Charles Frederick Worth ?

L

louise

Registered Guest
Hello Everyone, Just wondering if anywone has ever seen this label before, and is it infact Charles Worth?
Thanks
Louise
 
It is a 1950's dress, and couturier made.... No way they could have had this label towards the end of being in business?
Thanks
 
Check out how radically different this label is compared to the 50s one in the resource. I think that since the font style is so trademark, they would have stuck with the "signature" look rather than the block letters.

This is the only mention of Worth Boutique I could find:

House of Worth Today - from the website http://www.jereviens.com/history/houseofworth.htm

The remains of the Worth business were purchased in 1999 from Mr. Sidney Massin and Mr. Marc Massin and are presently being used under agreement by the Worth Boutique, which under its auspices, is presently effecting a complete commercial revival under the House of Worth and other Worth trade marks. An audacious collection of couture offerings and custom pieces bring the House full circle in its history. Further information and contact is available at: www.houseofworth.co.uk and www.worthboutique.com. (Note - both websites are no longer existing, which leads me to believe the info is out of date).

In 1999, Martin McCarthy and Laura Shadden purchased the remains of the House of Worth. The Charles Frederick Worth Organization is one of a number initiatives aimed at preserving and reviving the Worth name and heritage.

So the dress could be from a version of worth at some point that was parceled out. I am not saying you are wrong for date - its just thats all I could find. I would say that even it were licensed or part of some last bit of Worth, the label wouldn't give the dress any steam just like a 70s Lilli Ann doesn't get steam from the label like a 40s suit would, I would imagine. So it could be Worth but not THAT worth. Alternately, it could be from some place not related to "THE" worth.

But then I am not a Worth expert.
 
That is the boutique line label from the last incarnation of Worth, used in London between 1953 and 1967. Although it was still called Worth, the company was no longer based in Paris and it was not owned or designed by any member of the Worth family. Elspeth Champcommunal was the designer for Worth in London until 1964. I have a wedding dress that was purchased from Worth in London in 1963 and its label is similar to yours, except that it was not from the boutique line so there are some minor design differences in the label. Boutique was essentially high end off-the-rack, and was considered the next level down from couture (Dior used to pull from his boutique clients to invite them to couture fashion shows -- essentially you had to drop a lot of cash in the boutique before you could see the couture shows!)
 
Originally posted by Jonathan
That is the boutique lline label from the last incarnation of Worth, used in London between 1953 and 1967. Although it was still called Worth, the company was no longer based in Paris, and ii was not owned by, or designed by, any member of the Worth family. Elspeth Champcommunal was the designer for Worth in London until 1964. I have a wedding dress that was purchased from Worth in London in 1963 and its label is similar to yours, except that it was not from the boutique line so there are some minor design differences in the label. Boutique was essentially high end off-the-rack, and was considered the next level down from couture (Dior used to pull from his boutique clients to invite them to couture fashion shows -- essentially you had to drop a lot of cash in the boutique before you could see the couture shows!)
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

What happened with the people in that website that I quoted? Were they people who basically "bought the name" to see what they could do with it and then didn't?
 
I think those people came later... I don't get why old designer names are bought up and relaunched -- Valentina, Balmain, Lanvin, Balenciaga, Schiaparelli - they have all been revived and are operating again. I hate that because it has nothing to do with the original design intent of the founder. Ghesquerie occasionally does something that looks vaguely Balenciaga-ish, but I wish he would find backers to start up a label under his own name. I guess mega-corps prefer to trade on an established name and its old perfume brands rather than take a chance on a new talent and create a new label.
 
How true, Jonathan. I hear that Vionnet has been "revived" lately too... ugh! I prefer to see the original, even if it's behind glass in a museum, than even the thought of owning a "new" one (even if I had the money), that has nothing to do with Madeleine Vionnet.

Karin
 
Odd side note, but wasn't the House of Worth up for sale as a extravagant Christmas gift in the Bergdorf Goodman catalogue ? It came with reference material, like sketches, gowns, etc. Perfect gift for privileged fashion student lol ! Anyway, I actually like the fact new designers keep designing under old fashion houses. It really takes an atelier to produce fashion, not just one designer, so why should that die when the namesake leaves ? Yes there are a lot of disasters, Lohan at Ungaro, Estaban Cortazar at Ungaro lol, Helmt Lang, Thierry Mugler, but there are great pairings like Raf Simons at Jil Sander, Lagerfeld, Galliano, Christopher Kane at Versus is genius !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top