Charles Tyrwhitt, the clothing company, once had a women’s line, back in the 00s— but they discontinued it (according to a trade article on fashion marketing) because they were concerned that having what amounted to women-sized versions of their men’s ...
-
Charles Tyrwhitt, the clothing company, once had a women’s line, back in the 00s— but they discontinued it (according to a trade article on fashion marketing) because they were concerned that having what amounted to women-sized versions of their men’s shirts diminished their masculine image. The article also said they wanted to avoid being branded as “gay men’s clothes” “like Paul Stuart” — that article was one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever read in my life. But I think of it often. 1/
-
Charles Tyrwhitt, the clothing company, once had a women’s line, back in the 00s— but they discontinued it (according to a trade article on fashion marketing) because they were concerned that having what amounted to women-sized versions of their men’s shirts diminished their masculine image. The article also said they wanted to avoid being branded as “gay men’s clothes” “like Paul Stuart” — that article was one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever read in my life. But I think of it often. 1/
I think of it often because the most perfect shirt I own is from that women’s line. They didn’t put a lot of effort into making the women’s line distinct. They just sized down the men’s designs and moved the buttons to the other side. (why does that matter?) Really if they would simply bother to sell “men’s” shirts in tiny sizes I would be happy with that. But, perhaps small men, are just as damaging to a brand image as wretched women. 2/
-
I think of it often because the most perfect shirt I own is from that women’s line. They didn’t put a lot of effort into making the women’s line distinct. They just sized down the men’s designs and moved the buttons to the other side. (why does that matter?) Really if they would simply bother to sell “men’s” shirts in tiny sizes I would be happy with that. But, perhaps small men, are just as damaging to a brand image as wretched women. 2/
The language of the trade article was very dire. They were talking all of this image stuff very seriously. I remember some line like “If the Charles Tyrwhitt Man is also the Charles Tyrwhitt Woman consumers may fear lower quality and expect the lower prices of Fast Fashion” so to protect the premium image the article cheered on the dropping of the women’s line as a smart move.
All very alien stuff isn’t it? 3/3
-
Charles Tyrwhitt, the clothing company, once had a women’s line, back in the 00s— but they discontinued it (according to a trade article on fashion marketing) because they were concerned that having what amounted to women-sized versions of their men’s shirts diminished their masculine image. The article also said they wanted to avoid being branded as “gay men’s clothes” “like Paul Stuart” — that article was one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever read in my life. But I think of it often. 1/
@futurebird I don't know about the USA, but over this side of the pond, Charles Tyrrwhitt are damned expensive as well.
-
@futurebird I don't know about the USA, but over this side of the pond, Charles Tyrrwhitt are damned expensive as well.
There is some justification for that. They use clothing construction techniques that make their items last. My favorite shirt is 20 years old and basically like new — but I can’t have another like it because this kind of quality isn’t meant for women I guess.
