Simon Porte Jacquemus - Designer, Creative Director of Jacquemus

[Irere]

Admittedly I have a limited perspective but the only people I know personally who have expressed any kind of sexual attraction for him are gay men, not women. But generally, I think I see your point. He looks.... like a man. Won't catch him with f*ck-a*s bob and 7-inch bedazzled acrylics. But he doesn't have the baggage of "toxic masculinity"

I think that, for many urban fashion-interested women, Jacquemus (the man) probably resembles their boyish gay friend with whom they go to brunch.

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

Im curious about something, what makes people consider Jacquemus as « luxurious ». It’s quite puzzling because nothing about the brand indicate a luxury positioning.

Because if so, Isabel Marant is a luxury brand.

Jacquemus' target is a very young clientele... the prices might feel luxurious to them...

From all the French, he is the smartest.

I imagine the quality of his products is close to Isabel Marant, Ami, Casablanca (I've never touched a Jacquemus piece yet, so feel free to correct me )
But!
-He has two it-bags (the others don't)
-He made a show at the Casa Malaparte in Capri (the others didn't)
-He (or his team) managed to create buzz around him as candidate for Chanel
(Did he do the same for LV mens with a selfie inside an elevator? Or was it for another house?)
-Everybody knows where he is going to open his next store
-He has celebrity "ambassadors", like Dua Lipa

All these things make that, unconciously, many might consider Jacquemus a brand closer to Balenciaga than to Ami.
In fact, his strategy is from a luxury brand.

 

[Lola701]

Ive mentioned this many times, it seems people who dont like him just use this to validate their hate. He never claims to be the next chanel or the next hermes, his in-store pricing is closer to contemporary brands whose qualities can equally be as questionable (some of them).. Compared to dior's book tote, his raw prices vs store prices are probably not as atrocious.

Do people holding his le chiquito, feel like they are buying luxury? probably. Although it is more comparable to marc jacobs camera bag than other higher tier brands.

He doesn’t meet the expectations in terms of cut and execution (except for his knitwear) and it’s sad (when you compare to brands like AMI or JWA) but in a way that’s detached.

Kenzo is really well and honestly made but it’s not luxury either.

Jacquemus' target is a very young clientele... the prices might feel luxurious to them...

From all the French, he is the smartest.

I imagine the quality of his products is close to Isabel Marant, Ami, Casablanca (I've never touched a Jacquemus piece yet, so feel free to correct me )
But!
-He has two it-bags (the others don't)
-He made a show at the Casa Malaparte in Capri (the others didn't)
-He (or his team) managed to create buzz around him as candidate for Chanel
(Did he do the same for LV mens with a selfie inside an elevator? Or was it for another house?)
-Everybody knows where he is going to open his next store
-He has celebrity "ambassadors", like Dua Lipa

All these things make that, unconciously, many might consider Jacquemus a brand closer to Balenciaga than to Ami.
In fact, his strategy is from a luxury brand.

This is maybe one of the disadvantage of the fact that luxury has become the word to define fashion because despite the exposure and all, Jacquemus has nothing on luxury brands.
He is clever, he is a good marketer.
Because essentially, a lot of people believe that they hace that huge team when in fact, he is very hands-on and is able to manage costs.

Martin Margiela was never luxury even though he got noticed by Hermes.

But no, the quality of Casablanca and AMI is superior to Isabel Marant and therefore Jacquemus.
That being said, they are doing something different. Casablanca is positioning itself as a luxury streetwear chic fashion brand.
Isabel Marant and AMI are contemporary. The ethos of the founders was about design and quality.

Alexandre Mattuissi has the best position IMO because his operation is fully functional.

Beyond the perception, Jacquemus is not meeting those promises.
Those shows generates publicity but he hasnˋt created that cult or trust contract with his clientele. It makes his brand fragile.

 

[yslforever]

I don't think all fashion brands have to be luxurious at-all. They have to be well-made of course, but more importantly to resonate with their customers, not necessarily all the customers.
Kenzo was never intended to be a luxurious RTW, Sonya Rykiel neither, Agnes B neither, but they were all very loved by their customers and also influential during their times and decades later. They were imho more legitimate in RTW than prestigious Couture houses, where RTW was just a declination of the couture.
Honestly I see a lot of Agnes B. ethos in APC, Lemaire, AMI, and they are all legitimate in fashion and RTW. They don't have to try to be luxurious.

