- Oct 14, 2012
- Reaction score
Very interesting lacing pattern on the wholecut.
I'm happy to introduce the Styleforum Happy Hour our brand new podcast featuring lively discussion about menswear and the fashion industry. In the inaugural edition, a discussion of what's going on in retail today. Please check it out on the Journal. All episodes will be also be available soon on your favorite podcast platform.
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!
I agree. The navy monk is beautiful - sold out ! The price is very reasonable.
I have no real quarrels with the ‘new Wildsmith’ other than that they are trading on what would have been 6 generations of Wildsmith ethos, perhaps we won’t count the last proprietor, under a modern perspective. The way I see it, it’s a firm calling themselves Wildsmith selling shoes as opposed to a firm selling ‘Wildsmith Shoes’. I have seen a sign on their Facebook (on Savile Row?) which says WILDSMITH ESTD. 1847. Should it not read “Wildsmith ESTD 2013…….??”
My grounds for sheer anger, annoyance, and disappointment is the selfishness, greed and damn right disgusting way in which he has brought un abrupt end to the Wildsmith line of tradition. Sour grapes it may sound, however I’m of the opinion that if you inherit a family business of good standing you have the responsibility to continue the line on for future generations, not just selfishly take the money and run!!
In reality, J Wildsmith is entitled to do whatever he wishes to do with the company; however I’m not sure I’d sleep well knowing I had done what he has.
For me, having never had any involvement with the business, it has never about owning a business, the success of it, but always been the great sense of pride that I had, knowing what my ancestors had worked up to build, the clientele the shop attracted, it’s (previous) reputation and the iconic designs that were produced on the bench.
Perhaps I’ll quit now before I say something I might really regret
Perhaps if you took time to read my previous comments on this thread you'd know you were talking out of the wrong part of your body...
Plus M. Wildsmith & Sons was founded in 1847.......not 'Wildsmith'.......where is the continuity....
I have plodded through every one of your whiny comments on this thread. As per your own admission, you have had no involvement with the business, but now, all of a sudden, you feel grief, disappointment, and disgust at the way a sale has happened. Huh? - what am I missing here?
When your young children, sitting on your knee, ask the inevitable follow-up question, "But, Daddy - what did you do to stop these bastards from stealing our company?" - you can proudly reply, "I went and whined on an internet forum, sonny!"
This whole matter of the date of incorporation is a bit of nonsense. It is common practice that the acquirer gets to use all the trademarks and elements of the acquired entity. When Blancpain or A. Lange & Sohne were resurrected a few years ago, despite them being defunct for decades, the original dates of incorporation from the 18th / 19th centuries were used. There is nothing unusual in that. It's a bit disingenuous, but the entire luxury products industry is guilty of your charge.
What I find most amusing about this whole episode is how you sniff and slander a couple of entrepreneurs who are making a concentrated effort to revive a great old brand. Rather than focusing on how they're rebuilding something from scratch, you have narrowed in on your own petty insecurities.