1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

prada selling church's stake?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by faustian bargain, May 12, 2006.

  1. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    http://www.fashionunited.co.uk/news/prada.htm#270406

     
  2. Tibo

    Tibo Senior member

    Messages:
    375
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    At work, mostly.
  3. Etienne

    Etienne Senior member

    Messages:
    4,666
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Paris
    I read various takes on that news on some other French forums. According to some, interested parties include LVMH (Dior, Berluti, etc.), PPR via their Gucci affiliate (YSL, etc.) and Hermès (Lobb, etc.).

    Some other news I heard was that Prada was reconsidering the sale and might even increase its stake.

    Edit : see http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...167376,00.html
     
  4. GreyFlannelMan

    GreyFlannelMan Senior member

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    I've never seen any positive effects to Prada owning Church's.

    Has Prada ownership benefited any acquired company? They also destroyed Helmut Lang and Jil Sander.
     
  5. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    but I can't see it going back to its previous quality. prado bought it, broke it, and is now going to throw it back.
     
  6. timekeeping

    timekeeping Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    but I can't see it going back to its previous quality. prado bought it, broke it, and is now going to throw it back.

    I agree. It's difficult for any company to reduce quality levels and then raise it back to what it was. How long did it take Brooks Brothers to get its quality back up?

    It's sad that Prada ruined so many great brands.

    I wouldn't say that Prada bought it then broke it and is now throwing it back. I'd say what Prada had planned for Church's didn't work out.

    Small retailers in my part of the world is pissed off with Church's to no end as it became totally non-responsive post-Prada. That could have contributed to the troubles Church's is in.

    Having experienced pre- and post- Prada Church's, I can say that the difference is almost heaven and earth.

    Arguably, LVMH is doing similar things to Beluti and that seems to be working out. I have no experience with pre-LVMH Beluti, though.
     
  7. Tibo

    Tibo Senior member

    Messages:
    375
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    At work, mostly.
    When I keep thinking about it, I can't really explain what Prada did to/with Church's (that is, other than lowering its quality).

    Can't say I have been seeing changes in terms of distribution, marketing, products, ... Am I wrong ?
     
  8. chorse123

    chorse123 Senior member

    Messages:
    10,448
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Isn't the price higher and the quality lower? Also, they had those awful rubber soles that spelled out CHURCH. I'm not surprised the brand failed under Prada. They were charging an awful lot of money for basic shoes made from mediocre leather.
     
  9. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    When I keep thinking about it, I can't really explain what Prada did to/with Church's (that is, other than lowering its quality).

    Can't say I have been seeing changes in terms of distribution, marketing, products, ... Am I wrong ?



    several of the shoes that I liked were dropped, and a lot of hte new styles look like crap. the quality doens't seem as good. several retail branches, that I know of, closed.
     
  10. RJman

    RJman Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    18,647
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future
    I don't think Church's was ever at the level of C&J Handgrade, let alone EG/Lobb. However, it really did seem to hit bottom under Prada. I don't know if it did so in terms of leather quality -- they've never had really great leather -- but the designs were quite bad, blobbier than the old Church's, which were never sleek. The only thing Prada did right was those ads of people jumping up in the air. The sneakers with the Church's logo sole were an abomination. The price increase in Church's is deplorable, although they seem to have a Tyrwhitt-like permasale on at the DC store. I've noticed when I walk by their shops in Paris that they seem to have a nicer last now and some actually interesting designs (spectators or co-respondent shoes among others). If the price was reduced to real levels -- maybe $300 or $400 -- they might be reasonably attractive. However, they seem likely to stay at the 500 euro mark. When shoes like C&J and Albaladejo are cheaper, there's something really wrong with Church's pricing.
     
