Besides, Gucci didn’t have a ready-to-wear story to tell - not the way, say, that Chanel did. It just wasn’t anything.” He said that his “brain was still full” of the type of fashion that Maurizio Gucci had wanted - classics that related to Gucci’s scarf history and leather goods. Speaking by phone last Friday from his home in London, Ford said with a laugh, “It wasn’t a bad show. And the ladylike knits and full skirts in wistful colors and prints that he showed reflected his tentative grasp of the brand’s identity. įord, who in his four years at Gucci had been an invisible backroom presence, was now on his own. (He later was gunned down in a murder-for-hire arranged by his ex-wife.) Then in the spring of 1994, Mello left, returning to Bergdorf Goodman as president. Maurizio Gucci, after selling out family shares to Bahrain-based Investcorp, had been ousted. At one point Gucci couldn’t even meet its payroll. Despite its golden association with playboys and Hollywood goddesses, and despite success by the company’s creative director, Dawn Mello, who pushed the house to revive its snaffle-bit loafer and bamboo-handle bag, Gucci had failed to achieve its potential - and to distract consumers from designers like Giorgio Armani and Gianni Versace or upstarts like Romeo Gigli. But that autumn it was easy to be skeptical.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |