H&M, a Brand on the Turn?

I recently made an excellent purchase. The item in question is a slate grey linen jacket and the store I purchased the item from was none other than H&M. Forgive if you will the childish abruptness of the preceding sentences, but the simple truth of the matter is, I am still exhibiting signs of surprise. A year ago, even in the mighty sprawl of London, I doubt I could have made such a purchase in that veritable Swedish temple of disposable fashion. Blazers were an occasional option, but even in the vastness of central London branches, H&M seemed to be at odds with my tastes.

The occasional belt or pair of shorts were purchased and I remember a couple of knitwear items, but largely, as I have matured; a maturation that has galvanized my appreciation for a well-cut jacket and smart pair of trousers, I have drifted across the threshold very few times. The ‘direction’ of the store seemed to be youth focused; ghastly printed t-shirts, trucker caps and the like. The sort of thing you might find abandoned in a grisly backstreet in Bangkok. I never expected to find anything of value there and I certainly did not expect a sudden Zara-esque transformation into a store that sartorially curious young bucks in their mid-twenties might be interested in.

There were the occasional signs; a few smart items at the shop on Brompton Road rekindled my interest, but the seminal occasion was the opening of the giant Regent Street flagship: a three storey monster in the old Dickens & Jones building. Airy, fresh and generally uncrowded, the new shop is a bright change from the claustrophobic and frustrating atmosphere of the soon-to-be-redundant ‘corner shop’ branch on the Circus. The womenswear, as one passes through, is recognisable and typically H&M; colourful and occasionally stylish. There is one significant difference though; the space and order. H&M seem to have learned that, though they are a formidable retailer, they can learn from their enemies (read: Inditex Group). Fewer items weighed down the racks, there were more assistants on hand to help and there was less of the clothing carnage I normally associate with an afternoon visit to a high street store.

As I ascended in the shiny escalators I groaned as I saw the content of the floor I was rising to. I saw skirts, blouses and handbags – the men’s section, I rationalised, was likely to be a tiny and pitiful selection of jeans and t-shirts in a dull corner of this vast building. Not so. In fact, the men’s section was much larger than I imagined and in far the better area of the floor, near to the windows overlooking Regent Street. I was shocked at what I saw. A large wooden till dominated the area; oriental carpets were scattered over the appealing stone floor. Carefully positioned spotlights highlighted the best aspects of garments and large, heavy wooden cheval mirrors were perched next to burnished leather bucket chairs and appealingly sparse racks.

However, this was no mere window-dressing, for the clothes had changed too. There was an abundance of stylish jackets, all made from natural materials, with classic finishing. Shirts were simple and stylish and a great wad of silk ties, in conservative and pleasant patterns, were arranged on a central table next to the exciting and blissfully economical pocket squares. Away from the hush of this area, you can find the usual H&M male collection; all denim, t-shirts and flip flops but now, fortunately, this is not all H&M has to offer. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come. This London ‘exhibition’ bodes well for the future of the brand in Europe and around the world. Of course, H&M will always have its critics; those who chuckle at the disposability and quality of the garments, although I must admit, I saw little evidence in the new menswear department to evidence the latter. If this creativity and dedication continues, H&M will only gather more admirers and we will be spoilt for choice as the modern ‘high street formula’ in menswear continues to aid the sickened and fashion conscious in times of economic woe.

Leave a Comment

New York Menswear Trends

Two recent announcements by some big retail names in New York are shedding light on the ever changing landscape of the menswear market.

Polo Ralph Lauren recently stated that that the landmark Rhinelander Mansion on Madison Avenue will be converted to a men’s only concept store.

Across the street at 888 Madison Avenue, the company will construct a new flagship store to consolidate the women’s and home collections. The company has said that the new flagship store across the street “will complement the Mansion and really make a big statement on 72nd and Madison.”

That they will build another flagship and create a matched set of buildings is fairly impressive, but to me the big news is that the Mansion will be solely dedicated to Ralph Lauren’s entire men’s line. The planned reopening of the all men’s Mansion is in the fall of 2009.

