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.
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.
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.....
