Readers familiar with The Princess and her ’style aesthetic’ know how she detests logos. Absolutely. Positively. Loathes. Logos. On almost anything. Years of intensive counseling and continued outpatient therapy have made her more tolerant of the basic small (thumbnail size or less) image embroidered in the same color thread (we can’t stress the importance of this enough) as the product being logoed. For example, the Ralph Lauren Polo pony needs to be the same color as the polo shirt upon which it is being embroidered; she can cope with that. You know, w-a-a-a-y back in the dark ages this was generally the case for some of our more notable ‘preppy companies,’ like Brooks Brothers. The Brooks Golden Fleece was tastefully and discreetly used in a very low-key manner, visible only if you were in close physical proximity to, or actually wearing, the garment. Even Lilly Pulitzer originally hid her signature amongst the foliage in her lush tropical designs; it was always a treat to look for the secret letters, something akin to a treasure hunt as I recall. And Burberry plaid? Please. Don’t remind us. It was the lining for the coats. Period. Unlike the man’s “Exploded-Logo Polo” as seen at Neiman’s and shown below.
The Princess’s perspective does allow for a few exceptions to the ‘matching thread color issue’; most notably the LaCoste alligator. Why does it escape her ire? Well for openers, it was the original, created back in the 1930s. It’s been used for years and years and years, and it’s small, multi-color design could be deemed tasteful. Even today, as shown above, it remains in the background of the garment, allowing the focus to be the garment itself instead of vicea-versa. Imagine that. The little alligator did not secretly ingest Logo Steroids or Logo Growth Hormone and suddenly explode into an enormous beast as large as any garment would allow. Lacoste started the tradition, and then equally tasteful firms followed decades later, like Brooks and even Ralph Lauren Polo. Back then these designers did not send their refined little logos to the Logo Camp and say “Grow little logo, grow! Come back as big as Juicy Couture’s! Better yet, get infected with the LogoBird flu and spread yourself all over everything, everywhere! Be big-biggety-big like Versace, or Dolce & Gabbana!” No. They remained cool until relatively recently when things started to spiral out of control.
Let us gaze upon the hideous example of a logo gone bad up at the top of this post: the sequin Chanel logo (probably non-licensed) from an online purveyor of things. The seller writes: “Your little Fashionista will shine in this Chanel logo set in all clear crystal rhinestones!” Precisely what you would *not* want to see your toddler in, I don’t believe.
If you don’t trust The Princess on this topic, step back for a moment and ask yourself: would Babe Paley give a shower present of a Juicy Couture Gift Basket, proclaiming that the unborn child will be a Juicy Couture Baby, something that might be a bit of a surprise to the parents? Never. Happen. NeverEverNever. Do you see Grace Kelly wearing the Versace sunglasses seen above, so as to help the firm advertise their name? We think not.
Let us gaze upon the D&G Branded Tee for a youngster as seen above on the left, proclaiming “D&G Always for Memorable Brand.” Or consider having your pre-teen don the D&G Luxury Safari tee, also above, apparently notifying the world you have her living a “Luxury Safari.” How very nouveau gauche. And then we present one of our favorites: the Dolce & Gabbana Logo Cover-up in Junior sizes, shown below in white. This is perfect. If there must be a decorative element on the front of the Cover-up, why would one want it to say anything other than what it does, compliments of the good folks at Dolce & Gabbana. I don’t know what happened there for a moment, I must have been completely delusional. For a nanosecond I thought it might be more appropriate to actually put the child’s real name on the dress. Or, if we needed to save space, maybe just her initials in a nice monogram format instead of the message “D&G Junior.” But then we share the truly unbelievable offering: the D&G Onesie Logo Set at Neiman Marcus. It terrifies us. It leaves us speechless.
.
If the question were asked which logo is the Most Preppy, yours truly would have a one-word response. None.
No logo at all is the Most Preppy.
PS: Do tune in tomorrow for Part Two. The Princess will take all her meds (heh-heh-heh) and then share thoughts on Logo size. Are the men currently wearing the larger logos a bit more Zegna & Brioni than Brooks Brothers and J Press? Tune in tomorrow to find out.
