"Norman Norell" vs. "Norell" labels

Hello vintage fashion lovers & historians:
Does anyone know the reasoning (if there is one) behind why some Norell labels carry the "NORMAN NORELL / NEW YORK" label while others read simply "NORELL"? If he switched the label in a particular year, it could be vital for dating of his 1960-1972 clothes.

I had wondered if the change occurred around 1968, when Norell's branded perfume was released because many of the "NORELL" labels have a similar aesthetic to the perfume brand. However, this is purely a guess that I'm still exploring, and I've even found some evidence that might eventually refute my hypothesis. Some "NORELL" labels lack the elongated typeface of the perfume label (see attached image Norell_1989-162_d01 from a 1968-1969 day coat):

So it looks like he had at least 2 variations of the "NORELL" label. On a coat and dress ensemble, the coat label is "NORELL" while the dress label is "NORMAN NORELL / NEW YORK." Examples of this ensemble's labels below (Norell_1986-151a_d01 and Norell_1986151b_d01); it is dated to 1968:


I have many more examples of both kinds of Norell labels, and can provide more information about any of the images attached as needed. ANY insight - or even alternate guesses - would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!
Rebecca

 

Hi Rebecca, have you seen the VFG's Label Resource entry for Norell? It sounds like your research might be helpful with dates if you do find an answer. As you can see, we have the same '68 label as you, but from a 1970s suit and there's also a '70s label that still has the name in full, albeit for I. Magnin.

 

I LOVE the Label Resource but I don't think it can help me with this specific question. There just aren't enough examples to make a clear determination about which year Norell switch his label style; it's always possible the older label was still used in the early 1970s and there just isn't an example posted, or vice versa. And also with many dates being vague it's hard to determine exactly when a label style was switched (at least in this case, unfortunately). Thanks for the tip though!