Since it’s opening in 1986, this landmark has always been about classic men’s lifestyle as far as I’m concerned. As the first stand-alone store totally dedicated to the world of Ralph Lauren, the 110 year-old Mansion became the very symbol of Polo and an elegant backdrop for Ralph’s world.

I’ve worked at two of his stores and the Mansion was always something special. We’d always complain about how the staff there could be snooty and a little condescending when we would call about a store transfer or whatnot, but really, we liked them. They had personality. They were New York, they were store number one and they knew it.

If you wanted to see everything in the Polo universe, you went to Madison Avenue. It was the place from which the Polo mythos sprung. Even now with the “flagship” retail concept in full swing, all the Ralph Lauren major anchor stores are laid out like the Mansion – or at least incorporate key elements like its stunning grand staircase laden with faux family oil paintings.

This change in the Ralph Lauren Retail mix is important for two reasons. First, the company is essentially stating that the menswear market is now strong enough to warrant a men’s specific store. Secondly, they feel the trend is significant enough to completely dedicate the original Polo store to the cause. Don’t miss the meaning here; this is big.

Back in the heart of Midtown, Brooks Brothers just announced the planned closure of its Fifth Avenue flagship store in early 2009. Brooks’ president, Claudio Del Vecchio, stated that the company will focus on renovating the Madison Avenue flagship location and make it the heart of the company’s New York presence.

And the reason for this momentous shift in strategy? Del Vechio felt that it did not make sense to have two New York flagship stores, let alone two within walking distance of each other. Additionally, the 666 Fifth Avenue location focused too much on the women’s collection and sportswear. Other New York City locations are being examined for smaller satellite locations, but Madison Avenue will regain its title as king of Brooks Brothers in NYC.

While not as landmark a press release as Ralph Lauren’s, the Brooks Brothers story does reinforce the argument that menswear is reasserting itself in the marketplace. And when it comes to the business of fashion, when New York sneezes, the world catches a cold.

Leave a Comment

GQ Style: An Intelligent, But Not Fashionable Magazine

GQ Style is an intelligent magazine. It contains erudite, original writing and is actually what it’s parent publication claims to be: the magazine with an IQ. It does not, however, live up to its own stated ambitions: to be the definitive guide to men’s fashion.

First, the erudition. Many of the articles in Man Alive, the central section of GQ Style, are headlined badly. But they are better than they appear. For example, “Apocalypse Now: Is it just me or is pop music as we’ve known it over” does not bode well (it is too clichés glued together). Yet Simon Reynolds argues convincingly that there is genuinely less innovation in music today, and then proceeds to prove that this doesn’t matter. That it is simply unrealistic to ever expect innovation to be consistent, and that music will benefit from reusing and reviewing old ideas, injecting a little originality every time.

Reynolds points out: “From dubstep to the new folk, a lot of today’s most rewarding music is based around the durability of tradition and the strength of folk memory. Iconoclasm and innovation have been supplanted by veneration and renovation. Interestingly, both ideas of the role of art were active in the sixties.”

Equally, Michael Bracewell’s take on the rise of modern art is both original and lucid. He argues that the attention now lavished on contemporary artists, and the money they generate, has created an “anxiety of influence”, spurring artists on into fresh avenues of enquiry. Rather than corrupt individuals and convince them that just submitting dirty beds will be good enough, “art has seldom been so well read in its own history and cultural lineage.”

So far, so good. But none of the Man Alive articles concern fashion. Or style for that matter. GQ Style begins with a well-written article by Charlie Porter (which inspired my previous blog on enjoying your fashion cycles while they last). But that’s pretty much it. There are several single pages highlighting individual trends – new length knitwear, spring trenchcoats – but the actual writing or insight is lacking. Indeed, each page resorts to random quotes to try an inject some intelligent comment. David Hockney apparently said: “When is the past present? When did the past end and the present occur, and when does the future start?” All very nice cod philosophy, but I’m buggered if I know what it’s go to do with Prada loafers.