Even though I dislike his clothes Jacquemus has HIS customers, does his buzz, he's doing it his way, his shows, his shops, his fun instagram. That's imho much more commendable than 90% of mercenary CDs. If my nieces or girlfriends had a quirky Jacquemus bag on their Christmas wishlist, I'd be way happier than to go get the latest variation of the Saddle bag, or another ultra-boring Chanel thing.

Same thing with Dries, he did his way, never went ultra-luxurious or ultra-pricey, but always/often ultra-desirable.

Fashion is fun, fashion is interesting,
Luxury brands are less fun, some people say it's aspirational, but aspirations to what ?
To look like all the other girlies with mini-kellys, stacks of Cartier bangles and Oran sandals ?
Aspiration to be interchangeable ?

Also, in my opinion, if you can just push a door and pay for luxury items that can be replicated and sold in 400 nearly identical stores worldwide, those are not luxury items or clothings, this is not luxury.

I am just glad people like Simon still have the opportunity to avoid this system and have some success in a different way.

 

[alwaysademo]

^ Thank you for this post.

I re-read the Ghesquiere's Vogue interview posted in his thread yesterday and in it he said "fashion used to be for weird people". I thought about it and I think I actually prefer fashion and our creatives that way. It feels so crowded now. I remember my first interactions with fashion and how special that felt, which was and is what i always mean when I use the word luxury. now it's so thrown around and freely applied. Of course it has something to do with a price tag which does ensure to a degree that not everyone can have it, and there's a nice adrenaline rush in being able to afford something exceptionally well made.. but it was way more than that. less people should know about/ understand it (if not its mere existence then what makes it special in the first place).

You touched on Dries and I remember being most vividly struck by him around 2008 when every top editor wore him but quite a few at that point even knew about him. His work felt luxurious then, almost Alaia-like in the 80's who placed his inner circle above public knowledge and consistently rejected the corporate mentality ubiquitous, synonymous with fashion now.
The point is that the few who had their clothes made by him must've felt so proud to have those pieces.
Or even Guy Bourdin who suffered socially to preserve his idiosyncracies, got his cameras confiscated often but still turned down his lifetime award which was such a chic gesture..
If something is honestly made, and resonate with someone who understands its specificity, it already feels more luxurious than anything approved by a board of suits.

I don't know why I'm rambling along your post but I've been thinking a bit about these things. I think "weird people" made fashion better.

 

[NoInvite]

-He (or his team) managed to create buzz around him as candidate for Chanel
(Did he do the same for LV mens with a selfie inside an elevator? Or was it for another house?)

Its not even a new job and he manages to create engagement. This guy knows how to make an empty buzz. Simon Porte Jacquemus Has A New Job, But What Is It?

 

[blueorchid]

Okay, I STILL don't think he's not as attractive as people keep alleging, but the #newjob did make me laugh!! I hadn't seen that before.

 

[LadyJunon]

The core difference between luxury and high-fashion is luxury looks back (founder's myth, craftmanship), while high-fashion looks forward (innovation, creativity). Of course, there is a lot of crossover and brands shift back and forth over time. I'll argue that luxury and high-fashion exist in a sort of Venn diagram like this:

The issue is that it's easier to judge an item for its material value than for its conceptual value, so the more material appeal of luxury has somewhat swallowed the more abstract values of high fashion, leading for audiences to believe that every brand with a runway show and a premium price point is a luxury brand.

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

The core difference between luxury and high-fashion is luxury looks back (founder's myth, craftmanship), while high-fashion looks forward (innovation, creativity). Of course, there is a lot of crossover and brands shift back and forth over time. I'll argue that luxury and high-fashion exist in a sort of Venn diagram like this:
View attachment 1325626
The issue is that it's easier to judge an item for its material value than for its conceptual value, so the more material appeal of luxury has somewhat swallowed the more abstract values of high fashion, leading for audiences to believe that every brand with a runway show and a premium price point is a luxury brand.

I agree totally with what you wrote.
The diagram is also how I see it, except that I would change almost all the names! 🥳

For me, under Luxury are all the brands... that are not discussed in The Fashion Spot 🤣
Hermès, Zilli, Brunello Cuccinelli, Loro Piana... Part of the DNA of true luxury is not to be controversial. It's almost secret.

High Fashion are the ones that bring something new to the art of covering naked bodies. They make you admire them or they leave you thinking.
Comme des Garçons, Yohji, Margiela, Dries, Viktor and Rolf...