Tags: Babe Paley, brioni, Chanel, chanel logo, Chanel tee, D&G, Dolce & Gabbana, Ermenegildo Zegna, Grace Kelly, J Press, Lacoste, Lacoste Alligator, Lilly Pulitzer, Preppy clothing & brands, preppy lifestyle, Ralph Lauren, Ralph Lauren Polo, Versace, Versace Logo, Versace sunglasses, Zegna
May 7, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Love it! Hilarious! Your posts never dissapoint!
May 7, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I just have to rave about the fabulousness of this post-especially the term “nouveau gauche.” Thanks for your visit to my site-you are now one of my favorites. Until I am a compensated endorser, logos stay away! Just curious, what do you think of the Louis Vuitton signature bags? I think the logo is tacky, but a friend of mine has a few and she always looks so chic…then again, maybe it is just her great style and not the bag at all.
May 8, 2008 at 1:04 am
Hey Lipstick, you are much too kind! You are now on our blogroll – hope that is okay!
You know, the Louis Vuitton look is always a challenge when discussing this topic, and you absolutely nailed it when you pointed out that it’s your friend who is already chic, her look enhanced or accented by her bag, as opposed to her being the accent to the bag.
To be fair, I always have to remember that their signature look was created way back in 1896, with its pre-cursor coming well before that in 1888. Because of this they always get kind of a ‘most favored nation’ status in the sense I don’t lambaste them like the others for that original signature look and design.
The ‘look’ of what they called the Monogram Canvas was created by Georges Vuitton in 1888, but what they call their ’supple monogram canvas’ which is what we are all used to seeing on everything didn’t happen until the late 1950s. Oddly enough, company lore says the look was created to keep others from copying the company’s products; apparently this was a problem even back then! Thanks for the positive feedback – it brings a little smile to The Princess’s heart.
May 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Absolutely hilarious. I totally agree. It’s like HOW BIG can we get our logo, these days. I hate it when girls wear those monstrosity of a pair of sunglasses with D G plastered on the side bigger than the frame its self. Most of the time, they got them on canal street or off of some bogus website anyways. The best part of being a true fashionista is knowing that some people out there will recognize your style without plastering the logo all over the place.
XOXOX- pretty in pink
May 8, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Oh, and I feel the same about LV lipstick. While I have my fair share of LV signature monogram… a la the speedy… i find myself not carrying it as much these days because of all the tacky girls that try to pull off those hideous knock-offs.
I recently purchased the damier in the brown and lighter color and love carrying those. I literally am the only person (granted, in Memphis) I have seen with this bag and it’s marvelous!
May 8, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Hello Preppy Princess!
Thanks for checking out my blog, I’m still getting the hang of things…
Your blog is too cute. I completely agree with the logo post. While I enjoy designer’s “signatures”, I prefer a look vs. the logo. When you see Lilly or Vineyard Vines, you know it’s them, no logo required. This has always baffled me with Chanel. Chanel has just a particular look, it’s only when they stray from their signature look (think the suits or jackets we’re all familiar with) with t-shirts and sunglasses is their logo splashed everywhere and it’s so unnecessary. Am looking forward to Part 2!
Have a good day!
May 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm
BRAVO.
I couldn’t even find decent glasses at a store in midtown because the only ones I liked had nasty logos on the sides – I was totally logo-blocked.
And I’m torn about LV also – the most stylish girl in my office, chic but classy, carries a louis bag and it looks beautiful. But I wouldn’t buy one.
May 8, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Wow, I am totally shocked after seeing some of these items that have taken the logo to the point of disgrace. I am totally fine with a discreet logo, but things have gotten out of hand. Prominent logos to me seem like the person is trying way too hard and feels like the logo will make their look that much better. Just when I thought I had seen it all …
May 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
Thanks for your reply (and especially adding me to your blogroll…I feel giddy!). I am quite impressed with the LV history lesson too. I love what Pretty in Pink said about the fake D & G sunglasses…I can just imagine those girls talking about how “chic” Paris Hilton is!