Weinstein buys Halston and hires Rachel Zoe

Tamara Mellon has some business sense. She's turned down numerous fragrance deals for Jimmy Choo, so I am sure she isn't in this just for the money. I wonder why she'd choose to go into clothing though, seeing that her own taste is awfully derivative.

One possible contender for the position of creative director at the house of Halson is [drum rolls] Rachel Zoe, a close collaborator with both Mellon (styles Jimmy Choo campaigns) and Weinstein (styles the Marchesa show and some of his actresses, I'm sure), who has been vocal about her desire to eventually be at the helm of a label that stands for her love of the 70's glamour.
 
WhiteLinen said:
I don't like any of the houses you listed, I simply think they have a lot of reputation because of their status and logo, not because they make good clothes. In my ideal world, when a designer retires or dies, his/her fashion house/brand should go with him/her. If we think of a fashion designer as an artist, then why would there be anything to justify that after he/she is gone, someone else uses his/her name to create something? Why isn't Picasso or Van Gogh still working then? Of course we can now get into the discussion about is fashion design an art form, but as I said, this is only how I think. I think of fashion design as an art form, and it is inappropriate to take someone's name and work and pretend you are the creator of it. That's just how I think. I realise it might not be the most business-wise way to think, but that's how I think. You might not think to same way, and I am fine with that.

Besides, the awful crap called Halston of today does no justice to Halston's work IMO.

Whether you like the houses i listed or not, it's irrelevant. I think your romantic idea of houses dying with the creator is out-dated. Of course it's impossible to emulate what the original designer would have been doing with their label now if they were alive. I am not saying that the house of Givenchy, for example, has been a success - far from it after Julien MacDonald and Alexander McQueen has been through its doors, it's the most schizophrenic label ever. And now with Tisci, there is no reverence to the history of the label. But I appreciate Ghesquiere & Galliano taking old labels and creating something that is relevant for today, of course they have their off days as well.
 
But why couldn't they create their own labels? Of course, it's easier financially to take someone famous place, but still, from an idealistic point of view? Why couldn't there be Riccardo Tisci instead of Givenchy, why couldn't there be Ghesquière instead of Balenciaga? Cristóbal is dead and Hubert has been long retired. Tisci and Ghesquière are young and working.
 
From a business stand-point, it is much easier to revive a house than to start a new one in my honest opinion. This is because many already have their own ideas associated with particular houses and they connect with it so to speak rather than a new designer. I don't agree about houses dying with designer because it's supposed to be art. Yes, fashion allows for artistic expression, but in the end.....it's a business trying to sell goods.
 
Salvatore said:
From a business stand-point, it is much easier to revive a house than to start a new one in my honest opinion. This is because many already have their own ideas associated with particular houses and they connect with it so to speak rather than a new designer. I don't agree about houses dying with designer because it's supposed to be art. Yes, fashion allows for artistic expression, but in the end.....it's a business trying to sell goods.

I said it was financially easier. Don't you think there would be more new energy and inspiration if there would be new labels instead of old labels. Fashion is supposed to represent short periods of time.
 
How unfortunate, I truly love Halston and appreciate his stunning simplicity and I just think noone can reproduce his...ease...His lack of effort is what made his clothes breathtaking

I already know what this is gonna be, empire waist goddess dresses to match Jimmy Choo's shoes...Im already disappointed.
 
Halston is not a name I've ever been into, but my curiousity is piqued because I know the awful that the Weinstein-Mellon team can do, and I'd like to embitter myself further by getting more familiar with the name they'll corrupt. :P Unfortunately, I was deathly afraid to search "Halston dress" for fear of getting shrouded in Billy Joel lyrics (scroll past the ad), so I'm mostly reserving judgement on the original...

Diorling said:
I already know what this is gonna be, empire waist goddess dresses to match Jimmy Choo's shoes...Im already disappointed.
See, I wouldn't expect much else, vintage Halson expert or otherwise...
 
WhiteLinen said:
I don't like any of the houses you listed, I simply think they have a lot of reputation because of their status and logo, not because they make good clothes. In my ideal world, when a designer retires or dies, his/her fashion house/brand should go with him/her. If we think of a fashion designer as an artist, then why would there be anything to justify that after he/she is gone, someone else uses his/her name to create something? Why isn't Picasso or Van Gogh still working then? Of course we can now get into the discussion about is fashion design an art form, but as I said, this is only how I think. I think of fashion design as an art form, and it is inappropriate to take someone's name and work and pretend you are the creator of it. That's just how I think. I realise it might not be the most business-wise way to think, but that's how I think. You might not think to same way, and I am fine with that.

