While many have been hoping more design houses will follow suit of Gucci and stop using fur, it was never as widely verbalized by handbag lovers that they’d like to see exotics done away with, after all exotic skin bags are some of the most sought after and highly coveted among them. Many were taken by surprise on Monday when Chanel announced it would no longer use exotic skins.
Chanel made this announcement Monday, saying the problem for them lies with the sourcing of exotic skins not matching their ethical standards. Skins being done away with include crocodilian, lizard, snake, and galuchat and while these exotics don’t make up a large part of overall Chanel sales, it still represents an ultimate holy grail realm for many Chanel lovers. In fact, back in 2009 Chanel opened a boutique between the Encore and Wynn hotel in Las Vegas entirely dedicated to exotic Chanel bags that Vlad and I went into a few years ago.
This will affect collections moving forward, but there are still exotic skin Chanel bags being shown as part of current collections including Chanel’s recently released Cruise 19 collection that we just covered. While many are happy with this news, there is a really interesting Op-Ed on the Business of Fashion explaining how integral the exotic skin business is to many areas and how a ban like this would have a negative impact on those communities.
Many expect and want fur to be banned, but exotic skins on a whole is a new realm for handbag lovers who are used to seeing these skins being used. This move from Chanel makes the Parisian fashion house the largest player in luxury to ban the materials. Many now question if other brands will follow suit. However Kering, the parent company of Gucci, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, invested in a python farm in Thailand, while LVMH and Hermès operate their own reptile production facilities. Kering has stated it’s close to its goal of sourcing 100 percent of its alligator skin ethically (source: BOF).
We reached out to Chanel for comment about its position on exotic skin use and were sent the following statement:
“At CHANEL, we are continually reviewing our supply chains to ensure they meet our expectations of integrity and traceability.
In this context, it is our experience that it is becoming increasingly difficult to source exotic skins (crocodilian, lizard, snake, galuchat) which match our ethical standards.
As such, we have decided to alter our approach and taken the decision to no longer use exotic skins in our future creations.
This is a decision which provides an opportunity to create a new generation of high-end products that respect our fundamentals: the exceptional creativity of our Creative Studio, our expertise, our standards of excellence, noble and innovative materials and exceptional finish.”
The move took many in the fashion world by surprise, delighted PETA, and leaves handbag shoppers who are open (and love) exotic skin bags wondering what’s next for other brands they covet. As for Chanel, it will be interesting to see how they plan to use new materials to cater to a void some of their shoppers will feel. If you still want an exotic skin bag from Chanel, this season’s Cruise bags may be your last chance if you don’t want to buy on the second hand market.
Animal Rights extremists who want to rule every aspect of our lives.I am disappointed when businesses and retailers fold.
Who would stand up to the big guys in defence of animal rights (they can’t speak for themselves, can they) if not for the ‘animal rights activists? You call them ‘extremists’ so I can call you heartless for making the above statement. On your profile photo you’re posing with a dog, which I’m sure you like, so what propels you to downgrade the existence of a lizard or a snake to purely mechanical use in leather industry? I’m truly interested in your thought process.
People say things on social media sites that totally lack intellectual integrity! In fact most media today spout off opinions masquerading as facts, that lack ANY itellectual integrity! Our society today accepts & even encourages intellectual & moral dishonesty. So, I applaud you for calling it out! If more of us called out this dishonesty, maybe people would THINK before speaking, especially on public forums.
Excellently put Mizantrop! Completely agree with you here.
Well said!!
Ditto!
To many who think Chanel is folding in to pressure groups, the real reason is that unlike Hermes, LVMH and kering, Chanel didn’t think ahead and buy any farms for their exotics production. Hence they were unable to source high quality skins for their bags. Of course their PR team made it into a positive thing lol.
haha interesting, i had no idea!
oh wow this is shocking. it will be interesting to see how other designers respond to this
By filing the void. As competitors do.
i agree! if we want to stop skins, leather comes from cow hide or lamb hide? Sigh
Hah! Because other designers thought ahead to purchase their own farms. I’m quite surprised Chanel didn’t do this, too!
This is a very complex issue and I’m glad you brought this to our attention. I’m not against exotic skins but sourcing is something to consider. It will be interesting to see how people react so I’m on my way to the Chanel forum!
come back, when you find out, & let us know, please? That would be very interesting.?
Just good reason not to pay a gazillion dollars for a purse. Yes, I called it a PURSE.
well that’s disappointing.
I don’t buy exotics for various reasons and I am very happy with this turn of events at Chanel.
I’m very glad, since I am not convinced about how ethically they are sourcing snake skin as it stands.
It’s not really for a positive reason so idk why all these animal rights activists and vegans are cheering. They aren’t stopping it because of animal rights, they just can’t find good quality skins anymore LOL. It is not anything to commend them for.
Ya, that’s how I read it too.
I guess my question (and it’s a true question, not finding fault) – what makes some bag lovers completely fine with cow/calf/lamb skin but not reptile/exotic skin?
I guess calf and lamb are byproduct, those animals get killed for meat anyway whereas noone eats foxes or lizards. Those animals are killed only for their skin so in a way it’s sadder?
No matter the reasoning, it’s still a big step for animal activists, so I can see the cause for their excitement.
Exactly! The reason matters less to me when they decide to stop using these materials.
I know this is probably bad and I generally consider myself an animal lover but I deeply, deeply fear and hate snakes and so whenever I carry one of a few snakeskin bags I own there is something so satisfying about it (that I have also felt on the few occasions when I’ve eaten snake meat) that I don’t feel bad for those animals.
I think exotics are awful looking and barbaric. So if Chanel has developed some ethical standards, that is a good thing. That all said, I am sure they will find a farm that works for them and then start selling exotics again in a few years.
I’m not so averse to alligator skins — there are plenty of alligators around, just ask anyone who lives in Florida (esp Lake County) and people do eat alligator, even if it’s not a common meat source. The use of snake and lizard skins, esp from rarer species, is a more complex story. Of course this decision means that the existing stock of exotics will sell like wildfire. And people who already own Chanels in exotics know they’ll be able to command even higher prices in the resale market. I do wonder if Chanel also plans to stop repairs/service for exotics.
We’ll always have Fendi for fur and exotic skins, so do not break out your black lace veil yet!