Chanel that has a Garfinckel's label attached to it

[!Lily@]

Hello everyone,

There is a thread here that is dedicated to Chanel ar Saks Fifth Avenue. From that thread, I learned that Saks bought from Chanel the rights to reproduce their garments, using the Chanel RTW techniques, and to sell them to the public.
Recently I came across a suit that has Garfinckel's label attached to it. I researched and found out that Garfinckel's was a large department store that was closed in 1990. A Chanel boutique was on its 3rd floor. I could not find anything about them actually making the clothes, though. However, I think that they may use the same way of purchasing rights to make clothes as Saks did.

Question: do you think that such items could be considered real Chanel RTW? Or still the Garfinckel's copy?

I am also curious, how come that the jacket has a Garfinckel's tag attached, but the skirt does not?

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

Hello,

This is not to be considered an authentication of your suit. But, if your suit is indeed a Chanel Boutique suit, then the answer to your question is "yes". It is genuine Chanel (Boutique) and could be sold as such. Any Chanel, from Haute Couture to Boutique to other RTW labels, are still considered to be Chanel. Also, the tag says "Made In France" so the suit would not have been made in Garfinkle's. I am not 100% sure, but I do not think Garfinkle's had any arrangements to make Chanel copies at their stores. It is not unusual for a department store to put their store label only on a jacket and not the matching skirt, since they were sold as a set. Also, please notice that Garfinkle's has sewn their store label over the Chanel label. So there are actually 2 separate labels.

Of course it could not be sold as Chanel Haute Couture, but as Chanel RTW.

 

[!Lily@]

Thank you Barbara! By applying simple logic, if it is made in France, it can not be made in Washington D.C.

So this is different from what I read about Chanel by Dawidow, by Saks Fifth Avenue and others.

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

To answer your question, yes, this is very different, if you are referring to those early garments. Of course I should add that I do not know what you read or what the source was.

Please keep in mind that the terms and wording used on labels has changed over the past 6 decades, as well as the requirements to use such labels. A (Paris) Boutique garment from the 1950s would be much better quality than what you find today with a Boutique label, and much nearer to the true couture garment, and a boutique garment was not considered RTW when first introduced.

I am also not familiar with this phrase you quoted in your first post. "Chanel RTW techniques". ???? If you refer to the 1950s, this phrase seems incorrect, so I wonder where you read that.

 

[!Lily@]

I meant the Chanel RTW sewing techniques, sorry!

 

[Rue_de_la_Paix]

I was just wondering about the time period. I thought you were referring to the 1960s. Chanel did not have a RTW line until, I think, around 1979-1980 so there were no Chanel RTW sewing techniques in the 1960s. I was going way way back to the early days of late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, since that was when Davidow, Holt Renfrew and Saks began their relationships with Paris houses. So I am not sure what time period you are referring to.

I will wait to see what others have to add. Sorry if I went too far back in fashion history on this question!

 

[!Lily@]

I appreciate it that you touched upon the fashion history! Me, too, I was asking the question about the time when the suit could possibly have been made.
To me, the whole suit looks more like a creature of Karl Lagerfeld's hand. Since he came to Chanel in 1983, my cautious guess would be that this might be the earliest date for the suit. As Garfinckle's closed in 1990, this might be the latest date.

I heard that the actual year might be written under the 'Collection' on tag, but it does not seem to have it.