“Look at all that Louis Vuttion…” a client at my day job recently remarked to me as she shoved her blue Chloé Marcie into one of the remaining cubbies of the small gym I manage on the weekends. “…they’re all fabulous but those prints are a bit much.”
Running the front desk of a boutique fitness studio has its perks, one of which being that I get to study the handbag habits of the super stylish and ultra accomplished women that constantly parade in and out. On the flip side, it also means that I get to hear the diverse viewpoints of those same women who, hidden behind sunglasses and required protective face mask, are sometimes are only discernible by their combination of an expensive haircut and choice of designer bag. Balenciaga City bag? Hello Sarah. Valentino Rockstud tote? Welcome in, Amy. YSL camera bag? So nice to see you again, Michelle. *
Whether I am perched at the front desk, watching luxury Youtubers, or simply lurking around various fashion forums, I really do hear it all: XYZ logo/monogram is pretentious, vulgar, tacky, fashionable, chic, or perhaps totally in-vogue.
No matter how one may feel about visible logos and monogram prints on their stuff, I’ve come to learn that there is nothing that causes more debate in the high-end fashion community than if visible logos are considered hot or not.
There are a few common things I hear from those on both sides of the spectrum:
“Wearing designer items with logos or a monogram print is gauche and makes the wearer look like a show-off.”
“Bags and garments without logos are more elegant and wearing them proves you actually like the quality, not just the status that comes along with the brand.”
“Minimalist bags are boring and lack the pizzazz of high-end fashion.”
“Logos are the brands’ signatures. Why would I spend that much money on something that looks like any other bag?”
“Branded accessories look way cooler and more youthful”
“Wearing logos means the wearer is insecure/has bad taste.”
“Logos make the wearer look like a walking billboard.”
My own preferences aside, I have never been able to grasp the true message behind the blanket statements from those who are either pro or anti-logo. And to be frank, I am usually left with more follow-up questions (that I tend to keep to myself): Does the size of the logo matter? Is a brand’s monogram print acceptable on all things or only on certain things? What about embossed “shadow logos?”
I think that as the fashion world continues to innovate, it consequently creates more of a grey area and makes it hard to truly fall into either camp. It is true that some people enjoy a more classical look while others are all about the fun, exploratory nature of the logo-loving streetwear culture. But keeping my fellow lux-lovers opinions in mind, I have been forced to examine the inconsistencies in my own preferences (I like bags without very visible logos and monogram but I like them on small leather goods) and have recently thought deeper about the pros and cons of rocking visible logos.
Pros:
- Logos/monograms can give more texture and depth to a piece.
- A recognizable brand logo adds a bit of opulence and can make the wearer feel pretty lavish.
- In some instances, wearing a branded item can help showcase some part of our identity that we want others to see. Much like how a visible Nike check makes one look sporty, the strategic use of a branded designer item can let others know that we want to be seen as glamorous, creative, a #girlboss, etc.
- Visible logos can help display buying power in situations where that might be beneficial to the wearer.
Cons:
- Logos/monogram prints are already rather attention-grabbing so sometimes it can be hard to match them or they make it too easy to go overboard and can make an outfit look too busy.
- Highly visible logos can draw unwanted attention to the wearer in situations they prefer to not stand out. The downside of displayed buying power.
- Monogram prints go in and out of style. Sometimes over-familiarity can really hurt the brand’s image (Burberry plaid comes to mind.)
This is all probably my usual blah blah blah, but I’m curious to know where you all stand. Do you like big logos and monogram prints or are you more bashful and prefer to be discreet? What do you think when you see a well-recognized monogram or logo? Do you think that they are fitting for some situations and not others? Do you have exceptions to your preferences?
*names were changed for privacy.
Logos don’t bother me unless they suffer from over saturation or they are thrown on the bag as an afterthought. Logos can be nice if they are done artistically. For example, I always think that YSL looks like a finishing touch/piece of jewelry on bags.
There are some logos that I really love, like the Gucci beige GG monogram, which I find is quite versatile actually. But then I’m not really that big of a fan of Louis Vuitton’s logo print – Empreinte’s better, but still not my style. But I think the type of logos I love best are like a relatively small, gold/silver logo on a solid leather bag, like the SDJ, Antigona and Celine Phantom which are discrete but also just the right amount of glam.
oooh I think the empreinte is beautiful. I like when a logo is classic, like the LV or goyard or guccisima, and then when brands do new things “with” it, like either empreinte or the fun neverfulls that play around with the logo canvas as a background, the look is very cool. It’s like they’re not taking the logo too seriously, and that is when it becomes palatable AND fashion, in my opinion.
