Is anyone else having trouble finding any of the other covers except the Jansson one. I want the I&V cover and I can’t find it anywhere!!
Same here, and the Jansson cover is actually the worst. I'd have liked the Hawkesworth one but I've not seen it anywhere which is ridiculous when you're supposedly running multi covers. Sadly, the digital version also comes with Jansson's cover. I'm hoping NI will have the Hawkesworth cover as I'll be there next week.
The highlights of the issue are really then entire written content in the supplement, from Jane's unfiltered interview to some witty bits from Adjani and Jennifer Saunders. The supplement, I must say, is extremely well edited. It's like a small little world where only older women exist, and everything caters exclusively to them. I do still feel the idea that it had to be separate is unnecessary and telling because much of the insights and content actually transcends age. But oh well.
What intrigued me in the main issue, which btw bears zero relevance to the supplement as I suspected, was Emilia Wickstead's edit. I'm a bit torn however because while the styling and photography looked stunning and I liked the idea at its core, I do wish Vogue would've just ended with 'Wickstead wanted to show her collection on women who inspired her'...point. None of that 'she's showing her clothes on 'REAL' women. As opposed to whom? Models? Who is apparently not considered 'real'? As if we haven't had enough of that under Alexandra. I'm not against lesser-knowns or celebrities being used to showcase fashion just to underscore how different or accessible it may look because it's happening more often in mainstream/niche titles across the board. And many get it right. But to implicitly state that you're showing the clothes on 'real' women? Readers are clever enough to get your memo!
Plus, as is the norm nowadays, the editor's letter normally gets released before the issue hit the newsstands and I thought the nauseating fanboying over Kate Moss was only for the website, but it wasn't. It actually appears like that inside the magazine, which is a bit like selling the rest of the great content in the issue short.
The fashion content is where EE excels and I think, as usual, it's pretty much up to his standard. One of his legacies will always be prestige. The ability to book a top model like Grace Elizabeth or Paloma Elsesser, shot by someone like Richard Burbridge, for your front of the book, for instance. Sure Alt and Farneti also do that, but they certainly cannot afford it for every issue, whereas he can.
The I&V and Jansson shoots with Kate almost look identical on snap judgement, and to make things worse, Hawkesworth also went b&w - so that's almost 3 full b&w cover edits. It again just harks back too much to Alexandra's Vogue, which is obviously by chance. I thought the styling on Imaan looked great, but the photography very H&M catalogue. Particularly liked Venetia Scott's edit. Venetia really pushed herself ever since she stated at British Vogue, both in terms of styling and photography.
There are still some editing hiccups which he needs to look at. For starters, I don't think it's wise to nestle such a deep story on domestic abuse between a party page and a shopping edit. He did that with Adwoa's columns as well. It makes the entire effort very fluffy and inconsequential when it isnt. Why not before or after the Wickstead story in the main section, which is guaranteed to strike much more of a chord? Plus the sequence of the Front is bothersome. Style edit > Jewellery Story > Culture/Lifestyle > Party shots > the domestic abuse story > Shopping/Beauty edit > and then the main content starts. Very jumbled! There are reasons why some magazines are laid out a certain way. It's all about setting a mood.
