Friday NY Magazine came out with this odd missive stating as follows:
Quote:
Confirmed: Designer Kids’ Clothes Are Silly and Probably Not Worth the Price
Pricey designer kids' clothes are ridiculous for many obvious reasons (who would spend more than $1,000 on something that might get pooped on, or worse?), but it's a rapidly growing industry regardless. According to today's Times, last year Burberry sold $91 million in children's clothing, up 23 percent from the previous year; meanwhile, lots of luxury brands like Oscar de la Renta, Lanvin, and Fendi have recently launched kids' lines.
Mini versions of anything — shoes, clothes, dogs, purses, furniture — are always irresistible, so it makes sense that people with money to burn would want baby-sized duplicates of their own designer clothing. But according to the Times, a lot of these pieces aren't even made very well. According to children's wear designer Rachel Riley, “Some of their fabrics are mediocre," and the clothes aren't tailored properly for kids' proportions. Also, is it even ethical to treat a child like a designer doll? The Times reports:
[Riley] remains fixed in her view that children should be children and not little brand ambassadors or, in the current parlance, “prostitots.” She said: “I can’t bear advertising on children. And why would a child need to have anything remotely sexy? To me, it’s unethical.”
If it's any comfort, the clothes will probably get too small or covered in ketchup before they can do much harm.
I find this quite odd and no doubt laced with hypocrisy from the same people that carry 2-5 thousand dollar bags which they change season after season, and womens fashion that runs in the thousands of dollars yet has a usable shelf life of no more than six months if that much.
Quality kids clothing on the other hand has multiple use in one family with overlapping children (two of the same gender a few seasons apart) and can be passed from one family to the next. Try doing that with your typical department store inferior grade product. I am not being snobby, I am being factual.
But let's anayze Ms. Cowles on the merit of her words like we've done with the Moncler bashing last week:
Ms. Cowles states:
"Pricey designer kids' clothes are ridiculous for many obvious reasons (who would spend more than $1,000 on something that might get pooped on, or worse?)"
Umm...was there any research done into this or did Ms. Cowles simply take the word of the NY Times "Journalist" and assume that all children's designer clothing is 1000 dollars and more? To be sure there are 1000 pieces but most designer kids clothing is in the 50-100 dollar range for sportswear and 200-350 for dresswear. The 1K pieces are few and far between and are rarely purchased for anyone besides celebrities.
"Mini versions of anything — shoes, clothes, dogs, purses, furniture — are always irresistible, so it makes sense that people with money to burn would want baby-sized duplicates of their own designer clothing."
Silly. Just plain silly. More than that it just illustrated that the author did little in the way of research but relied on the little that was fed her. To set the record straight, MOST designers do not simply miniaturize what they do in the large for the small version because let's face it, the woman that spent 5-10K on her evening gown does not want to be seated next to a mini version of herself that her co workers daughter is sporting. It aint happening. I fact I once had a mother in our sales store try on a Pinco Pallino dress for an event for herself and when she asked me if it fit I said yes but bear in mind that when the daughter of the woman sits down next to you with the very same item you will have a heart attack and die. She didnt take the dress.
Only recently has there been a "Mini-Me" movement but its limited to one or two pieces a season and just for the sake of "Mini-Me". You will see patterns or fabrics that were shown in one or two seasons past make their way to the kids version of a Baby Dior Item or a Little Marc Jacobs or Even a Cavalli Angels or Devils piece but usually not until it's a "has been" for the adult. Besides as Ms. Riley correctly states, women and kids are shaped differently and most women dont want their kids to dress like women.
Now for the Professional Opinion:
According to children's wear designer Rachel Riley, “Some of their fabrics are mediocre," and the clothes aren't tailored properly for kids' proportions. Also, is it even ethical to treat a child like a designer doll? The Times reports:
[Riley] remains fixed in her view that children should be children and not little brand ambassadors or, in the current parlance, “prostitots.” She said: “I can’t bear advertising on children. And why would a child need to have anything remotely sexy? To me, it’s unethical.”
I will be honest with you. I didn't know who Rachel Riley is until I googled her. I attribute my ignorance to the fact that her look as evidenced on her site is something that we dont carry at all in TuesdaysChild.com or in the store. We do kids designer brands, she does her own style of vintage dresses. But armed with this knowledge I will present to you the following question with regard to the criticism of Ms. Riley as consultant for the NY Times article and Ms. Horwyn. How and why for that matter do you take the word of a children's clothing designer with regard to the mini version of Haute Couture when she herself produces what she thinks is the cats meow in vintage styled dresses?
I will also state that most of the clothing that we carry as Kids Haute Couture and fashion pieces are 10 times more wearable than the party dresses that Mr. Riley produces as both the parents and the children are interested in wearing the designer stuff and not because of the name but because of the look. Are some of the fabrics mediocre? Rarely. As I mentioned earlier, you can usually pass these items from kid to kid with them washing and wearing wonderfully. And those are the lower priced items. As for the I Pinco Pallino, Mimi Sol and Simonetta clothing as well as the Baby Dior and others the word that comes to mind with regard to most of these fabrics is and regal. For every child and every occassion? Absolutely not. But a very far cry from mediocre.
Finally, I dont wish to be mean here but I suspect that the staying power of a designer like Baby Dior or Little Marc Jacobs is that much greater than that of Ms. Riley's brand for the reason mentioned above.
The designer clothing that we carry is not like Ms. Riley in poor taste mentioned, "prostitot"-like. Rather its very wearable and in 99% of the cases quite fine. Sorry if thats not what she wants kids to wear, its just current and children as well as parents also like it when their kids look current. (When Juicy Couture Kids had the word Juicy across the rump we didnt touch it but they don't anymore and we sell plenty of it because its current and very child like.)
So yeah, kids designer clothing is expensive but if you have the money more often than not its a worthwhile purchase. Certainly a heck of a lot more worthwhile and practical than those 7 inch Loubuotins. ;-)
See 