Besides, the awful crap called Halston of today does no justice to Halston's work IMO.

interesting view... i kinda agree with you when u say that fashion is another way of art and when the designers dies/retires the art goes with him... but sometimes designers choose successors who they think will better represent then, their brands, their art and their lifestyle
 
csmboy said:
please elaborate.....
hubert de givenchy is not dead sweetie... :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
interesting view... i kinda agree with you when u say that fashion is another way of art and when the designers dies/retires the art goes with him... but sometimes designers choose successors who they think will better represent then, their brands, their art and their lifestyle

Yes, sometimes. But many times the designer's company might be owned by others (usually talented businessmen), so when the designer decides to retire... well, if some businessmen own 60 % of your company, they want to do money with it, and hire someone else to "continue your work". If the designer himself/herself decides she/he wants someone to continue his label, I think he/she is after money... can't blame them though.
 
WhiteLinen said:
I said it was financially easier. Don't you think there would be more new energy and inspiration if there would be new labels instead of old labels. Fashion is supposed to represent short periods of time.

Yes fashion is helps to define a moment in time, but I think it's wonderful when a house can evolve to coincide with the short periods time while still hopefully maintaining the spirit of the house.
 
The whole concept of a 'house' is intellectually bankrupt but financially feasible. Nothing interesting comes out of fashion designers pretending to be other fashion designers: Godard pretending to be Hawks was a witty masterpiece, Harvey 'Lucifer' Weinstein's minions pretending to be Halston will also be joke but not in the 'ha ha' sense.
 
it's no secret that Rachel Zoe is a close friend of the Weinstein clan. Consider her open desire to design for a major "fashion-house" (I believe that is how she said it in an issue of Elle) and the fact that she collects vintage Halston and it seems pretty likely that she could be behind this. It will certainly be VERY literal, or at least what Rachel Zoe thinks Halston should be all about... studio 54 goddess dresses, snake motifs, leopard, sequins, etc
 
LibertyRose said:
One possible contender for the position of creative director at the house of Halson is [drum rolls] Rachel Zoe, a close collaborator with both Mellon (styles Jimmy Choo campaigns) and Weinstein (styles the Marchesa show and some of his actresses, I'm sure), who has been vocal about her desire to eventually be at the helm of a label that stands for her love of the 70's glamour.

:shock: :ninja:
if tamara mellon designing is bad, rachel zoe is worse...
but i have a feeling she's only moments away from a clothing line...

more on this from today's wwd...

The new Weinstein venture is separate from Marchesa, and designers Georgina Chapman, Weinstein's girlfriend, and Keren Craig will continue to design that line. Marchesa's investors include restaurateur Giuseppe Cipriani and real estate entrepreneur Steven Witkoff, and purportedly Weinstein himself. According to the movie executive, Chapman and her design partner Craig are not selling Marchesa, and though there is interest in the brand from prospective buyers, they would, if anything, only consider selling a small stake. "They're English, like Tamara," Weinstein said. "They are not giving up their independence."

And Weinstein wanted to set the record straight about Chapman specifically. "Georgina has no desire to leave Marchesa at all, which is a brand she does with Keren," he said. "And secondly, she said that I am the last person she would work for."

But Weinstein insisted his interest in fashion predates his involvement with Marchesa. "The idea of a brand came to me long before Marchesa," he said. "When I first raised $1.2 billion in financing for our company, I told everybody that Arnon Milchan had bought a substantial stake in Puma, and that was my inspiration. I said, 'We need to find something we can put our content through.' They sold their shares, built the company and made a substantial profit in helping Puma grow. In Halston, we found that brand that relates to the kind of movies that we make."

Weinstein even plans to turn the Halston story into a documentary. "I find his life incredible," he said of the designer, who died in 1990. "I don't think people know the extent of how talented and way ahead of his time he was and there is great drama on the business of the story, too, and a lesson about how people lose things."

Private equity firm Hilco Consumer Capital will lead the group of investors in the acquisition, and oversee the day-to-day operations until a team of executives is assembled. The investment group is putting together an advisory board of top business and fashion executives to find a chief executive officer and lead designer, as well as a creative team for the newly created Halston Co.