True! I am a big fan of Stephen Sprouse’s graffiti and Murakami’s multicolor logo prints!
Depends on how many you’re wearing at once. The new LV’s with the giant logos are beautiful but you wouldn’t want to pair that with logo clothing or accessories – especially a scarf.
There is an Instagram grandma (also a TPFr at some point) who wears ALL THE LOGOS ALL THE TIME and it is the most ridiculous clownish look.
Is it Theresa romer? L M F AO
It could be. She wears logos from her head to her toes. ?
I can’t with her. Try hard. There’s a drag queen named Pearl that does a character named Roxanne and I always think of Theresa lol
OMG I need to see her! What’s her insta?
OMG I need to see her! What’s her insta?
Honestly, I don’t want to go there but she is (or was) very active on tpf (so if you re on there you can probably guess). I m sure she’s a nice person. She just has a very bling-bling fashion sense and an undying appetite for attention. ??
Logos and monogram will never go out of style, for better or for worse. Regardless of whether you like them or not LV made sure they’ll be omnipresent whichever way the pendulum of fashion swings.
This is my personal opinion on the matter so please don’t come at me with violent attacks:
– Only houses with historic logos/monogram/signature patterns can really pull it off (Gucci, Fendi, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Céline, Goyard). A classic Vuitton travel bag in monogram canvas is perfectly in line with the house’s heritage.
– I don’t care for logos on clothing. I think 99% of the time it looks vulgar, no matter the brand. I bought a monogram Gucci jacket a couple of months ago and I instantly regretted it. It hangs in my closet, unworn. I bought it while shopping with a friend and I just got caught in the moment. Lol (see below).
– Mixing logos in one outfit (belt, hat, scarf, shoes, bag, etc…) is too much and it starts to look clownish. I understand that some people love the attention but I don’t. ?????
I agree with Rae. The neutral color and pattern aren’t as flashy as you think. It would be styled beautifully with jeans and a tee, or cream colored slacks and tank. — Wait, why am I telling you this? It’s way too much monogram and you should sell it (if its a size S, will you sell it to me?)
Agree, logos on clothing is tacky.
Totally agree on all points
I actually like your jacket because of the neutral color which makes the pattern less “in your face”. You could dress it up or down, but it would look fabulous with jeans and a t-shirt. You can even push the sleeves up for a more casual look. You can rock it without being ostentatious; it’s too great to stay locked away in your closet!
I was thinking….all black outfit with the jacket if you want to quiet it down and red shoes.
Thanks for the suggestions. ? I will probably give it away if I don’t start wearing it soon to be honest.
Well let me know if I can pay for shipping 🙂
Lol
You’ve completely summarized my thoughts. I appreciate logos and monograms when they have a history and pedigree behind them. LV’s monogram canvas is my favorite, with Dior’s a close second. I don’t like wearing them very visibly on clothing, for the most part (with the exception of a scarf or bandeau, if it’s reasonably subtle). I have a Hermes Constance belt and seldom wear it because I’m afraid it looks too flashy, though (somewhat strangely, perhaps) I never feel that way about carrying a classic handbag with a visible logo or monogram print. On the other hand, I feel absolutely no judgment toward people who like wearing monograms on clothing. It’s not for me, but to each his own. Fashion is about personal expression.
I love how you shared your view in such a respectful and non-offensive manner. ?
I just find them ugly, and LV is the most offensive to my eyes, sorry. But I hadn’t thought of classifying Burberry’s plaid (which I like) under logos/monograms before, so patterns without brand letters/logos work for me.
I can only handle logo in small pieces, and not on clothing. My fave is the LV monogram and the Gucci supreme. I’m not a fan of Goyard and Celine monogram.
Some logos are fine, like Dior or LV, because they are classics with a long, established history. Other logos are obnoxiously plastered on the bag making it look ridiculous & hideous. Yes, BALENCIAGA I’m talking about you!
I love logos. The more the merrier but maybe not all on one outfit. I don’t get the sometimes visceral reactions and derogatory assumptions about people who wear visible logos. To each their own. Do you, boo.
If you love it, wear it! How boring would it be if we all liked the same thing?
Logos on garments are ridiculous period, TACKY!!!!
In general, I don’t mind small, discreet logos, especially from storied houses like Chanel. I tend to avoid most that are too blatant. It’s the only reason why I have no prada bags. I also don’t mind the LV and Goyard logo canvas as it is a heritage look from being luggage makers (that said, I can’t bring myself to buy either.) HOWEVER, I don’t like logos for logos sake, nor do I like when it is the defining feature of the bag. Also, I’m disgusted by LVMH’s mission to logo-ize every brand they buy. Berluti was an amazing house until LVMH picked them up. They had this lovely signature pattern engraved in the leather called Scritto that was based on excerpts of a mysterious and beautiful love letter from long ago. It never mentioned the word Berluti in it or had any branding. It was just a beautiful pattern and became their house signature. LVMH came along and forced a Berluti logo into the scritto pattern. My family has since stopped buying the scritto pattern, and the new branded version is now known in our house as the Vuitton tramp stamp.
