Hi, welcome to Line Sheet. R.I.P. to the word phygital. Today, for your reading pleasure, I’m in conversation with one of our favorite recurring characters, the stylist Kate Young. On Tuesday’s episode of Fashion People, we analyzed the news of the week. Now, we’re tackling the big picture industry issues straight-on: Why is shopping so unsatisfying these days? Why do all the red carpet gowns look the same? Is there any hope for true fans of clothes? Attention, fashion brands: This conversation will save you thousands of dollars in consulting fees. (Although you should still hire Kate.)

🚨🚨 Programming note: Tomorrow on the podcast, I talk to Nancy MacDonell, author of Empresses of Seventh Avenue: World War II, New York City, and the Birth of American Fashion, which hits stores August 27. I’ve known Nancy, a fashion journalist and historian, for years. And I loved this book. For anyone interested in the history of sportswear—a very American obsession—or fashion media, Empresses of Seventh Avenue and this chat are both for you. Subscribe here or here so you don’t miss it.

I look forward to getting back in action next week! Just hit reply on this email to send tips, questions, and, of course, complaints.

Mentioned in this issue: Kate Young, gowns, Michelle Obama, Monse, Thakoon, Jason Wu, Sam Barry, Amal and George Clooney, Anna Wintour, Glamour, Tapestry, Capri, Lina Khan, Telfar, Cuyana, Carolina Herrera, Elie Saab, mid-rise jeans, John Galliano, and many more.

• Michelle Obama’s D.N.C. fashion hit: Sources inside New York-based fashion brand Monse—founded by Laura Kim and Fernando Garcia, who also work at Oscar de la Renta—told me that, by Thursday morning, they had received more than 800 pre-orders for the criss-cross navy jacket worn by Michelle Obama on Tuesday night during her D.N.C. speech. That’s a lot of jackets, especially given that it cost $1,690. Combine that with the $890 per pair of matching pants—more than 500 orders, last time I checked—plus ancillary orders that came in because people were checking out the brand for the first time, and it’s likely Monse will make close to $2 million in sales this week, maybe more. For an independent brand that almost definitely generates less than $10 million a year in sales, that’s huge. It’s reminiscent of Michelle Obama’s early days in the White House, when she made designers like Jason Wu and Thakoon household names. It certainly speaks to her power, but I’d also like to point out that the suit has a very forgiving silhouette and would look great on pretty much anyone. (As for the rest of the D.N.C. fashion scene: Be sure to read my bud Jacob Gallagher’s item on the, uh, eclectic, sartorial choices made by Democrats.)
• Some feedback on yesterday’s Glamour item: A few Condé Nasties rolled their eyes at my depiction of Glamour editor-in-chief Sam Barry as someone who is “well-liked… among her staff,” unleashing quite a bit of frustration about the way in which the digital-only publication is organized. (Very top-heavy, with several senior-level editors, despite the fact they don’t do print and there is no budget to do anything ambitious.) Look, I don’t know Barry at all, I’ve exchanged pleasantries with her maybe three times, so I’m not trying to defend her, but: Is this really her fault? Barry was hired in 2018 to help manage the magazine’s transition out of print, because she is good at networking and other outward facing work, like being charming on television and at dinner parties. (Anna Wintour, who met Barry at Amal and George Clooney’s wedding in Venice, has a mixed track record hiring editors… partly because there are so few left.) Glamour wasn’t going to be prioritized in the building regardless of who got that job. Anyway.
• Tapestry fights back against Khan’s F.T.C. On Tuesday, the owner of Coach, Stuart Weitzman, and Kate Spade New York filed a motion to defend itself against F.T.C. chair Lina Khan’s effort to block its merger with Capri, with a court hearing set for September 9. Capri shares spiked a bit (6.2 percent) after the motion was filed. I’m on vacation, so I didn’t read it super closely (I will when I’m back), but the bottom line is that Tapestry is arguing that the government’s reasoning for blocking the merger is preposterous. At this juncture, I agree.

