Critical Mass - The New York Times

Pin It

It was hard for me to write that title because I did feel that there was an extra letter therein (and that's all I am gonna say, you will have to figure out which (hint: Its between an L and an A)) but the wife said that I couldnt write what I wanted to so I settle on this Critical Mass.  Websters Dictionary defines critical mass as below.  (interesting that one of the expression that Websters offers as a rhyme is almost what I wanted to write as the title of this post):

critical mass

 noun

Definition of CRITICAL MASS

: a size, number, or amount large enough to produce a particular result <the critical mass of activity needed for a retail store>

 See critical mass defined for English-language learners »

First Known Use of CRITICAL MASS

1919

Rhymes with CRITICAL MASS

atomic mass, Depression glass, electron gas, laughing jackass, optical glass, play-action pass, venetian glass,volcanic glass

In the end I chose this title because I felt that it reflected well on the below article which was overly critical about things that were not correct.

Let me explain.

There is a service called Google Alerts that you can create with Google so that they notify you any time anyone posts on the web, the word or phrase that you specify.  We use it to see who is posting about the brands that we carry.  Last night I received the following alert on Baby Dior:

"That Dress Is So Preschool New York Times Dior had Baby Dior, founded in 1967 (before that, the house made outfits for some of its celebrated clients, like Elizabeth Taylor, who ordered matching tweed suits for herself and her young daughter Liza), but the luxury-goods business, ..."

Naturally I clicked on the link to see what all the fuss was about and was greeted with the article that you get when clicking on the link.  By was I surprised.  As a kids designer clothing veteran of 25 years who was born and bread into the business (we are closing in on 40 years in business) I was hit with a couple of things.  First of all, the author maintains that this is a new phenomenon and that other than the last few years the kids designer business is a new concept.

"Seemingly overnight, brands like Oscar de la Renta, Fendi, Marc Jacobs, Roberto Cavalli, Missoni, Milly and Phillip Lim moved into expanded children’s areas of stores, "

What this means in typical NYT "journalism" sense is is that she just discovered this and if she just found out about this market it "must" be new.  So let's set the record straight on that one.

Tuesday's Child and many other stores like ours have been selling children's designer clothing for well over the "seemingly overnight" stated and even way before the one decade that Ms. Horyn claims these came into existence.  As I mentioned earlier, we are almost 40 years old.  Dolce and Gabbana Junior, Cavalli Angels and Devils, Burberry, Versace, Diesel, etc. are brands that have been around a lot longer than Mrs. Horyn knows.  Granted that there are new designers on the scene, i.e. Fendi Kids, Stella McCartney Kids, Gucci etc, Moncler Kids but the overall concept of designer and imported clothing for kids is older than I am, and not just with Dior.

Individually Ms. Horyn and those that she interviewed proceed to bash certain labels while praising others.

For example, Moncler Kids is on the bash list for the following reasons:

"MONCLER down-filled synthetic jacket, $380 at Bergdorf Goodman. Made in Romania. Puckering at the seams, a poorly matched zipper and uneven filler."

Now, aside from being our sold our best seller in the Moncler Kids Jackets this Spring 2012 season (The in between/transitional jackets from Winter to Spring ) it was, according to my rep, Moncler USA's best seller as well.

But let's analyze the complaints that Ms. Horyn quotes:

Down filled synthetic jacket:  To be clear, all down jackets are synthetic.  That just means that the shell of the jacket which holds the feathers is synthetic.  Have you ever seen a down jacket that didnt have a synthetic shell? What would happen if you filled a cloth shell with down and then it rained?  Ugh... That being said the hand on this series of jackets was like silk.  I guess Ms. Horyn couldn't appreciate that.

Puckering at the seams:  Not sure what this means.  Is a piece of synthetic material that is not rigid (soft to the touch ) able to be stitched so that it creates pockets of down in a manner that the material wont pucker?  I dont quite think thats possible.

Poorly matched zipper:  Dont know what this means either.  The coat weighs only a few ounces.  Exactly what kind of zipper were we expecting?  And the fact that its a light zipper really means nothing.  The zippers have never worn incorrectly or damaged in all the years that we have worked with Moncler.  Quality lasts.

Uneven filler:  This is a weird one and the picture is misleading.  If you press down stuffing and then immediately release it and snap a picture you will see it flat.  But good down puffs right up again and that's what these do because Moncler uses ONLY the best down.  Observe the following video if you will and see how the jacket snaps back to shape immediately after being flattened. You can see that happeneing between 12-20 seconds into the youtube video as it pops back up. As I mentioned earlier the model mentioned in the NYT was sold out so I had to take the remaining piece of a similar jacket to use in the video.

Obviously for whatever reason on her agenda Ms. Horyn was interested in showing that the coat stays flat and shot the picture immediately after flatteneing it.  She or whoever took that shot.  Either way it just aint so.  Uneven filler?  Hardly, the stitching in these coats is done so carefully  so that the filler is going nowhere from the moment its created to the years after its been passed down to the youngest relative you pass it to and with quality items like these, make no mistake, you will be passing it on to others.  

The Moncler coats command a premium because they are a premium product.  In truth luxury items are not for every budget nor for every person and there is nothing wrong with that, despite what the artice maintains.

Now, if you are wondering why have I spent so much time explaining why I disagree with someone when they clearly loved some of the styles that were in that NYT photo shoot that haven't seen this side of the century?

That I cannot answer... ;-)