Schiaparelli Haute Couture F/W 2024.25 Paris

[CommanderTMugler]

He already made his mark in the fashion world, you know what you are getting, he’s doing a fantastical job with the direction of the brand he’s leading. It’s a joy to see him and his work, he’s pushing himself a little bit, obviously not a revolutionary but still making a statement. And yes he’s very easy on the eyes and level headed. But sure execute him right outside the atelier and throw him in a dungeon.

I love the setting in motion not so much in pictures, I wish we had some backstage ones. He always seems to have a “theme” for the collections… phoenix this time, it would be great if he would go more in depth. The added volume in this collection is a welcome addition.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

The lighting was far too dark. NOT what you want for couture unless you're trying to disguise things from the audience and cameras.

I'm just waiting for him to chill the hell out and become a little more languid. His vision for Schiaparelli is still incredibly stiff and frigid, like the whole idea of Capote's "swans". And I'm still waiting to feel the Schiaparelli in the collections. I can see it, as he is using more obvious references but it isn't embodied. Slight rejection of the (enormous and intricate archives) in favour of other archives that happen to have strong Schiaprelli influences.

I do like the manipulation of the "pringles", but then I remember Valentino Fall 2007 Couture... Ah how they moved in that show!

 

[WinstonH20]

I think it's important to distinguish the individual collections and the designer themselves when discussing a limited designer like Roseberry, especially when the hype surrounding him is off the charts.

As many others have said, this collection like most of his others is good. The fabrics look great, the technique is there and there's a mood and atmosphere. I still think his Schiaparelli is a little stiff and stuffy, but for a house like Schiaparelli in 2024, he is succeeding at creating hype around the brand. Good for him.

As for Roseberry as a designer, he is obviously very limited. His idea of opulence and glamour is very surface-level and draws heavily from the 80s, every single time. I get that people are craving glamour these days and Roseberry's work provides that quick fix, but that's all it is, a quick hit of dopamine which is probably why he is praised so much on social media. I get the drag comparisons in so much as Roseberry's work is a very obvious, 'yaaaaas' approach to opulent dressing. But beyond that quick fix of glamour, his work is quite hollow much like Anthony Vacarello's. Both produce well-made, good collections that ooze glamour and sex appeal (both rare in 2024) but both are shockingly limited in terms of design language and references. To their credit, I think both are aware of this which is why they stick to what they know but when I hear social media praise like Rosebrry is single-handledly driving fashion in 2024, I can't help but roll my eyes.

Limited deisgners like Roseberry produce 'good' collections provided they stay within their limited design language, but the greatest designers challenge themselves in terms of references, fabrics, techniques, and styling and produce collections that are great, atrocious and everything in between. There's a lot more variety to what they do and that makes them far more exciting to follow.

All that said, I have no issues with what Roseberry is doing at Schiaparelli, he is producing well-made collections that garner hype and help put Schiaparelli in the fashion conversation, no matter how vapid I find that conversation as of late. The collection's fine, good even but Roseberry is a designer of limited talent and no amount of social media hype and over-intellectualised analysis will change that fact. I could put this exact reply in many other designer/collection threads and it would still apply, so this is not just a Daniel Roseberry-specific thing, more an issue of the industry and social media hype in 2024 and beyond.

 

[tigerrouge]

The fashion spot is a site in which armchair critics can voice their opinions, I get it. And it's fun to be critical. Especially when it's deserved (Chanel etc). But let's give credit where credit is due. It's hard to make wonderful things.

Speaking generally -

I don't find it fun to be critical. I would rather be deeply seduced by fashion and have it still be a wonderful place where not only can I enjoy the 'storylines', I can also appreciate the material side, the hundreds of hours of work that went into delicate beading or embroidery, or the hidden structure that gives a garment a shape that no human would ever have.

I want them to take my money by selling me impossible dreams and beautiful details. I'm ready to get out of my armchair.

But we're living in a low-effort, outsourced, greenwashed, insta-above-all fashion world. Yesterday I was reading an article in UK Vogue wondering which clothes and accessories made today will be the vintage of tomorrow. People will be lucky if the items they buy today will be in good shape in twenty years, whether they wear them in the light or store them in the dark. Good luck with a mushroom leather handbag or synthetic designer trainers crumbling into their micro-plastic form.

