“Well, that is your name, isn’t it? Calvin Klein? It’s written all over your underwear.” – In that case, Lorraine, you may call me Cristóbal, Cristóbal Balenciaga.
*Side note: the author’s underwear is NOT Balenciaga*
Of course, we may not all necessarily cosplay as the exemplar of elegance as we waltz into work with our marvelously messy Motorcycle bags hanging off of ourselves like a bulky barnacle (Monsieur Balenciaga would be horrified!)
But there is a case to be made for creative connoisseurs expecting us commoners to embody – if not entirely masquerade as – themselves when wearing their wares.
To a degree, this is inherent vanity.
It explains why actors Glen Powell and Dominic Sessa rolled up to the Vanity Fair afterparty in full Tom Ford cosplay – down to his signature orange-tinted sunglasses. Or Phoebe Philo’s casting decision for doppelgänger Daria Werbowy to front her campaigns first at Céline and now at her eponymous label, Phoebe Philo.
Yet, when it’s their name – and with that, their entire identity – on the line, every affront on the professional front can quickly wind up feeling personal. Because as arbitrary as it may seem, fashion, at the end of the day, is not in the business of selling products – it’s in the business of selling names.
Bags Named After Beauties: A Brief Chronology
Now, naming labels after its founders is a tradition as accurate as time. Hermès takes its name from Thierry Hermès. Before Goyard was Goyard, it was Maison Martin, the product of one Pierre-François Martin. Coco Chanel sealed the fate of her namesake when she etched her interlocking initials onto the inner flap of that first 2.55 bag.
This has nothing to do with narcissism and everything to do with marketing. In effect, we aren’t engaging in mere transactions with a sterile establishment; we’re allowing ourselves to luxuriate in a piece of fashion history!
History, however, was made not just by the designers themselves but also by other individuals of individual acclaim. Therefore, the creatives of couture have occasionally veered off from stamping their own denominations onto their machinations to honor the visions of these visionaries instead.
Perennially famous examples include the rechristening of the Sac à Dépêches to the Kelly as a tribute to the actress-turned-royal or Ms. Birkin’s response as being “flattered to death and said yes, yes, yes” to the request of then-Hermès CEO Jean-Louis Dumas. Lesser known is the Constance, reportedly named after Dumas’ daughter, or the Evelyne in honor of professional horse rider Evelyne Bertrand.
Lady Diana alone claims three exceedingly eminent handbags to her extensive repertoire – the Lady Dior, the Chanel Diana Flap, and the Gucci Diana. Mulberry nearly made a schtick of baptizing its bags according to the it-girl of the day, be it Alexa Chung, Lana Del Rey, or Cara Delevingne.
And the list goes on—the Bottega Veneta Jodie inspired by Jodie Foster, the Gucci Jackie and Bardot paying homage to Jackie O and Brigitte Bardot, and the Saint Laurent Loulou, Anita, Kate, and Kaia all taking their titles from Loulou de la Falaise, Anita Pallenberg, Kate Moss, and Kaia Gerber, respectively.
Urban legend even has it that The Row’s über-sensational Margaux owes its name to Mary-Kate Olsen’s former step-daughter, Margot Sarkozy!
It-Bags Beyond It-Girls
Of course, I’ve missed more names than I’d care to admit. Greta Garbo, Monica Bellucci, Sophia Loren, Kim Novak, Demi Moore, Carine Roitfeld, Gisele Bündchen, Sofia Coppola, Diane Kruger, Eva Herzigová, Amal Clooney, Selena Gomez, Freja Beha Erichsen, Jennifer Anniston and even blogger Bryanboy have all had handbags named after them at one point or the other.
Some, also worth noting, are more popular than others.
Nonetheless, namechecking a famous starlet, an astute activist, or even a celebrated creative through a purse anthropomorphizes what’s essentially an inanimate article. It’s not a sad, overpriced sack anymore if it’s called the Stam, channeling the certified cool-girl chic of its namesake human, Jessica Stam.
Similarly, you demonstrate solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movements that Nina Simone or Telfar Clemens stood for when you consciously carry Gabriela Hearst’s Nina bag or Telfar’s timeless tote.
A name, thus, is so much more than a name, for it imbues the spirit of the living into the non-living. And therein lies its primary draw – and, by extension, some of the emotional connection – we associate with our accessories.
What’s in a Name? Or Rather, What isn’t?
But fashion is prone to various vagaries in us humans. One minute, your namesake handbag could be in the arms of every it-thing on the planet; the next, a “sensational” piece of journalism could drive sales to the ground.
As Susan Scafidi, a fashion law professor at Fordham University and founder of the Fashion Law Institute, reveals, “Fashion history is filled with designers who put their names on the label, brought on an investor or backer, split from that investor, and walked nameless into the night, leaving behind their name.”
Some brands have taken a more accessible way out. Bags like Louis Vuitton’s Galliera, inspired by the Musée Galliera, Dior’s Montaigne or Chanel’s Cambon, christened after the Parisian avenues of the same name, or even Proenza Schouler’s PS1, a nod to New York’s school district, all offer relatively safer bets. An art gallery could hardly devolve into a drug habit the way a spoiled starlet might, after all.
Others have gone to great lengths to protect their monikers.
Donna Karan’s trademark is protected by a separate holding company. Adam Lippes took the pricey route of buying himself out of his own non-compete clause. Jil Sander left and then returned to her namesake label – for a grand total of three times.
Yet, it’s unlikely that founders would ever stop naming brands after themselves, even if, in the process, the name no longer belongs to them. The failure of Ralph Lauren’s American Living label for J.C. Penney, which didn’t bear his name, is a testament to that.
As designer Simon Spurr laments to Esquire, it’s a difficult balance to strike, “It is like I gave birth to a beautiful baby. And then it was ripped from me.”
And it likely always will be. But the beauty of having your name out there, revered by the masses, and living your customers’ lives is perhaps just too great.
That’s simply stardom for you.
Featured image via Prestige Online/Getty Images
Your articles are always so interesting, so enlightening and a true joy to read, Sajid. Thank you 🙂
I learned something new today, thanks to you Sajid!
Always a delight to read your informative articles!
Interesting article!
Lovely article. A pleasure to read as always.
My favorite PurseBlog writer.
As far as founder names go for new brands, have you see an increase in names that are NOT founder oriented? Curious since all three brands I can think of are founder names.
Hit bags named after it girls would be a fun feature on its own and a discussion around your take on whether they have retained their itness today (in line with Alexa Chung’s recent PR piece with the NYT).
Thanks again for another thoughtful read!
Thank you for all the positive responses, I’m glad you enjoyed it, it was just as much of an informative research process for me!
And to get back to your first point, it’s true that newer brands these days have begun moving away from naming themselves after their founders, especially with a lot of designers having stepped down recently (Tom Ford, Donna Karan, de la Renta, Dries etc.).
But in fashion, namesake brands will probably continue to have their place because most you can think of actually are named after the founder (even new ones like Christian Siriano or Assoulin) because of the strong stylistic associations with the designers themselves.