And then there is the intersection of the two: heritage houses with mostly a couture or leather goods DNA (and usually doing both)
Here you have the Chanel, Dior, Loewe, Balenciaga, Gucci, Prada...
The difficulty here lies in keeping a balance between the sense of exclusivity and excellence (conservative values) and the looking-forwardness inherent to fashion (revolutionary value).
In the last ten years, most of them failed at doing that.
Paradigmatic of destruction of the mystique of a house is the case of Dior.
On the luxury side, news about sweatshops in the Toscana making the bags for a tiny fraction of the retail price.
On the fashion side, the most boring fashion shows that one can remember.
Props to them for still doing money after anihilating Dior's aura.

And then you have many RTW brands (not intending to sound derogatory, I prefer Ami over Zilli).

 

[Phuel]

I don't think all fashion brands have to be luxurious at-all. They have to be well-made of course, but more importantly to resonate with their customers, not necessarily all the customers.
Kenzo was never intended to be a luxurious RTW, Sonya Rykiel neither, Agnes B neither, but they were all very loved by their customers and also influential during their times and decades later. They were imho more legitimate in RTW than prestigious Couture houses, where RTW was just a declination of the couture.
Honestly I see a lot of Agnes B. ethos in APC, Lemaire, AMI, and they are all legitimate in fashion and RTW. They don't have to try to be luxurious.

Even though I dislike his clothes Jacquemus has HIS customers, does his buzz, he's doing it his way, his shows, his shops, his fun instagram. That's imho much more commendable than 90% of mercenary CDs. If my nieces or girlfriends had a quirky Jacquemus bag on their Christmas wishlist, I'd be way happier than to go get the latest variation of the Saddle bag, or another ultra-boring Chanel thing.

Same thing with Dries, he did his way, never went ultra-luxurious or ultra-pricey, but always/often ultra-desirable.

Fashion is fun, fashion is interesting,
Luxury brands are less fun, some people say it's aspirational, but aspirations to what ?
To look like all the other girlies with mini-kellys, stacks of Cartier bangles and Oran sandals ?
Aspiration to be interchangeable ?

Also, in my opinion, if you can just push a door and pay for luxury items that can be replicated and sold in 400 nearly identical stores worldwide, those are not luxury items or clothings, this is not luxury.

I am just glad people like Simon still have the opportunity to avoid this system and have some success in a different way.

That individual you’re describing fits someone like Anthony Vaccarello more appropriately— minus the Kering money supporting the branding, of course.

This guy is more like the impact Alexander Wang had in the late-2000s, down to the arrogant attitude and flexing. And in terms of influence, he’s more like Virgil: Extremely limited in talent and offerings of mediocre quality. But the powerful reach on social to a young customer that translates so successfully in retail is undeniable.

Frankly, it’s all good— these are the dire days, and even more direr fashion days and he is the symbol of that fastfashion mediocrity (down to his supposed "good looks") with not a hint of improvement. Just that someone so mediocre in every way that he may was well be the “human” representation of AI-generated design and branding, is even possible consideration for Chanel, is where I have to start drawing the line.

 

[Irere]

The core difference between luxury and high-fashion is luxury looks back (founder's myth, craftmanship), while high-fashion looks forward (innovation, creativity). Of course, there is a lot of crossover and brands shift back and forth over time. I'll argue that luxury and high-fashion exist in a sort of Venn diagram like this:
View attachment 1325626

I absolutely agree with your concept of luxury vs. high fashion; for me, I disagree with which brands are falling where. Tom Ford and the current, pre-Burton Givenchy – just luxury. Jacquemus? The same. That's nowhere near high fashion; he's the French equivalent of overpriced Anthropologie. I'd put Miu Miu in the middle amygdaloid, along with Chloé and probably Bottega Veneta. A good case can also be made for moving Louis Vuitton (at least the women's, not that Pharrell crap) there, too. And I'd move Maison Margiela into the purely high fashion section as no one buys the product for the quality of the materials.

More candidates —

LUXURY:
• Boss
• Burberry
• Carolina Herrera
• Dolce & Gabbana
• Etro
• Ferragamo
• Loro Piana
• Michael Kors
• Missoni
• Oscar de la Renta
• Tod's
• Versace

BOTH:
• Schiaparelli
• Thom Browne

HIGH FASHION:
• Comme des Garçons
• Issey Miyake
• JW Anderson
• Moschino
• Mugler
• Rick Owens
• Vivienne Westwood
• Yohji Yamamoto

 

[Salvatore]

I think we need an extra category if we are going to be accurate and that could be something that is just « Fashion ». That's where I'd put the likes of Missoni (although Grazioli was moving into High Fashion), Etro, Michael Kors, Boss, Jacquemus, etc. High fashion or even High Design, in my opinion, gives high creativity and ideals that one may or may not be able to wear. It's been actually designed and engineered in a way.