  As Tapestry posited, in the F.T.C.’s “alternate universe… consumers shopping for a Michael Kors handbag priced at $295 will have to pay at least $383.50 because Tapestry will be able to jack up prices by as much as 30 percent, and consumers will be stuck paying that price.” That will never happen, because there are a lot of other Tapestry brands already selling at this price point, and the company is incentivized to protect their market position. “Defendants obtained documents and data from 120 third parties and took 15 third-party depositions, and unlike in the government’s typical merger challenge, not a single third party expressed concern that the transaction will harm consumers,” the document continues. “Not a single consumer. Not a single wholesaler. Not even a single handbag competitor. The only people who have expressed a view that this transaction is problematic are Plaintiff and its expert.”

  In short, Tapestry is arguing that the F.T.C.’s expert witness is not thinking about competition in the right way. A lot of brands not categorized as “accessible luxury” sell products in that price range. The NPD Group plays a major role here since the expert witness categorized Coach’s competitors only as those tracked in NPD’s “accessible luxury” category, which does not include brands like Telfar, Cuyana, and Louis Vuitton.

  Another wrinkle: The F.T.C. claims that “luxury” products are made in Europe, “mass market” in China, and “accessible luxury” in “off-shore Asia,” which uhh… wah? We all know that so-called luxury goods are often made in Asia, and China production is on par, or even better, than Europe in some cases. One final funny thing: “Plaintiff claims that ‘accessible luxury handbags’ ‘boast high quality materials (often leather) and elevated craftsmanship and construction,’” Tapestry says, “but that observation is not backed by the evidence and certainly does not support an ascertainable market. Brands across the spectrum use a variety of non-leather materials (including nylon, canvas, and raffia) as well as leather. Moreover, Defendants’ handbags use the same types of leather and craftsmanship as the higher and lower priced handbags against which they compete. Similarly, Plaintiff has no evidence to differentiate Lululemon nylon from Tumi nylon from Prada nylon.”

  This is true—look at all those wicker bag totes that are selling for thousands of dollars right now. P.S., there were a bunch of redacted parts if someone wants to get those to me somehow.

Kate Young: A lot of brands that aren’t doing what they were doing for years: Calvin, Givenchy, McQueen. Then there are brands that are just not in existence anymore. Something like The Vampire’s Wife [which shut down earlier this year] was very useful to me. There are high fashion brands and evening brands that function well. But in my job, we have all of these events, brands like The Vampire’s Wife have provided a lot of very attractive filler for me, and a lot of them are just gone.

Why do you think that is?

Brands just don’t show gowns anymore. Some still skew more evening, like Carolina Herrera or Elie Saab. But in the past, a brand like Louis Vuitton or Bottega Veneta would have some gowns mixed in there, even Marc Jacobs. People who are thinking about fashion conceptually often don’t even put a gown in there, and there are fewer couture shows than there used to be, so therefore less gowns, and even more daywear in couture.

I keep seeing people wearing vintage to formal events: real socialites and actresses on the red carpet. That’s because we don’t have Alber Elbaz or Riccardo Tisci or Clare Waight Keller, people who found a way to do really smart, high concept and beautiful evening gowns. There just aren’t that many designers doing that right now. Also, I don’t have a lot of the tried and trues for Venice, Toronto, New York Film Festival, and fall premieres. I don’t have Valentino this season. I don’t have Tom Ford this season. Like, for Venice, Toronto, New York Film Festival and fall premieres, those are completely off the table. Gucci isn’t dressing as many people. Louis Vuitton has so many ambassadors at this point that they basically only dress ambassadors.

What will be your strategy around sourcing dresses for those fall events?

I’m working on one fall movie that is going to Venice, Toronto, New York, London, Madrid. That’s a lot of dresses, and that’s one client. I’m asking the people who are still making dresses, and also looking to vintage for some magic because what is available from [current brands] tends to be very minimal and very nude. Naked is such a pervasive trend.

How would you describe the look of the moment?

Very thin straps, a cut-out in the middle, maybe a cut-out on the side. Maybe it has no back. In silver or gold beading. And you can see through it. If you think of a dress like that, it could be any number of designers. We could name 10. My assistant is going to a very fancy wedding in Paris, and we found this vintage Givenchy evening gown for her—a real ball gown with sheer, tulle long-sleeve overlay, and tiny silver paillettes. There are gowns that make you look, or serve as a foil for hair and makeup, but there should also be gowns that are like magic, that make you gasp. That’s why we’re all in this business, right? Bold technique, bold color, bold fabric: that’s all really kind of gone out of fashion, which leaves me not a lot to work with.

