GAP Losing The Battle With Inditex

It was fitting that the new Pull and Bear and Massimo Dutti stores, both part of the gigantic Zara-powered Inditex group, should have moved into the same relatively pretty, white-façade building on London’s Oxford Street that GAP used to occupy. Although GAP now occupy, and have done for some time, a rather glassy flagship a little way down the road, the polishing of this West London gem of a building – a rarity on mostly modern Oxford Street – by the company that overtook the GAP group as the world’s largest clothing retailer is so suitable that it reminded me of those stories of conquest and colony; when triumphant soldiers marched through the palaces of the conquered.

When I had last entered the building, the GAP store had occupied two rather dingy levels. Light wooden floors, hopelessly outdated, rarely creaked with the tread of constant custom – the newer, larger and lighter GAP store on the street was attracting more business. I only really ventured in for the sale stock, which was usually plentiful; racks and carousels of shirts in my rather unpopular XS size and the odd jumper and jacket. Aside from that it was a rather depressing affair; hoodies, masses of socks and jersey gym wear. It was only a matter of time, I thought, before this GAP is sacrificed. The irony of the sacrifice is that in giving up their lease, GAP handed the prime property, and therefore greater presence in the English capital, to their fiercest rivals.

Inditex have splashed on this retail space in characteristic fashion; Pull and Bear, a trashy, unappealing-but-bound-to-be-successful retailer of denim, printed t-shirts and other flotsam, occupy one half of the building. Inside there is a dark, industrial atmosphere – something between a factory and a theme park ride. It’s well laid out, spacious, offers seating (shock, horror) and, from my time lurking around the entrance, was drawing a good deal of interest from passing shoppers.

The same was true of the gleaming Massimo Dutti store; staff were conspicuously obsequious, racks were not unattractively loaded with stock and overall there was the sense you were entering a store of grander pretensions. In addition to the improved interior, the white façade has been well maintained and the promotional stickers and signage have been kept to a tasteful minimum.

Inditex, far from playing catch up with the older and more established GAP group, are consistently one step ahead. Although as behemoth retailers they are constantly compared, aesthetically, there is little comparison. GAP offers rather simple, functional clothing; chinos, jeans, knitwear, functional shirts, gym wear and the occasional belt. Inditex, through all of their outlets, do their damndest to offer ‘design’ at a lower price; they take more risks with their stock.

Why has Inditex come out on top? Analysts often point to their quick and aggressive expansion (which contrasts to GAP’s absurdly ponderous methods), their strategy for locating stores on the best streets in town and, in Zara, their rapid stock turnaround. Others also cite the improved store experience, the appeal of a European brand and the successful, internal manufacture-to-distribution process.

The thing that doesn’t get mentioned as often in reference to this retailer war is that Inditex has managed to capture the imagination of the GAP-weary shopper. We’ll always need chinos but once we have them, is there anything else in the store that draws us in? The lifestyle sold in GAP is, and has been for a long time, far too ‘young’ for the way we live now. I have a friend who told me he shopped once at GAP last year for ‘bumming around clothes’ – Zara he looks in almost every other week. The reason? ‘Bumming around clothes’ hardly require constant replenishment. Another friend, who boasts he hasn’t crossed the threshold for five years, quipped ‘Don’t mind the GAP.’ The shopping public have fallen out of love. And it shows.

GAP menswear, now relegated to the top floor of the Oxford Street flagship, is very often rather empty on a Saturday afternoon. It looks tired, worn and, like an old heavyweight title holder, rather slow and deliberate. GAP fans of my acquaintance champion the fact that their clothes last. Inditex, by comparison, have said, rather unblinkingly, that Zara clothes are really meant to be worn ‘a few times.’ Both of these assertions are somewhat inaccurate as I have Zara clothes that are well-used and in excellent condition and some GAP clothing that has, in my opinion, had to be placed prematurely on the scrap heap.

There is no doubt that as Inditex’s tentacles have spread far and wide, and its grip on the high street clothing market has strengthened, it has moved into the Primark/H&M realm of increasing supply, reducing price and declining quality but GAP has lost the laurels it once rested on. It needs to rethink its flagship brand. While it still has the muscle, and the greatness of its name, it should try to recapture the great portion of the market it has lost.

But The British Are No Better…

At the beginning of June I wrote an across-the-pond view of North American wedding wear customs. I wrote of the ‘contradiction’ of the wedding couple’s attire, and how ‘inappropriate’ it was to wear evening clothing to morning and afternoon ceremonies.