Mellon bought Jimmy Choo in the Nineties, and with her creative acumen and nose for business transformed it into one of the hottest footwear and accessories companies, gathering a celebrity following and opening stores worldwide. She then sold the company to a private equity fund, but maintained a stake. She will continue in her role as founder and president of Jimmy Choo. "On the last private equity deal, I reinvested heavily back into the business, with a plan to exit it in five years," she said. "I am very committed to Choo and also acting as an adviser to Halston, overseeing management structure and the creative vision going forward."

Mellon met Weinstein through mutual friends about five years ago, and brought the brand to the movie mogul's attention. Mellon said she felt attracted to Halston because "the history of the brand is so incredible. He was one of the greatest American designers of the last century. His clothes are still modern today. And everything that surrounded his life was so glamorous. You had Bianca Jagger at Studio 54 with his one-shoulder asymmetric gowns, and Liza Minnelli and Andy Warhol.

"We plan to really respect the DNA of the brand and bring it forward," she continued. "That's really where everybody has gone wrong with Halston over the years."

Since its namesake designer died, the Halston story has been one of turbulence. The brand was relaunched in 1997, and bought by Ammeen from Heller Financial in 1999. Since the relaunch, it has had a revolving door of designers who tried to put their imprint on the brand, but often got more ink in the tabloids with reports of staff abuse, alcohol problems, botched plastic surgery and dramatic departures. Randolph Duke, Kevan Hall, Craig Natiello and Piyawat Pattanapuckdee each passed through Halston's threshold. It took Bradley Bayou, who joined in December 2002, to stabilize the image of the brand, dressing the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Queen Latifah, Debra Messing, Janet Jackson and Eve. Most recently, Chaiken designer Jeff Mahshie is said to have quietly been consulting on the line.

"It had an illustrious past, and it went through some change and turmoil in the Nineties," said Ammeen. "I was able to get my hands on it and slowed it down, and eliminated a lot of licensees several years ago and nursed the brand. We made it smaller to someday make it bigger. We quietly took it back to a luxury status and all of a sudden people started becoming interested."

The label is currently sold at Bergdorf Goodman, and has been picked up at Jeffrey New York this spring. Ammeen wouldn't disclose the selling price for Halston, but said, "They made me a terrific offer."

"I felt this partnership would be a powerful one," he continued. "There will be a new Halston with a partnership made up of people that can bring something to the brand, from the point of view of financing, visibility, style sense and brand management. All the things you need to be successful."
 
DuTTyRoCK112 said:
or at least what Rachel Zoe thinks Halston should be all about... studio 54 goddess dresses, snake motifs, leopard, sequins, etc

My goodness this made me laugh so hard. It' so true.


On the subject of famous houses being revived I think you all should be careful of the context and the conditions when you assess a particular brand's status.

Some famous names concede design directorship willingly which was in fact the case with Givenchy, Issey Miyake, and Yves St. Laurent. St.Laurent hand picked Alber Elbaz (although that didn't turn out well, thanks Tom) and from what I understand Givenchy has had court with Tisci and approves of him. And some houses, even the big ones, operated in a manner that would make it appropriate if the namesake is no longer designing. The biggest example I can think of is when Dior died and Yves St. Laurent took over. He had already been designing most of the main collection so it wasn't that much of a leap.

But then you have cases like Balenciaga where not only did the designer die but he closed his house before he did so. In situations like this I would find it slightly in bad taste that the house be brought back. But then again, what happens to houses when they are no longer in business? You forget about them. Thank god Ghesquire is at Balenciaga so the original master's work doesn't fade into obscure history. Look at Poiret, Lelong, Schiaparelli, and even Halston, no one really knows who they were or the great things they did. There is a certain value in keeping a name and tradition going even if the ties are loose. And it's not as if Ghesquire were lazily attending his post, he's about as innovative and influential as Cristobal was in his time (although now that's open to debate).

There's nothing wrong with giving a talented designer a house, a history, an atelier, and financial backing to make beautiful things with. Good for Alber at Lanvin and Theyskens at Nina Ricci. But god only knows what monstrosities *ahem* uhh....creations will come out of this Halston deal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,623
Messages
15,191,758
Members
86,536
Latest member
blue1819
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->