There are a few scattered photo shoots, though disturbingly as many of naked men as there are of clothed ones. There is an interview with Nicolas Ghesquiere of Balenciaga. But that’s your lot, and you’ll have to wait several months for the next issue. It’s hard to subscribe to the idea that this is the definitive guide to men’s fashion.

One of the most enlightening pieces is actually by Tom Ford. But it’s about nakedness, not fashion. And there’s a decent interview with philosopher John Gray, by Will Self no less. But so little on actual clothes.

When will men’s magazines get over their desire to try and be about life, the universe and everything, and actually put something together about style?

(For those new to this column, this is part of a continuing search for a publication that covers men’s style intelligently and with the breadth of many women’s magazines. And no, for regular readers, I haven’t got to Borders for Fantastic Man yet. I am excited though.)

Leave a Comment

The Real Power Tie

Do you remember the Ronald Reagan era; “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall…” and his many other quotable quotes? His speeches, excellent examples of wording, timing and the deft use of humor, are still studied by prospective politicians. And as a former actor, Reagan also understood the power of wardrobe and presentation.

Even during his downtime at the ranch, Reagan continued to project the American ideal at its best: the rugged cowboy. Clad in a jean jacket, Stetson and well-worn work gloves, he would pause on his horse just so, allowing the ever present photographer to capture the right image.

There was another, even more fascinating sartorial issue attached to Reagan, the red tie. Reagan himself was not overly devoted to red ties, however when word leaked out that the First Lady’s favorite color was red, guess what happened? Almost overnight, anyone seeking the president’s attention, from journalists to politicians, were sporting red ties. Their female counterparts suddenly discovered red blouses, scarves and jackets in their closets.

It was a fascinating, almost Pavlovian reaction to something never actually confirmed. Still, at a 1985 press conference, Reagan indirectly responded to a Wall Street Journal story that said he often called on reporters wearing red at his news conferences. Reagan, wearing a red tie himself that day, called on 12 reporters wearing red ties or dresses. Six non-red-wearing reporters also were recognized. You be the judge.

I had not thought about presidential ties too much until recently, when I saw the current President Bush and realized that lots of other politicians were wearing his tie. Clearly partial to a particular shade of light blue, Bush’s signature tie, white shirt and dark gray suit have become the presidential look of the moment.

The light blue color, say fashion experts, imbues the wearer with the impression of confidence, decisiveness and trust. It is a color of leadership – but unlike the traditional red power tie – without an overtone of aggression.

In testament to this fact, the candidates vying to replace Bush and even some foreign leaders, frequently sport an almost identical look. Barack Obama regularly wears one on the stump as do John McCain and, occasionally, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It’s interesting that a look so associated with Bush has apparently gained bipartisan presidential status.

Lest you think that all this color coded subliminal messaging is nothing but hot air, consider Vice President Dick Cheney. Never one for elaborate wardrobes, he once wore a ski cap, snow boots and military parka to a formal ceremony observing the liberation of Auschwitz. All the other dignitaries wore suits and topcoats.

When it comes to office wear, Cheney is usually the embodiment of conservativeness, never straying far from red when it comes to ties. But, after a fateful accident in which he accidentally shot a friend while hunting, there he was on TV, explaining himself to a reporter while wearing a pink necktie. Dick Cheney in a pink necktie? It was soft and friendly, it made him seem so, dare I say, vulnerable. Once the issue passed however, so did that tie.

Who knows what will be next. But according to some industry experts, the blue tie has almost run its course. When President Bush leaves the White House, his blue tie will likely lose favor too.

Leave a Comment

Banana Republic, Monogram and the Compromise of “Affordable Luxury”

Banana Republic has always filled me with a mix of hope, despair and dread.

Hope because the cool, crisp, modern, and attractive people in their ads work as intended: they attract. Whether engaged in happy plans in sunlit meeting rooms or harmonizing with contemporary artworks in white box museums, they suggest a happy world of productive teamwork in creative professions and culturally sophisticated socializing.