My thoughts appeared to resonate with some of the readers: one remarked that the clothing choice was partly to do with the ‘utilitarian’ theory; that a wedding requires a ‘dressed up’ choice and black tie = dressed up. Another commented that the origins of the American nation (“We are almost all descended from the European lower class”) are partly to blame.

I have thought that, on reflection, I have been a little bit rough on this point. I do not retract my view that black tie at daytime weddings looks wrong to me but I do feel that one who resides in a glass house should not throw such stones. As immaculate and appropriate as some are attired in the UK for a wedding, a huge number of the ceremonies and receptions that take place in churches and marquees, between Land’s End and John o’Groats, are a far cry from the image of sartorial perfection that this nation often likes to portray.

The average British wedding is utterly depressing. The people are generally wonderful but the ghastly clothing that the seemingly uncaring grooms’ parties choose to don is astonishingly awful. Why is this? For what possible reason could a nation of such history in cut and cloth be clothed in such cardboard-waistcoats, synthetic tailcoats, vomit-inducing matching cravats and, usually, inappropriate accessories and footwear? Wedding hire. The sad fact of the matter is, most people rent their wedding clothing and while this is perfectly acceptable, and by no means a modern practice, it does mean that for one of the most formal occasions in your life, a major turning point and a new beginning, you’ll be wearing the most generic of the generic; a suit made for a market, not for a man.

How many times has the wedding-going Brit seen that lilac, burgundy or golden cravat? That matching brocade waistcoat or those overly long trousers with one too many breaks? I for one have seen these things too often. It’s hardly surprising, given Moss Bros. market dominance, that on wedding days churchyards and chapels up and down the country are littered with their coats, trousers, waistcoats and accessories.

However it is not just ubiquity which I find rather distasteful. My biggest gripe with this practice is that the aesthetics are entirely off. The jackets are not only made for someone in your chest size category but usually for men of varying heights, arm sizes and shoulder width. Even on the photogenic models in the catalogue, on whom a mankini would look partially flattering, they look utterly rigid and shapeless.

The ‘cardboard’ waistcoats are exactly that; as stiff as a board. The pattern is almost always a woven paisley or brocade – something akin to grandmother’s bedroom curtains – and the sheen is breathtakingly vulgar. The cravat, now so hackneyed, is no daub of elegance but a blob of tack that looks more like a used napkin. A pocket square that matches the cravat and the waistcoat in colour and texture sits in a contrived, starched fashion in the breast pocket. The worst thing about such a common combination? Better options are available at the renters. Although there is great variety available, it seems that most wedding parties in Great Britain end up choosing the same damn thing.

If I were advising a groom and his party on attire I would instruct him to hire one of the classic (non-Edwardian) cutaway morning coats, if he does not wish to purchase his own, and nothing else. He should always purchase his own trousers (cut to his length), his own waistcoat – single or double breasted – and his own tie or Ascot (which doesn’t have to be plain) and pocket square.

The waistcoat should not be of a high break or have any woven pattern. Dove grey is the most classic and masculine choice. The groom should also differ slightly from others in his party; a different tie, pocket square or colour of waistcoat would make him stand out from the rest. Finally, it is likely that he and his party possess better shirts in their own wardrobes than the wing-collared things they try and foist at the renters; always a turn down collar for ties and always a wing collar for Ascots.

A Brief Visit To Anderson & Sheppard

In the cutting room at Anderson & Sheppard, under the front table on the right, is a cardboard box with swatches of all the cloths the firm has made up for Prince Charles. It’s secured with two rubber bands; because without them it wouldn’t stay shut. In a way, that is one small illustration of the tailors’ heritage (as well as its client satisfaction). All those patterns, weaves and wools; that have been made into suits, trousers, kilts and overcoats.

Taking up rather more than their fair share of room in the box are two pockets. They are patch pockets that were replaced on one of HRH’s jackets. Why both are kept as a record I don’t know, and didn’t ask. But the texture and colours in the tweed is lovely. Unfortunately, head cutter John Hitchcock pointed out to me that an old, multi-coloured tweed had been replaced by a duller version in the bunch – the variegated original just wasn’t made any more. Such a shame, for I swear it had every colour imaginable in there, in greater or lesser quantity.