I feel there are two ways I could see fashion at the moment:

By current standards, is something good? The opportunity for a more positive opinion is there.
By any or all standards, is something good? Harder to be positive when the frame of reference is larger.

 

[jeanclaude]

Just a thought: I feel like it's not fair to ask someone creative to be completely one and the same with another creative person. Aside from bearing the original name, she is not here. It's impossible for him to actually get to know her! He's a guy from Texas, she was European noblesse. They are nothing alike.
What you say I do get, but that's when extremely good fortune happens, it's the exception not the norm. And the demand for complete loyalty is stifling for creativity. A prime counter argument is John Galliano at Dior: let's not kid ourselves that we were all fawning over him because of his military reverence to the Dior's DNA. When a designer gets a job at a big house, that's a chance for that designer to make his/her mark. Are you not at least excited for the prospect of something new and of our time? Why do we have to make it so literal? Fashion history is just like fashion: utterly ephemeral and not a reliable source. We get fed a lot through the lens of fashion media and a lot of it is editorialized and crazy subjective/ often mindless. You see it especially clear now with social media, am I supposed to believe that everything is instantly legendary and iconic? There's no way we can really know the DNAs of Elsa Schiaparelli, 1) we weren't alive then 2) she was not well documented as a creative figure.

The excitement around this brand on IG and the amount of celebrities who look tacky in his garments might be the main reason that turns you off. I don't follow this house obsessively, but as someone who's close to a few daring and well-dressed women, I know taste is a matter of self understanding. If you have cultivated taste the garments often work for you. Farida Khelfa and Natalia Vodianova have been seen in his Schiaparelli a few times and both managed to look quite discreet. I also have seen many a client butchered their Chanel Couture to the point of tastelessness. 2 sides of the same coin.

P/S: have a hunch you already know @jeanclaude about Michael Stewart, but if not you should check him out. His work has a strong Cristobal oeuvre from what I've seen.

There is enough information, archives and documentation of Elsa Schiaparelli out there. Museums around the world have lots of Schiparelli in their archives. There are Schiaparelli originals for sale in vintage shops. It does not mind if Daniel is from Texas, that´s not a valid excuse nowadays when info can be so easily achieved from internet. All you need is being interested on the subject.

I don´t understand why he is so little interested in the founder DNA of the brand he works for...but he is so interested in Charles James as to make a shameful carbon copy of one of his famous dresses. If he can get information about Charles James, he can also get info about Elsa..after all he is working at Schiaparelli!

I don´t expect from him to follow 100% the archives (that would be boring; and there is no need for a fashion designer when all that is expected are replicas from the past).
My problem with him is the same problem I see in Demna at Balenciaga: both of them are interested in everyone and everything; but the designer´s work from the brand they are helming respectively.
It´s not only that Daniel and Demna are unable to understand the DNA of their respective brands...it´s just that they don´t even care to try to understand them!

Galliano understood Christian Dior DNA. You could tell John cared to investigate it, to research it...just before merging it with his own style. And so, a new chapter of a famous brand begun.

The reason why I don´t like Daniel´s work is not because of IG or celebrities wearing his clothes. My problem is with the clothes only. They feel random and there is a clash with the Schiaparelli branding. That Charles James dress copy is randomness in all its splendor.

I did not know about Michael Stewart work, thank you!

 

[TerraVera]

overall, i find daniel to be offensive, but unoriginal. and i think that lack of originality or limited imagination is hard for some to fully back him. he has intermittent moments of brillance that end up being catnip for social media. who is he designing for, the women he wants to buy his clothes or the woman he wishes he could be?

yes, he is a showman, yes he has great taste of fabrics and technique, but his vision is superficial. what separates him from fellow texan tom ford is the dearth of depth in his approach to couture and clothes in general - it's all about the show, the viral moment, the ephemeral. imbalanced approach to fashion. maybe if he knew more about merchandising or how to better fully develop a plan, that business knowledge would reflect in his clothes - his clothes would be more consistent, well thought-out, even intelligent, if not brilliant. it's too hollow for me to take seriously. i want more than a show; john galliano serves an experience, an opera, not a cabaret. schiaparelli needs to be a distinct, clever experience.

ironically, i liked his earlier collections. i think he's in a state of decline. i don't want to see an homage to other designers; i want to see his personal interpretation of the contemporary schiaparelli woman. he knows who she is, yet somewhere in the execution - as the manifestation realizes itself in the present - something goes awry, like the ink runs out, the needle breaks, the fabric frays, something is distorted. there is no amount of shiny things, glitz, jazziness, or drama that can hide an incomplete image.

