girl material. she's too beautiful for them, and why they signed her rather mystified me like everyone else. not that she's not signable... on the contrary, in fact.

MicheleIman, you took the words right out of my mouth.... you hit it in the nail.

... i don't ever recall any of the Supreme girls to be under 5'10" whether or not their cards says otherwise.

... although they may not be 'cute' , Rachel is the exception. she's more an IMG girl.

 

[Destined]

Maybe Supreme wanted her because they knew she'd get picked up by IMGif they didn't.

 

[ViktorJetSet]

""When we first did the Polaroids with Rachel, we knew she had it," says Supreme agent James Tinnelly. "It was, like, immediate. The way she looked, the way she carried herself, how photogenic she was ...

"Models are performers. They perform in two dimensions. Someone can be beautiful in person, but they don't photograph well. With her, she's a beautiful girl in person, but on film, even more so."

Supreme is a smaller agency, representing about 40 models and specializing in "intelligent beauty."

Its Web site describes the Supreme look as embodying elements of androgyny, strength, vulnerability, individuality and honesty. "Off-duty Supreme models could be mistaken for Smith College students, not typical beauty queens," reads the site, whose design prominently features skulls and spiders.

Tinnelly describes Rachel's looks as American meets European.

"She looks really universal. At the same time, she looks really individual," he says. "You can't confuse her with any other model. She always stands out, which is always the trademark of a special model.""

-Interview with Supreme agent regarding Rachel featured in The Palm Beach Post

She's definitely the intelligent beauty and she's a self-confessed goth according to the article. That has Supreme written all over it. Did Supreme find Rachel or did Rachel find Supreme...... that is what I'm wondering now

 

[foreverandnone]

^ A lot of people seem to confuse her with Catherine McNeil,it seems...

 

[Sweet rus]

from supermodel.nl

Rachel Clark for Louis Vuitton Cruise FW0708.

 

[foreverandnone]

Those have already been posted, but oh well, they are so gorgeous.

 

[Sweet rus]

sorry

 

[foreverandnone]

 

[violet_echoes*~]

she has a very 'luna' face if that makes any sense! so moonlight-pale with a very elegant profile.

 

[style_expert]

oh wow Louis Vuitton is an actual campaign, right? (not just look book)...great!

 

[smartarse]

first of all has this been posted?
secondly, is this Rachel? lol ... [it was forwarded to me]
i'm betting it is ....

 

[TheGlassAngel]

Um. Yeah.

Sigh, it's not your fault but for fmd1 to post one of her personal pictures on the web is .....

 

[smartarse]

^ thanks. than i will refrain from posting any more. i did noticed it was rather personal pix..

 

[xCloverx]

I love that photo. she looks so cool and fun

 

[*Bianca*]

Um. Yeah.

Sigh, it's not your fault but for fmd1 to post one of her personal pictures on the web is .....

ugh agreed


(that said though, it really is a wicked shot )

 

[foreverandnone]

^ Maybe they thought it was okay because the website has those photos on her model profile?

 

[Batgeline]

karlrothenberger

 

[TheGlassAngel]

ugh agreed


(that said though, it really is a wicked shot )

HAHA

And then they tagged it like it was their's!

 

[Faith Akiyama]

V #50
"V a Model!"
Ph. Greg Kessler
Styling Nicholas Grassa

Scanned by me

 

[smartarse]

personal or not it was one of her best i've seen. not that she hasn't takened a bad shot. but you get the picture..

... she should have more candid shots [posted]. it truly brings out her natural beauty even more.
...... and her body language is more at ease. IMO B)

HAHA

And then they tagged it like it was their's!