Speaking of tweed, if you do get a chance to visit Anderson & Sheppard then look out for their house tweeds hanging up on the left, just before the cutting room. In particular, the blanket of various colour patches that the mill sent A&S so it could pick a few to stock. So attractive is the blanket that one customer had a suit made out of just that material, patches and all.

John Hitchcock was kind enough to give me a short tour last week, which is how I got to rummage around in Charles’s leftovers. Other points of interest included the silk thread used for sewing the jackets (or coats, to be strict) and how the natural stretch of the silk, combined with the hand stitching, creates natural give in the shoulders and chest. It’s pretty hard to break silk thread; by comparison, normal thread snaps like a twig.

All the suits waiting to be collected or fitted are kept on normal, slim wooden hangers. Of course a hanger with more support for the shoulders is recommended for long-term storage, but it does rather undermine the hyperbolic claims made about wide hangers and collapsing shoulders.

And lastly I never knew what determined the roll of a jacket’s lapel. True three-button lapels sit so stiff and square, whatever their canvassing and no matter how it is attached to the jacket front. Apparently, the key is how close the canvas is to the edge of the cloth. Give it room and keep it loose and the lapel will roll easily to whichever button you choose to fasten.

In the image below, the staff are: John Hitchcock, managing director and senior cutter; Colin Heywood, shop manager and sales consultant; Michael McSkimming, accounts; Karl Mathews, sales consultant; and Leon Powell, under cutter.

Interview: Developing A Love For Clothes

My colleague Olly Watkins has become more and more interested in traditional menswear and permanent style in recent years. His journey, and the lessons he has learnt along the way, provide interesting perspective for new devotees to permanent style.

Simon: When did you first become interested in clothes?

Olly: Well, it took me a while to get over the bottle-green corduroys my mother made me wear when I was eight-years old.

But by the time I was a teenager I was interested again. And being a child of the eighties, a sharp-cut suit was everything. I didn’t own one for ages but that was the aspiration. I was never terribly interested in casual clothes or in fashion. I just wanted to wear clothes that fitted well and match colours without looking ridiculous.

When I first started work I tried to wear suits and was interested by the idea of tailors. My father used an old City tailor and it was fascinating to talk to him about tailoring and traditional City style.

But that interest remained a minor one?

Yes. I tried to dress well but I never really delved into the kind of questions that were centrally to improving that – why do none of my jackets really fit me? What are the limits to having alterations done? Where could I have one made? It was a frustration with men’s retail really.

And that changed recently?

Yeah, I always used to wear suits, but as the dress ethic in the office relaxed over the years I became more and more casual. Then recently (it may be the onset of old age) I got frustrated and decided to smarten up a little. Like the benefits of a school uniform, I wanted something smart and formal that if anything would take less thought in the morning.

But it really took off when I discovered the whole mini-culture around men’s clothes, the traditions (not rules!), the web sites and the community. It was amazing. So many people talking about something which is largely forgotten today, in an age of high fashion and transient trends – where people walk around in the most terrible outfits just for the sake of looking like other people.

What was the biggest revelation for you?

Just how many people are interested in this area, the whole culture around it. Looking around at people, in whatever city, it’s easy to think that no one cares what they wear at work. I commute in from Essex every morning, and you see legions of men in black, blue or grey suits, with the jacket undone, tie loose and obviously not interested in their attire.

If you look back at pictures of US presidents or other politicians in the past, they are all smart, they all have pocket squares. It was something that men took pride in. That doesn’t happen anymore, so I was surprised to find so many men involved in this area so passionately, that do care.

I really like that niche. It gives you something to follow, in an area that suits me far better than squeezing into a pair of skinny jeans and a t-shirt that isn’t quite long enough.

What’s your favourite outfit?

Probably the thing that fits me best at the moment – my midnight-blue dinner suit that I got from A Suit That Fits. I love wearing it, it fits me much better than anything else and is probably better made as well. I just feel better in it. I didn’t realise that it was almost impossible to cater to my proportions in ready-to-wear clothing, even if altered. [Olly has a 46-inch chest and 36-inch waist: a 10-inch drop that is far above the ready-to-wear standard of six inches. See link here]

I’d wear that with thin-soled, black-calf Oxford toe-caps – I have yet to be converted to pumps or patent leather. And a white shirt, white braces, bow tie and gold cufflinks to match the gold clips on the braces. Oh, and a white silk pocket square.