 

[TerraVera]

There is enough information, archives and documentation of Elsa Schiaparelli out there. Museums around the world have lots of Schiparelli in their archives. There are Schiaparelli originals for sale in vintage shops. It does not mind if Daniel is from Texas, that´s not a valid excuse nowadays when info can be so easily achieved from internet. All you need is being interested on the subject.

I don´t understand why he is so little interested in the founder DNA of the brand he works for...but he is so interested in Charles James as to make a shameful carbon copy of one of his famous dresses. If he can get information about Charles James, he can also get info about Elsa..after all he is working at Schiaparelli!

I don´t expect from him to follow 100% the archives (that would be boring; and there is no need for a fashion designer when all that is expected are replicas from the past).
My problem with him is the same problem I see in Demna at Balenciaga: both of them are interested in everyone and everything; but the designer´s work from the brand they are helming respectively.
It´s not only that Daniel and Demna are unable to understand the DNA of their respective brands...it´s just that they don´t even care to try to understand them!

Galliano understood Christian Dior DNA. You could tell John cared to investigate it, to research it...just before merging it with his own style. And so, a new chapter of a famous brand begun.

The reason why I don´t like Daniel´s work is not because of IG or celebrities wearing his clothes. My problem is with the clothes only. They feel random and there is a clash with the Schiaparelli branding. That Charles James dress copy is randomness in all its splendor.

I did not know about Michael Stewart work, thank you!

thank you responding to that part of their comment because it didn't make any sense. a bunch of babel and noise.

if her DNA didn't exist, then there wouldn't have been an elsa schiaparelli line. we have a strong sense of what to expect because she made clothes, took pictures of them, people wore them, there is an archive(s) for them, commentary on them, etc. like? at least try to come up with a better excuse for daniel, when there is none.

he is looking everywhere but at the source and that should be called out and even seen as a snub. how are you designing for a house with its own unique history, but keep references and looking for inspiration from those way after the house's initial existence and from others a little before the house's time? there is enough to improvise on and if one can't do it, then that's on them and their limited design ability. facts not emotions.

some people are simple and like simple, pretty things and that's a portion who daniel easily impresses and are the same kind of people get defensive and nonsensical when his glaring flaws are pointed out.

 

[brandon J pierre]

View attachment 1281995
Sources: vogue.com

Ideally, the modern day schiaparelli woman should have looked like...

Yes

 

[donyan]

The craftsmanship is incredible but for me it comes down to always being just a tiny bit too much. It’s the difference between piling on so much that one can’t help but being impressed by the sheer spectacle as opposed to just finding the right balance, like Dries always does so perfectly, or like the Prada Collection that was posted earlier.

 

[Norden]

I really don't mind his collections for the house. as far as marketing goes, it works - maybe they need a perfume?
While the work is beautiful, I just find his works not to be very interesting, I don't sense, see or read a story or context behind them, I don't get the drive, the intention or meaning. As others have said, this renders his work very surface and visual, which in a way is quite contradictory to the brands surrealistic streak.
For now this works, but like many things that are surface, you can easily over satiate the public.

 

[Mr-Dale]

Galliano understood Christian Dior DNA. You could tell John cared to investigate it, to research it...just before merging it with his own style. And so, a new chapter of a famous brand begun.

The reason why I don´t like Daniel´s work is not because of IG or celebrities wearing his clothes. My problem is with the clothes only. They feel random and there is a clash with the Schiaparelli branding. That Charles James dress copy is randomness in all its splendor.

