I never wear Theory, and I hated Theyskens at Nina Ricci, so it isn't for the name "Theyskens". Women's clothes are seldom as well-tailored and finished as menswear as there are a millions ways to hide and distract with embellishment, fancy cutting techniques, etc. Theory's own tailored looks are nothing to write home about. I have always looked for classics, simple in design but extraordinary in the cut, technique and finish, and very few have delivered. I guess not everyone can see the cut technique in the "slouch", the flow and movement of these pieces even as they maintain an impeccable finish, falling beautifully on the body yet *not* tailored close to it, thus maintaining an ease not found in most tailored ensembles. I don't want the stiffness of a man's suit, but few designers have sent out the feminine equivalent, a very flattering long, lean, bespoke silhouette and yes, the ethereal quality is there, and not overdone with the frou, watery, "wood nymph" themes like in Nina Ricci, as he had to deliver a "wow" factor. He was far more successful at Rochas because he was able to show his extraordinary cut and tailoring talent in the quieter looks. I have a softly volumed grey winter Nina Ricci jacket that is like a gently puffed "perfecto" that unzips into a tulip collar, it is completely simple yet marvelous in how it is achieved. You really need an eye to see the difference between this and a Ralph Lauren or even Calvin Klein and McQueen, who adapt men's tailoring for their suits and jackets for women, but Theyskens innovated his tailoring for this particular effect. So in a way yes, I love how "Theyskens" this is, but not in the name, but in the uniqueness of his *impeccable* tailoring inventions that produce an unmistakable look, a look that is *not* Theory.