The cummerbund or waistcoat is essential, I suppose, but I find that the trousers are cut so high that they prevent any shirt showing below the waist button anyway, to the end of the bib of the shirt. It seems a little odd to me to wear a cummerbund that just goes over the trousers entirely. That’s not to say I wouldn’t wear one, just that I don’t at the moment.

Obviously the theory is to cover the waistband of the trousers. But I suppose if the waistband is clean and smart, and the shirt is not exposed, you could argue that the cummerbund’s place has been superseded.

Yes. It just seems a little pointless to me. I suppose it’s a rule that I have learnt how to break, as you describe on the blog. I understand why it’s there and so have broken it sensibly and with full knowledge of the outcome.

To be continued…

A Question Of Attraction

The way in which we dress invariably has an impact on the way we are perceived by members of the attracting sex. From my perspective, a woman I perceive to be well-dressed would naturally attract more attention, even though she may not be the most attractive woman in the room; being ‘well-dressed’ is unusual. It is a sign of self-assuredness and quality of mind. However, I often wonder how important it is for my contemporaries to exaggerate or understate their own personal style in order to retain the attraction of those they wish to attract.

If I were to ask certain friends of mine whether this was a serious consideration when shopping for clothes, there would be a mixture of responses. One response would ridicule the idea of shopping to please another person. This scoff would be further qualified with suggestions that men should identify first and foremost with themselves – if the women aren’t interested, are shocked or put off, so be it.

Another response would carry a certain caution; that some of my friends are not willing to appear ridiculous, though they would dearly love to express themselves in the clothing they dream of. There is in these respondents an itching desire to be free from the convention of the day but it is a tiny flame, easily doused by the waves of insecurity. They also confess to a strange comfort in anonymity.

Then there are those who would respond, quite honestly, that they often plead with girls, generally ones they are not attracted to, to go shopping with them in order that they do not select items which would compromise the image they wish to project. They are not always shy in nature. They are simply cautious. They tend to enjoy being single, have a varied social circle and, most importantly, consider sexual attraction the most important pastime in their lives.

Some of them have no interest in clothing at all. The majority however have come to recognise the importance of ‘standing out’ when playing the field. However, there are many things they just will not do. One of my friends asked me why I wear bow ties. I informed him it was because I liked wearing them. He responded that he could never wear one unless it was part of his evening wear. Vaguely intrigued by his commonplace response I asked him why: “Because” he said “I’d look like a tit!”

Looking as ‘different’ as that is generally considered by men to be a non-starter in the attraction department, especially for heterosexual men. Indeed, even women can be rather scornful and abusive about men who they accuse of ‘trying too hard.’ Though they may quietly applaud the bravery of a man of idiosyncratic style, they generally have an asexual response to extraordinarily well-dressed men.

When I proffered photographic examples to some women (three in their twenties, two in their forties) recently for their opinions on the approachability and attractiveness of the gentlemen concerned, the immaculately and idiosyncratically dressed men – aside from Johnny Depp - received very low responses for reasons of ‘stiffness’ and ‘utter absence of sexual appeal.’ The moderately well-dressed gentlemen – jacket, trousers/jeans, no tie, no pocket square or other accessories – received the highest response. The reasons given were ‘ease of dress’, ‘avoidance of fuss’ and consequently, ‘strong sexual connection.’ The badly dressed men didn’t score as well on the whole but they often scored far higher than the immaculately dressed men, even amongst the older women, for reasons of ‘brazen sexuality’ and ‘gruff masculinity.’

When I suggested to these female respondents that it was preposterous of women to moan about badly dressed men when they themselves credited them far higher than those who practice clothing perfection, they agreed: it is preposterous, they said, and it makes absolutely no sense that somehow their sexual mind should prefer scruff over splendour. However, they suggested it has far more to do with current perceptions of fashion and style – not to mention the fact that they are but a tiny sample “I bet loads of girls” one of them said “would think a guy in a bow tie was hot as hell…” – and that there are likely to be perfect partners for every category of gentlemen presented. Lastly, I asked them to state, in their experience, taking into account all the possible views of their sex what they considered the ‘safest’ route to take to secure attractions. Without hesitation, they all selected the moderately well-dressed gentlemen.

The irony of all this is that gentlemen who fall into the category of the ‘immaculate’ might very well tone down their more eccentric ensembles when consorting with single women – and, when fully ensconced in a warm and loving relationship, take the first opportunity to express who they really are; “Honey! I’m breaking out the bow tie…”