Bankruptcies in the Menswear Industry, 1981-2006

[Flaneur]

I performed a search of the "Daily News Record" electronic archive, using the search term "bankrup*", which, for the period they've indexed (1981-2006), yields 4950 articles. Divide by the number of years indexed (25), and you have a yearly average of 198 times a year that an article with the search term "bankrup*" is printed in the menswear industry's principle trade journal. Strictly for fun, and clearly NOT meant to be an indication that any of these firms themselves actually entered into bankruptcy protection, I performed a series of searches of American menswear designers and filtered that number by asking how many of those articles mentioning Designer X also used the term "bankrup*" in the same article. Spot checking just a few of the articles that came up revealed that frequently, the designer's name and the term "bankrup*" were in the same news article only because (say) the designer held a license with a second firm, and it was that firm (or even a third firm!) that declared bankruptcy, or some such. # mentions in DNR since 1981/# of those also including term "bankrup*": J.A.: 1116/2 J.B.: 662/3 P.E.: 1995/29 A.J.: 743/3 D.K.: 1279/8 C.K.: 2696/19 R.L.: 3012/36 This ain't pure science, folks, but it does reveal, I think, that the bowl of spaghetti that is the very definition of the menswear industry yields plenty of corporate shirts "indelibly marked" from the sauce of fiscal irresponsibility...

 

[thinman]

As someone who has followed the threads you've started here and on AAAC, I would like to add: some "'indelibly marked' corporate shirts" are almost certainly marked differently than others. Please drop this issue.

 

[mrchapel]

Ok, and that's wonderful, but what is your point?

 

[Nantucket Red]

This should have been posted in the Socially Embarrassing Hobbies thread.

 

[Edward Appleby]

The fact that Alexander Julian's financial habits aren't atypical doesn't change the fact that the clothes look like Seinfeld on a bad day.