• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Nobody's safe

msulinski

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
167
That's too bad. I have a few mtm Coppley suits from LS Men's in NYC. I guess I'll have to find a different brand.
 

Grammaton Cleric

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
355

When your parent company has "Acquisition Corp" in its name and you are a retailer/manufacturer, you're days were pretty numbered to begin with.


No, not really. Most of these entities have an Opco-Holdco relationship, so the vast majority of acquirors buy a target via an independent "Acquisition Corp." for any tax savings via structure, basis step-up etc.

Realize that this is a boring post, but just want to highlight that the Indians buying Hickey via an "Acquisition Corp," should not imply that their intent was anything shady.
 

edmorel

Quality Seller!!
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
5,181

No, not really. Most of these entities have an Opco-Holdco relationship, so the vast majority of acquirors buy a target via an independent "Acquisition Corp." for any tax savings via structure, basis step-up etc.
Realize that this is a boring post, but just want to highlight that the Indians buying Hickey via an "Acquisition Corp," should not imply that their intent was anything shady.


you misunderstood, I did not mean shady, I meant mismanaged from the perspective of building an identity for the brand/brands. What was Hickey Freeman about? Without thinking about it for a few minutes. Compare that to Ralph Lauren or even Men's Warehouse, with those two you have a very specific idea in your head about what they are selling (Ralph has multiple identities but that's a whole other thing). Was HF/Hart Schaffner high quality goods a la RL? No. Where they inexpensive a la MW? No. Did they have their Brooks history? No. Did they have a specific look/cut? No. I think successful brands have an emotional attachment with their customers, be it due to the prices, quality, looks etc. HF was about as bland, middle of the road as can be. If you took all their mainline suits and put them on the racks at JC Penney, no one would notice anything different by looking at them.

I will give them credit for Hickey and for Bobby Jones, even though they muffed up those two great ideas.
 

Gus

Stylish Dinosaur
Dubiously Honored
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
18,580
Reaction score
8,077
I've seen a number of companies use bankruptcy as a method of eliminating debt and then moving on. This may not be the end of HF or HSM even though the creditors get the shaft.
 

jrd617

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
15,291
Reaction score
2,660
They've already tried to add cachet to the brand with "hickey".... failed. (To be fair, the concept was okay, but the website was awful)
Then they introduced the slim "Sterling" collection. Don't know how that turned out.

The brand is not very strong. Years ago, I think it was better. But there are many more options for tailored stuff now. Especially with European imports.

Plus, I think the name "Hickey" might sound funny to a person buying his first suit.

Last resort... they pull a "Suit Supply" and offer MTM full canvas slim suits at bargain prices? I don't think they can make suits in the US and survive on those margins.
 

Grammaton Cleric

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
355

you misunderstood, I did not mean shady, I meant mismanaged from the perspective of building an identity for the brand/brands. What was Hickey Freeman about? Without thinking about it for a few minutes. Compare that to Ralph Lauren or even Men's Warehouse, with those two you have a very specific idea in your head about what they are selling (Ralph has multiple identities but that's a whole other thing). Was HF/Hart Schaffner high quality goods a la RL? No. Where they inexpensive a la MW? No. Did they have their Brooks history? No. Did they have a specific look/cut? No. I think successful brands have an emotional attachment with their customers, be it due to the prices, quality, looks etc. HF was about as bland, middle of the road as can be. If you took all their mainline suits and put them on the racks at JC Penney, no one would notice anything different by looking at them.
I will give them credit for Hickey and for Bobby Jones, even though they muffed up those two great ideas.


Ed - I agree completely. But, and not to be overly pedantic, I fail to see how the initial use of an Acquisition Corp should have been indicative of the subsequent mismanagement you mention above.

Pocketsquareguy - I suspect you;re right - this'll be a court-approved bankruptcy, and someone else will buy up the assets and hope to revive the company. Ed's point is important - Hickey Freeman really needs an identity if its to survive another 50 years. Being the vanilla American brand is not a viable strategy.
 
Last edited:

edmorel

Quality Seller!!
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
5,181

Ed - I agree completely. But, and not to be overly pedantic, I fail to see how the initial use of an Acquisition Corp should have been indicative of the subsequent mismanagement you mention above.



yeah, I was just being snarky. I obviously have no idea how the company was being managed and just because the official owner is an acquisition corp doesn't mean anything.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 92 37.2%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 90 36.4%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 27 10.9%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 42 17.0%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 38 15.4%

Forum statistics

Threads
507,006
Messages
10,593,422
Members
224,355
Latest member
ESF
Top