Have you seen this Givenchy label?

I recently purchased this dress and matching jacket at a vintage clothing sale. The label attached is Givenchy but one I have never seen before. It also contains a union tag stating made in Canada. Any thoughts on the label?

 

I've seen that label a lot, but it's not original to that dress. Somebody sewed a Givenchy tag into a Canadian-made garment. The finishing is wrong for Givenchy RTW and the suit is too early for Givenchy boutique. You got rooked.

 

I agree the label has been added, your outfit is 50's/60's and the labels appears to be late 70's/80s.

 

I guess even a 25 year collector can be fooled.... the seller told me this long story about how the woman she bought the suit from was a woman doctor in Toronto and wore this for her wedding. I feel like an idiot....

 

thanks for your responses.

 

Perhaps you could tell us who the seller was?

 

I purchased the suit at the Ottawa Vintage clothing sale. I was thinking of contacting the organizer of the sale to try to track down the seller. I do remember she came in from Toronto. If I am able to find her name I will be happy to post it here.

 

The seller should refund your money if you point out that the label is not original. WHether she diddled or bought it diddled, I can guarantee without handling it, that that is not, in any way, a Givenchy suit - they were NEVER made in Canada.

 

Kelly Anne, It happens to the best of us! I finally learned after getting bit a few times to beware of the "long story". I swear, the stuff people will make up sometimes to try to add value.....

 

If its any consolation, I think the dress is gorgeous.

 

The label is original to that suit

In the 1760s, English jurist William Blackstone expressed: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
I think this idea is very relevant to this post both for the fashion history side, as well as literally since the name of the seller was demanded to be displayed here publicly, although they were totally innocent!

I have the same suit in my collection in beige (instead of blue), white, and gold tones. I have purchased it from a Canadian seller on eBay.
(The suit is in my storage, I will post photos as soon as I have a chance to take it out. I couldn't wait to correct this wrong information, although it's seven years too late).

First of all, the Givenchy Boutique line was launched in 1952 at the same time that the couture house was opened. In the beginning, it was meant to be a demi-couture ready-to-wear line for younger clients, but by the late 50s, the boutique line featured successful models from past couture collections made in less expensive fabrics, still demi-couture quality (if not haute couture). Jackie Kennedy was wearing a Givenchy Boutique suit in the Fall of 1959 during the presidential campaign. Diane Vreeland also donated some of her Givenchy Boutique pieces dating early 1960s to the Met Museum. Although Givenchy launched the 'Nouvelle Boutique' line in 1968, the 'Givenchy Boutique' label still continued and probably was only sold in the Paris boutique as a luxury ready-to-wear line to the couture clients. By the 1980s the line was still in small-scale production but the quality was closer to the 'Nouvelle Boutique' line rather than the couture line.

I'm not blaming anyone who thought the label was not original to the suit. When I first saw this suit on eBay, I thought someone must have added the label later also. It was clearly not sewn in Paris couture style, my suit doesn't have the union label but the 'Lightining' brand zipper suggested that it was made in Canada. Then I realized the word "Created by" on the left side of the label. All the Givenchy Boutique labels that I have seen had "Made in France" on the left instead of "Created by". This detail made me think about the possibility of a licensed model. I started researching.

Finally, I came by an article in the WWD; on August 30, 1960, the newspaper announced "Canada firm in deal for Givenchy line". The article even clearly states the clothes will be reproduced under Givenchy's boutique label. I'm attaching the article from WWD.

After reading that article I was sure the suit was authentic but seeing another colorway here made it even more certain.

I hope that the poor seller who sold the suit didn't get in trouble because of the false information here. And I also hope this rare Givenchy ready-to-wear suit's label was not removed thinking that it wasn't original to the suit.

I think this is a learning moment for all of us. I guess this is one of the reasons why authentication comments are not allowed on VFG forums.

 

Good detective work! I stand corrected, although I must say since I originally responded to this query, I have been dismayed by many instances of less-than-impressive workmanship in designer garments that I have since seen. For example, Dior used rayon to make many of his evening dresses instead of silk, and the amount of beadwork on one of his designs changed according to the client's purse. I am surprised that Givenchy would permit very standard factory work to produce something with his name on it, but he probably figured, who would care - its being worn in Canada - not somewhere important! (and then cash the cheque). I wonder how long this arrangement went on - I wouldn't be surprised if it was only the one season.

 

Wow. Thank you so much for your response and your research. You know, I never did contact the seller and try to get my money back, nor did I cut the label off. I have worn the suit regularly and just enjoyed it for what it was.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago I saw this listing on Ebay for a suit, much the same as mine. Take a look:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/VTG-Early-...906541?hash=item421e57b72d:g:FswAAOSwS6FfNIZE

 

I was also thinking it might have been only one season since I couldn't find any other mention of this line in the fashion press. I know that Givenchy had to use lower quality fabrics in his early couture collections since he didn't start with big capital. Although the house had been around for 8 years by 1960, the Canadian deal would bring more money to his business. Also, it's possible that he didn't approve of the quality of the garments made by JH Warsh Co. hence the deal didn't last long.

I was surprised that the label design is so close to the Paris Boutique label. I would expect something more distinctly different than the Paris label, making it clear it's a licensed line. (Like Jacques Fath-Joseph Halpert label). Even today we're confused by it!

I'm glad to hear you still have the suit and enjoy wearing it!

 

I would love to blog this info too. Obviously my original response was emphatically wrong (although it was spurred on by a worrying trend at the time of dealers taking labels out of men's ties and sewing them into dresses - especially Givenchy, Dior, Schiaparelli, and YSL.) I would love to put this info into my Canadian fashion blog, with credit to Modamuzesi, and Kelly-Anne, if I may.

BTW - Is this the Istanbul Fashion Museum?: https://museumofc.com

 

Wow!

 

Jonathan, I would be honoured to be mentioned in your blog.