But the difference is, the Schiaparelli brand had been dormant for decades. Any attempt at resuscitating it kept failing. As far as the modern market is concerned, there is no legacy branding to build on. A design archive and house codes, yes....but branding and iconic brand expressions, none at all. For me Roseberry is wielding the original codes, but applying a really current and modern spin to it. Backed up with craftsmanship, beautiful materials and glamorous beauty, his work makes sense. I do agree with the sentiment that all the looks are competing with each other to be the most spectacular one. A broader daywear offer would potentially help resolve this. I felt like he initiated this development last season, but I don't see it continued here.

Is there any information out there on how their couture is performing? Are they actually selling?

 

[LadyJunon]

But the difference is, the Schiaparelli brand had been dormant for decades. Any attempt at resuscitating it kept failing. As far as the modern market is concerned, there is no legacy branding to build on. A design archive and house codes, yes....but branding and iconic brand expressions, none at all. For me Roseberry is wielding the original codes, but applying a really current and modern spin to it. Backed up with craftsmanship, beautiful materials and glamorous beauty, his work makes sense. I do agree with the sentiment that all the looks are competing with each other to be the most spectacular one. A broader daywear offer would potentially help resolve this. I felt like he initiated this development last season, but I don't see it continued here.

Is there any information out there on how their couture is performing? Are they actually selling?

I believe their 2023 numbers were at -8 million euros, up from -15 mllion euros in 2022. If they continue on this trajectory, they should break even this year and become profitable the next.

 

[philophile]

I LOVE it. 😍
I've noticed that a lot of people here are allergic to anything modern and I find it sad. Obviously, this collection is not my favorite ever, but I do enjoy DR's work. Almost every collection offers at least a couple of jewels and I love the fact that it is the perfect mix between old school Schiaparelli glamour and contemporary silhouettes. That can't possibly be easy to create, but he has successfully modernized the brand and made it appealing to many of us.

 

[philophile]

View attachment 1281995
Sources: vogue.com

Ideally, the modern day schiaparelli woman should have looked like...

Wow, then I personally wouldn't like it at all. So sorry, but it's my opinion. I love that Schiaparelli now looks so distinct and extravagant, if it looked like this I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from so many contemporary brands doing similar things.

 

[TaylorBinque]

I am not sure if this is the best presentation for the collection.

 

[jeanclaude]

But the difference is, the Schiaparelli brand had been dormant for decades. Any attempt at resuscitating it kept failing. As far as the modern market is concerned, there is no legacy branding to build on. A design archive and house codes, yes....but branding and iconic brand expressions, none at all. For me Roseberry is wielding the original codes, but applying a really current and modern spin to it. Backed up with craftsmanship, beautiful materials and glamorous beauty, his work makes sense. I do agree with the sentiment that all the looks are competing with each other to be the most spectacular one. A broader daywear offer would potentially help resolve this. I felt like he initiated this development last season, but I don't see it continued here.

Is there any information out there on how their couture is performing? Are they actually selling?

Yes, so far the attempts at resuscitating Schiaparelli have been a failure. But the problem is not that the brand has been in limbo for so many decades, the problem are of the designers appointed to try to revive it.

It´s not a question of lacking branding or iconic brand expressions. It is a simple question of avoiding ripping-off a Charles James dress from the 1950s, because that dress has nothing to do with the story of Schiaparelli at all. If the current designer is unable to see this key point, there is nothing more we can expect from him.

 

[chinsumo]

 

[ICONICA26]

FAB JUST FAB!!!!! ELEGANT!
Real old school fashion. The BEST couture show.

 

[tourbillions]

that dress already look much better with the natural light. presentation was good but not for photos.

 

[Mr-Dale]

Yes, so far the attempts at resuscitating Schiaparelli have been a failure. But the problem is not that the brand has been in limbo for so many decades, the problem are of the designers appointed to try to revive it.

It´s not a question of lacking branding or iconic brand expressions. It is a simple question of avoiding ripping-off a Charles James dress from the 1950s, because that dress has nothing to do with the story of Schiaparelli at all. If the current designer is unable to see this key point, there is nothing more we can expect from him.

But that dress does have everything to with the history of couture. And putting a 2024 Schiaparelli spin on that notion feels like it makes sense for this brand right now. And knowing that Elsa Schiaparelli was a frequent paying customer of Charles James's, I don't mind it that much either.