Despair because the clothing itself makes the ads look like more of a Potemkin village than most clothing ads. Plus sized fits are the second thing that bring me down to earth; BR’s mind may be in Soho, but its body is in Omaha. An American ‘medium’ is sized for the largest group of men who may dream that they fit into it, and the BR standard is no different. The ‘slim fit’ is little better. (Disclaimer: a well fitting garment is, of course, one that well-fits me. I’m about a 39R.) Despair, however, begins even before I try anything on because very often, especially with stripes and patterns, patterns are a little too small, colors a little too muted, and stripes signal “don’t look at me too long, or too much.”

Dread comes in when I take all these signals to mean that BR is not about wanting to dress well as much as the fear of dressing badly. “Please, just don’t make me look like an idiot,” says the modern man to BR, which tailors a Soho dream to order. The BR man’s life is not his own. He is not in charge, like the Brioni man confidently striding out of a limousine or private jet, solo. The BR man’s liberty is severely curtailed, a fate he shares with the sad citizens of the fruit-company controlled Central American nations from which the brand drew its name. In other words, Banana Republic is for me, the Republic of Fear. Once men escape from the work situation that requires BR, they cast it off like a shackle, which is why thrift stores are always full of excellent condition pieces from past seasons.

And yet BR has better taste than almost any other large chain in the United States, so when I learned that they had a more expensive line, “Monogram,” that had just been given its own store, I took a visit. The results were mixed but hopeful enough to give the brand a second look.

The store itself is on a triangular lot where Minetta hits Bleecker and Sixth, in New York’s West Village. While the standard BR interior design mixes white walls with dark wood, Monogram has gray walls with banks of floor to ceiling taupe drapes, which hide among other things, the in-house tailor (a first for BR) and the cash registers. In one alcove bordered by folding screens of mirrors, one can browse coffee table books of Richard Serra sculptures or Capri views while one waits for a fitting room. The staff was beaming: just happy to be there, but also genuinely attentive. They knew this was a plum position, and this was the first day.

The clothes themselves go some way to bring the BR dream of “affordable luxury” into focus. Take the shirts for instance: For half again as much as BR 98 USD, compared to 68, one gets a shirt with a textured stripe of red or blue, with white collar and cuffs. The fabric is genuinely superior, but the fit was perplexing: a chest of over 47 inches and a neck of 16.5, for a medium. A blue blazer (325 USD) had smart, almost eccentric touches like hacking pockets and a flapped breast pocket, a shorter length and a more fitted body than any BR coat I had ever encountered. But the would-be 3/2 lapel roll was still akward, my arms swam in the sleeves, and the lightweight worsted twill magically attracted of stray bits of fluff. The cuff buttons were sewn through but not cut through. If you’re going to do the sewing and make the alterations that more difficult in the currently fashionable style, why not just go all the way. This compromise is the BR mantra of ‘affordable luxury’ in a nutshell.

Other signs were more positive. The small and well edited collection had clear and strong colors – lightweight cashmere-silk sweaters of red and blue, for example. Patterned as well as striped shirtings were clear and focused, showing the Zara-like confidence that mainline BR so often lacks. Ties were the same.

Why can’t all of BR be this way? I wish I had asked Simon Kneen, when I saw him in the store and buttonholed him. If the name is familiar, it’s because he was, until BR’s parent company The Gap hired him in January, one of the people responsible for turning around the style of Brooks Brothers. For Monogram, he was wearing a white and black Monogram nailhead coat, a white shirt and gray trousers. Can Monogram shirts be monogrammed in store, was all I thought to say. He said they were working on it. This collection is not his work, of course (collections are designed about a year in advance, and presented half a year after that), but BR’s interest in the one year old Monogram is one reason they took him on. Kneen’s own work will debut in the Spring 09 line that BR debuts in the fall. Can he turn this great ship in a more confident and stylish direction? I’m sure he knows how. But will they let him?

Leave a Comment