Vogue Paris September 2014 : Natalia Vodianova by Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott

[VogueGirl8910]

^This pic is from 2008.

 

[nudeunderwater]

^This pic is from 2008.

Oh, my bad! Strange how there's another editorial in this issue named "Bijoux".

 

[MON]

Why on earth would they feature a Raquel M&M editorial and not have her for the cover. Why on earth would they feature Natalia on the cover and not have an editorial or a feature about her...

Weird... Maybe they had to reshoot to feature the LV cover

 

[2ou3choses]

Oh, my bad! Strange how there's another editorial in this issue named "Bijoux".

Sorry for the confusion! Bijoux = jewelry and is just the general name for that section of the magazine. The editorial titles are in quotes underneath.

 

[2ou3choses]

Mert & Marcus ed:



my snaps

 

[2ou3choses]

Glen Luchford editorial (oops only 12 pages



Maybe someone can ID the model?

my snaps

 

[Egoiste]

To be fair, even Raquel's editorial doesn't exit me, just few shots...

 

[Dieselmax]

Glen Luchford editorial (oops only 12 pages

Maybe someone can ID the model?

my snaps

Amanda Wellsh

 

[miguelalmeida]

Never thought ever in my life that it would be made a Vogue Paris September Issue that doesn't excite me at all!
Raquel and Amanda's eds are good but come on.... it's for the SEPTEMBER Issue... plus Natalia having 0 editorials.......... are you serious?! What's wrong with Emmanuelle?

 

[kokobombon]

I've got a feeling that not even Raquel is going to save this issue from being a very lacklustre one...

 

[lelaid]

Raquel is the star of the issue. In an idea world where you can't buy covers, she should have gotten it.

 

[KKnardi]

So disappointed that Natalia's not even featured in the issue

 

[Melancholybaby]

^On the contrary, I'm disappointed Raquel didn't get the cover. Two 16-page OG editorials back to back and they give the cover to Natalia because of her connection to Louis Vuitton.

 

[la veronika]

I want to see Natalia's ed.

 

[KKnardi]

^On the contrary, I'm disappointed Raquel didn't get the cover. Two 16-page OG editorials back to back and they give the cover to Natalia because of her connection to Louis Vuitton.

yeah, but since she's on the cover she should've had at least a short feature. although the LV connection is just too obvious

 

[DutchHomme]

Maybe Natalia´s cover photo is a outtake from her Vogue Russia September 2010 shoot by Mert & Marcus because everythings looks exactly the same.
I'm 99% sure it's a photo from that Vogue Russia shoot.

 

[la veronika]

Haha' it's not of course, but yeah' it is similar.

 

[Gabriel29]

So let me get this straight, Raquel has been used in VP consistently for over a decade, shot the main M&M ed this issue, and STILL did not get a cover?! Yet Natalia has no ed, has been used on the cover before, and was thrown on it for her LV connections. Great. This would have been THE time to give Raquel her September VP cover!! Damn you Alt.

 

[kokobombon]

Maybe Natalia´s cover photo is a outtake from her Vogue Russia September 2010 shoot by Mert & Marcus because everythings looks exactly the same.
I'm 99% sure it's a photo from that Vogue Russia shoot.

Only if they photoshoped that Vuitton on her... but nowadays who knows? it´s possible

 

[KateTheGreatest]

August issue with Anna Ewers was stronger than this one, that one should've been for September.
Like most of you, I too do not get at all why Raquel did not get the cover, this makes zero sense to me. I already hate the fact that the cover looks like Vogue Russia 2010 but they did not give Natalia an editorial? Emmanuelle could've also given Natalia the editorial (since she's also on the cover) and I still have hope that maybe Raquel will be on the cover next month, she loves her enough to give her editorials, hopefully she'll also give her a cover.