THIS IS WHEN I DO NOT UNDERSTAND FASHION

Flipping through my old magazines, I came across this February 2006 edition of Vogue UK, featuring this cashmere polo shirt by Gucci as the IT-Product selected by the Vogue UK editors.

Frida Giannini, whose main task apparently is to lead the brand further away from the Porno-Chic era instaured by Tom Ford - which largely contributed to revive the dying brand - invests on "casual sport" and Gucci classics of the 60s revival. She thus successfully brings her mission to fruition: her collections couldn't be further from Mr Ford's style.
If Fashion brands need to change their image, Gucci's style is turning into a mockery of itself in an attempt of revisiting its "classics". It becomes an issue when it looks like they copy Fred Perry ( Picture right, Cotton Polo Shirt, 20$) and become a new competitor of brands such as Hilfiger, Polo by Ralph Lauren or the inventor of the Polo Shirt, Lacote.

Gucci initially was known for its refined and beautifully crafted leather goods for a very sophisticated clientele. In the 60s, its "status symbols" products lead to a world-wide recognition of the brand. The mocassins with the snaffle bit , the GG logo and the bamboo handled bags are now part of our cultural history.

When the brand was in serious difficulties, Tom Ford's cutting edge style and Domenico De Sole strategies lead the brand to the top of the fashion name heap - but could it be that Tom's style didn' t permit the company to maintain its rentability? Is this why the company opted for a "melancholy positioning" to consolidate its profits? Apparently, the strategy is working since the Group confirmed great profits, an increase in turn over, Gucci ahead, and a rise in its gross revenues.

But isn't the role of luxury fashion houses to bring clothing to a higher level than, let's say a Polo Shirt, would it be in cashmere? Or even a poor copy of the Wrap dress by Diane von Furstenberg as featured in the 2005 ad campaign?

In the 2000s, I thought Gucci was brought back to a luxury status. The very same that made the name of the brand among an elitist society. In 2000, even though I could not afford their clothes I dreamed of the day when I could buy items from similarly beautiful future collections. The sleekness of the coats, the wonderful leathers, the exquisite materials, the excruciatingly beautiful lines made me drool over the magazines. I wanted to earn money to be able to afford the clothes and accessories. I went to the Gucci stores only to smell luxury and would pay an insane sum to drink an espresso at the Milan store where the chocolate was emblazoned with a G for Gucci! I didn't mind that it was sooo expensive because it was extremely beautiful and I did believe it justified the price.

Looking at today's Balenciaga, Lanvin and Prada collections, I realise what a precursor Tom Ford was. The minimalism of the lines, the importance of the cut, the contrasting subtle play on colors were so right on back then that the collections made by Tom Ford in 2000 are still very actual. Look at the long gloves that were the height of 2006 collections!

In comparison, the stripe Polo shirt, even being in Cashmere, evoques sporty week-ends at the rugby field rather than an evening at the Plaza Athenee Bar in Paris. And this is where I do not get Gucci. £365 ( 715 $) for a polo shirt? Really? I don't think so! and what about the rest of the designs, of the past years. This is when hommage is a cheating curve!

Below, the 2006 ad. The loafers, the jackets, the pantalon cigarette - everything screams 60s Gucci classics. Where is the creativity? Where is the cutting edge product? Could they use anymore flora Floral Pattern... What a shame. By going casual, Gucci dismissed the essence of luxury and high fashion.

Fashion houses should remember that Luxury prices have to be justified. Believing that the name makes it all is a insult of the now, well informed customer as I am. I know that the production costs of such a cashmere 1 ply since light, should be at most around $40piece when producing less than 100 pieces which is unlikely since the house has store worldwide. In other words, selling it at 700USD implies that most Gucci customers blatantly pay for the marketing. When brands such as gucci make me pay for a stupid ad such as beside: two idiotic women who look like men ( the large shoulders, beurk!) with a heavyset silhouette,I just don't want to spend a penny at their store...

Am I the only one?