Tatler September 2018 : Cindy Crawford by Yu Tsai

[vogue28]

 

[mikel]

Not a bad cover at all. I quite like the styling.

 

[Benn98]

Still mad about their art direction, but the styling is too much for her. Lol. Yes, it looks like your typical HF moneyed equestrian, but you'd never think this woman was once one of fashion's most in-demand models.

I'm more intrigued at the bombastic blurb. 'Richard Dennen's fashion-packed September issue.' They're really bargaining the success of this magazine on Dennen's name.

 

[MON]

Reminds me of her Vogue Turkey cover. Nothing special.

Ha! Benn! Cringed with the caption also. It’s not Tatler’s Fashion Packed issue, its Dennen’s.

I’m buying this issue, and if the fashion is terribly, it’s definitely the fault of Dennen’s taste (as the caption would suggest).

 

[Benn98]

I’m buying this issue, and if the fashion is terribly, it’s definitely the fault of Dennen’s taste (as the caption would suggest).

Now there's a way of looking at it!

It seems we've finally found the magazine EIC equivalent of Hedi Slimane.

 

[tigerrouge]

When I see her name in a magazine thread, my heart still skips a beat, because I remember back when I was crazy about her. This isn't bad by modern-day Cindy standards - but I'm glad I subscribe, because I might not be convinced by this particular cover shot to spend £4+ on it at the newsstand.

 

[333101]

Better than her Vogue Turkey cover, but that's not saying a lot. She just looks uncomfortable in that get up.

 

[VogueGirl8910]

The cover is ok, but what happen of her left eye , the photoshot it doesn't work.

 

[mepps]

Supermodel Cindy Crawford is still not shining through,
but it's not the worst cover she's ever done.
I just don't understand, how the woman I watch at 3am in those 'Meaningful Beauty' infomercials
looks so good, but when she's doing an editorial she comes across as some random Real Housewife of New Jersey.

 

[samoanceleb]

Supermodel Cindy Crawford is still not shining through,
but it's not the worst cover she's ever done.
I just don't understand, how the woman I watch at 3am in those 'Meaningful Beauty' infomercials
looks so good, but when she's doing an editorial she comes across as some random Real Housewife of New Jersey.

So true ... maybe she is like Tyra and has to try to "not model" so she can look less contrived and dated in editorials.

 

[Bertrando3]

So true ... maybe she is like Tyra and has to try to "not model" so she can look less contrived and dated in editorials.

I love and I admire Cindy, she is one of the very best best best stars of the modeling industry in history. However all her covers when she returned to modeling after having her kids are very underwhelming. She used to be SO freaking good, the poses, the hair, the power in the eyes. Now it´s so safe, boring and she always looks uncomfortable. I am always hoping to see something amazing everytime I open a post here with her name but then it´s very boring. Her posture in the cover shoots is always tentative and not super powerful and confident as she used to.

I have to disagree Tyra always manages to look super fierce, that´s her brand. Cindy´s brand was to be the All-american supermodel and always smiling and commercial yet she did big jobs, covers, shows but was not in the same league as Linda and Christy in terms of prestige. I remember watching ALL the fashion shows from the 90´s and remember collecting the covers of the big 6 + watching their interviews on TV, on YouTube + seeing how each of them had their favorite photographers, magazine covers, and editors who supported them. For me, all the supers had and still have the same aura and beauty: Nadja, Cindy, Claudia, Shalom, Amber, Linda, Naomi, Christy, Helena, Stephanie, Tyra, Veronica, Estelle, Tatjana etc. But then they branched out: Naomi is the one who still remains on the scene, Christy and Linda choose wisely their appearances and cover shoots and Cindy and Claudia became super successful moguls launching many businesses just like Tyra and Heidi did after that but with television.

But in terms of ``skills´´ to me at least, Cindy seems to not remember how to give more to the camera as she used to. I´m pretty sure at this stage of her career she has photographs pick and can have a control on what´s published. Heidi has it and is nowhere near what Cindy career has been so I wonder why all her covers are so... lukewarm and sort of `ok´. Is it the photographers? Is it her not willing to give more? Has she forgotten how to model for high fashion? Are the editors thinking of Linda or Naomi in their minds when thinking about this shoots but work with Cindy and therefore do not have the same powerful results? It´s strange because she used to rooooock her covers. My favorite cover of Cindy was Harper's Bazaar Mexico - November 2017. But she did like 20 more covers after that soooo...

 

[Urban Stylin]

She almost looks worried here but i love that she looks natural unlike the other recent cover where they made her look over retouched. I think she's going to kill it in the ed

 

[versustito]

tatler.com

 

[versustito]

 

[mikel]

I like the b/w shot. Reminds me of late 80s Lindbergh.

 

[versustito]

 

[Bertrando3]

This video CLEARLY shows she still has it !!!!!! OMG therefore I blame it on the team who chose these recent covers of her.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I will always alway always maintain that it’s these weak, timid teams that are working these dire fashion days that are to be solely blamed for models looking so lost. These are lesser days. Have Peter shoot Cindy and I’m certain the results will be hugely superior. And bring in Fabien for the editorial concept/ cover select, and the final production will be stunning.

Even the layout is atrocious— like one of those desktop published rags where they’re using Word, and have no experience nor understanding of the different weights of typefaces that’s best for a cover layout.

 

[tigerrouge]

I have my subscription issue, and September isn't really a big issue for Tatler, because it's the same size as nearly every month - save December, which is bumped up by the multi-page guides devoted to expensive present-buying.

So it's 174 pages, and Cindy doesn't look as bad in print as the scans suggested. The cover story is about a 'return to glamour'... well, maybe if you're at a showbiz funeral. Shortly after this, there's a far superior portfolio of 'bright young things', another fashion editorial that's down at the farm, and an interview with the Countess of Derby and her working relationship with the couturier Ulrich Engler.

Elsewhere... ads are the typical higher-end ones, Ralph Lauren, Chanel etc, but not that many of them before the advertising fades into generic jewellery campaigns.

The further I flicked through this issue, the more I liked it - it's lively - but there's no way I'd pay newsstand price for it. If people want a few snaps, I could do it tomorrow when the light's better.

 

[tigerrouge]

Here's my shoddy snaps, but at least it'll give you an idea of what the content looks like...