  11. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    I don't think Church's was ever at the level of C&J Handgrade, let alone EG/Lobb. However, it really did seem to hit bottom under Prada. I don't know if it did so in terms of leather quality -- they've never had really great leather -- but the designs were quite bad, blobbier than the old Church's, which were never sleek. The only thing Prada did right was those ads of people jumping up in the air. The sneakers with the Church's logo sole were an abomination. The price increase in Church's is deplorable, although they seem to have a Tyrwhitt-like permasale on at the DC store. I've noticed when I walk by their shops in Paris that they seem to have a nicer last now and some actually interesting designs (spectators or co-respondent shoes among others). If the price was reduced to real levels -- maybe $300 or $400 -- they might be reasonably attractive. However, they seem likely to stay at the 500 euro mark. When shoes like C&J and Albaladejo are cheaper, there's something really wrong with Church's pricing.


    RJ - I don't think Church's was evr supposed to compete, quality wise, with EG/Lobb. they were for people who knew that they didn't want to wear Florshiem/rockports, but didn't know, couldn't afford to go the next level. My first 3 pair of "real" shoes (after 2 pair of paper thin italian shoes that I got at 22) were church. 2 of those 3 pair are still in my rotation. and I thought that I knew alot about shoes at the time, but I really didn't.
     
  12. RJman

    RJman Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    18,647
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future
    No, Church's exist as a default good shoe, proper to an upper-middle(-middle) class existence, at least in England, and probably in (more conservative bourgeois circles in) Italy and France as well. A household name, for many I imagine the next known step up would be Lobb (St James), simply since many people can't be bothered to learn about or look into C&J, Green, Tricker's, etc. I remember some years ago, when there was some hubbub in the British press about then PM-hopeful William Hague's attire -- Poole suits, Budd shirts, T&A ties and Cleverley shoes. An old city gent was asked for his opinion and stated that Cleverley is for people who can't afford Lobb. The gent in question, of course, was wearing his old Church's. Quite clearly off the mark, given what I've heard about the relative merits of Lobb and Cleverley's work nowadays, but clearly informed by this limited constellation of names.

    In point of fact, Hague's Cleverleys were made to order, probably C&J.
     
  13. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    No, Church's exist as a default good shoe, proper to an upper-middle(-middle) class existence, at least in England, and probably in (more conservative bourgeois circles in) Italy and France as well. A household name, for many I imagine the next known step up would be Lobb (St James), simply since many people can't be bothered to learn about or look into C&J, Green, Tricker's, etc. I remember some years ago, when there was some hubbub in the British press about then PM-hopeful William Hague's attire -- Poole suits, Budd shirts, T&A ties and Cleverley shoes. An old city gent was asked for his opinion and stated that Cleverley is for people who can't afford Lobb. The gent in question, of course, was wearing his old Church's. Quite clearly off the mark, given what I've heard about the relative merits of Lobb and Cleverley's work nowadays, but clearly informed by this limited constellation of names.

    In point of fact, Hague's Cleverleys were made to order, probably C&J.


    RJ - I was a little thrown by your starting the paragraph with "No" - we are agreeing, are we not?
     
  14. RJman

    RJman Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    18,647
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future
    RJ - I was a little thrown by your starting the paragraph with "No" - we are agreeing, are we not?
    No, we are agreeing.

    doh.
     
  15. sho'nuff

    sho'nuff Senior member

    Messages:
    22,225
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Location:
    Irvine
    i think Prada should just declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and just disappear. it's not a company that is benefitting anyone.
     
  16. acidboy

    acidboy Senior member

    Messages:
    21,170
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    why did prada buiy church's in the first place? was this during the time miucci's husband was dreaming of becoming as big as lvmh?
     
  17. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Prada, during those binges of the dotcom boom, bought any small independent brand that wasn't already bought by their competitors, LVMH and the then Gucci Group as well as the smaller AEFFE group, which owns Jean-Paul Gaultier, Moschino, Alberta Ferreti, among others.

    As well, I suspect Prada bought Church's to make it hip; one of those old brands revamped sort of like Globe-Trotter luggage or what Colette had with Goyard.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by