Calvin is back on the Fashion Week schedule in February. Tom Ford is likely to announce a new designer soon. Chanel, hopefully, will have someone by early next year. That Margiela show last summer, while it might not translate to anything in real life, signals a return to proper design. It hasn’t manifested itself yet in stores, but do you see the pendulum swinging back a bit? Do you think by the Oscars next year, that there will be more options?

I hope it changes. And I’m saying this as a minimalist who owns like, 10 navy sweaters. I love things that are plain, but whenever I read in your column about fashion not making as much money, I wonder if it’s because everybody doesn’t need a new pair of black pants, or a new black dress. Those things don’t really look like much on a computer screen, which is how so many of us shop. But when you walk by a window and you see some gown that’s magic, you might just buy it. And you might go three times out of your perceived price range to buy a dress for some event because it tugs at your heartstrings. Without the magic, without dress fabrics, or John Galliano’s romance, you don’t buy things you shouldn’t buy. None of us need new clothes. You buy them because they make you fantasize about who you could be.

The lack of magazine editorials is part of it. Designers were designing for fantasies they hoped people would shoot, but now they’re designing for customers, or Instagram. You don’t see an influencer frolicking with Peter Rabbit like you would a model in a Grace Coddington shoot. Designers are making clothes for real people they have in mind, but real people are kind of boring. Real people also have fantasy lives that they want to live out.

It’s that idea of giving them what they want before they know they want it. That type of merchandising has been done away with because of access to real-time data. And yes, the data is accurate, but what a lot of retailers and brands have forgotten is that, even if the customer ends up buying the black pant, it’s the magic dress that sparks their interest.

If you think about Isaac Mizrahi, it was all like, these crazy ball skirts and things for Vogue covers that were over the top. What he really sold was twin sets, right? The dress is the fantasy, and you want a little piece of it, and that little piece is just a sweater you can wear to work that nods to the dream.

Luxury goods are also just more common today. For many, many years, teenagers owning a designer handbag, even really wealthy teenagers, was pretty rare. I grew up in a lower middle class suburb where the graduation gift for wealthier kids was a Coach bag. Today, at least a couple of those kids would get a European designer bag.

In my town it was a Gucci bag, but that was before Gucci was fixed and you could get that at Macy’s. [It’s true, Gucci was sold at Macy’s in the 1980s due to some funny business with one of the family members. Read all about it in The House of Gucci.] But you don’t see teenagers today with Hermès bags, even though they’re not that much more expensive than other designer bags. I live on the Upper East Side, and teenagers do wear all the labels all the time, and then their mothers don’t. Their mothers wear The Row and a Foundrae necklace. That’s part of luxury becoming sort of tacky and ubiquitous. If rich kids are wearing it, rich adults don’t want to wear it.

And $200 in 1987 has the same buying power as $565 in 2024, so if you think about it that way, buying a $700 designer wallet with your allowance or after-school job money isn’t so crazy.

And they’re very savvy with Vestaire and Depop and all of that. My son said to me, do you have any Chrome Hearts? And I was like, Yeah, I have Chrome Hearts leather pants from 20 years ago. And he said, You should sell them. They’re worth $19,000.

If you could make one request to all these brands, what would it be?

More gowns. With the fantasy attached.

First, I’m going to be straight with you: You should just buy vintage Levi’s. (There are a lot of styles, not just 501s.) I know it’s an intimidating idea, but I promise you, it’s actually the best experience you’ll have at a store because places that sell vintage jeans have tons on hand, in many sizes. I buy mine from Scout in Los Angeles, but I’ve also bought pairs from the Vintage Twin in New York and The Future Past in San Francisco. However, if you just can’t do vintage, my top pick is Alex Mill’s Bev style: they’re low-slung and relaxed, so buy them a size or two smaller than usual and they’ll sit right below the smallest part of your waist. You could also go with the Amber, a mid-rise, slim-fit style. (In case you didn’t know, skinny jeans are back.) Finally, I recently tried on the mid-rise version of Madewell’s “‘90s” jean, and it looked good.

Until Monday,
Lauren