I wasn’t familiar with the Berluti brand until I read your post. The leather is beautiful and on one tote I saw the elegant scritto writing; however, slapping their logo all over the bag makes it look cheap and inelegant. (Just a thought; it’s like painting a clown face on the Mona Lisa. It’s still storied, but it’s been altered and therefore not as attractive). ????
Reminds me of what they did with the Burberry monogram ???
Burberry has become a joke.
I think of the few new YSL bags that have come out with no logo and everyone was like it looks blah with no logo. I honestly think it depends on the size of the bag, the size of the logo, the logo itself especially for new brands. I love a good logo and I love some bags without. Fun topic.
For me, logo prints on clothing is gauche and inelegant without exception. I also don’t like the LV and the Hermes buckle on belts but the Gucci buckle is fine, perhaps because it actually looks like a belt buckle. I don’t mind logo prints on bags if they are vintage Dior or Gucci. I’ve acquired an aversion to the LV monogram on bags because it’s become pretty common place. With regards to signature hardware, the only ones that I like are Chanel’s double CC and St. Laurent’s smaller versions of its YSL hardware. Some of LV’s hardware is particularly clunky and makes this horrid sound if it is not locked.
I’ve had moments in which I love the ostentatious logos all over the bag and clothing, other times where I prefer discreet and understated. It depends on the piece, style, design and where it’s being worn. It’s fun to see and know the wearer got a lot of pleasure out of the entire experience from buying to styling it all together. Depending on the place, event, and person, logos can be either wildly inappropriate or be perfect because it’s the personality of the wearer.
As one of the readers said below, “Do you, boo”
What makes a house a “heritage” house though? Or what age does it become old enough to be one?
Balenciaga(1917) is older than most houses talked about.
Celine(1945)
Gucci(1921)
Fendi(1925)
But it’s logo “isn’t good” because the other houses are “more established”.
Or Prada (1913) for example has been around longer than Dior(1946) but the Dior logo is better than the Prada one?
Dior actually interned with Balenciaga at one point.
And YSL(1961)
Hasn’t been around as long as Chanel(1910) but it’s logo is “ok”
So I mean… if someone is gonna say that then at least check the facts. Idk.
I think people mean logos/patterns that have been used historically vs those that have been introduced recently just to surf on the logo trend. It’s undeniable that Vuitton or Gucci have used their monogram canvas for decades and consistently. Balenciaga hasn’t—even when it was relaunched with Ghesquière, they didn’t emblazon everything with obnoxious “BALENCIAGA” scripts all over.
Yeah I really prefer the subtle back to back B’s that they used to use. All I’m saying is it has nothing to do with the house or the time it’s been around. It just has to do with one simple thing. How aesthetically pleasing the logo is, but people bring in things that don’t have anything to do with that such as the heritage or whatever, of said house. I think the Celine logo used in a clasp is ok, now used as a monogram, looks busy.
Balenciaga’s logo “isn’t good” because it’s too bold and obnoxious when the giant BALENCIAGA is printed at the bottom of the bag. That huge logo takes away from the beauty of the bag. The issue isn’t about whether it’s a “heritage” house; it’s the fact that the logo is awful and other design houses do logos better.
Right. Just say “I don’t like the logo” and keep it moving. People don’t have to bring up invalid details to try and fit their personal views on logos. I don’t care about it either way. I’m stating this for the people that try and bring up the standing of the house as a reason why the logo works or doesn’t.
I like logos with “personality”. I am not a huge fan of LV, but I do love their logo print on things like the Boîte Chapeau and Valisette BB. Both styles have a nod to the history of the brand, and their downsized luggage style adds a bit of whimsy to an outfit. I also like some of the classic Gucci Canvas bags, but usually in the more heritage styles. I don’t mind the Gucci and Ferragamo belts, but generally don’t like others (why? I have no clue).
But I do generally agree that mixing conspicuous logos is a bit much. However, I am not someone that likes a ton of attention and prefers a more understated/classic approach to my fashion.
In short, I think there is a tasteful way to incorporate logos, but I think I mores prefer when something is a “heritage” or brand signature (think: Bvlgari serpent head closures, LV canvas, CC lock) rather than just a logo for a logo’s sake.