I love the color and the charm, but the size is ridiculous.
Coach Fall 2017 Thread!
- Thread starter faintlymacabre
- Start date
I love the color and the charm, but the size is ridiculous.
Exactly my thoughts. These colors are wonderful, but the size? I just couldn't do it.
And solid colors too. I love the bag, but am so not into the half and half look or the prints either. I've looked closely at the bags and haven't seen any loops to connect a strap to.
Okay, I needed some time to digest this collection.
To be honest, I was not excited by much of anything I saw yesterday. I saw the runway set and thought to myself, "Here we go again... again."
It LITERALLY looks like we saw the same collection walk for the Men's Fall 2017/Women's Pre-Fall 2017/75th Anniversary Show back in December. I really hope that we'll meet the contemporary Coach gang every season, but it never shows up. I'm exhausted by seeing the same ad campaigns, the same 1970's/western/prairie theme/shearling pieces/floral prints.
Tangent: How many floral dresses will they continue to show?!? There has been multiple floral prints in every 1941 collection since it was officially split from Coach New York, and it is so boring and predictable.
Vevers has a great niche for Americana. He understands "cool" and how to retool Coach's archive. I want to see a modern Coach girl for once, not this Prairie Wench from the 1970's living out of rusted cars.
The NYT hits the nail on the head with their review:
"In case you didn’t get it, [Coach] had lured everyone to the Far West Side of Manhattan and a pier by a bit of beach just abutting the Hudson, and seated the attendees around a little hut on the prairie that had been built inside a structure complete with tumbleweeds on dusty ground. But the story was so obvious, the setting wasn’t necessary. Whack! It hit you on the head. Whack!
It might have been better to let some of Manhattan in.
Because, while it is perfectly clear what Mr. Vevers’s Coach stands for, it is a limited idea. This time around he stretched it a bit — literally: the dresses swirled at mid-calf, instead of at the knee; there was a hint of hip-hop in the sizing and the symbolism — but save for one pair of patched jeans, prairie girls apparently don’t wear pants (those were left to the boys), or suits, or ever go to the ball. Even Laura Ingalls Wilder moved on, and she got a whole book series out of it. If his ambitions for Coach go beyond a little dress, cool bags and a great coat, Mr. Vevers needs to do the same.
To be honest, I was not excited by much of anything I saw yesterday. I saw the runway set and thought to myself, "Here we go again... again."
It LITERALLY looks like we saw the same collection walk for the Men's Fall 2017/Women's Pre-Fall 2017/75th Anniversary Show back in December. I really hope that we'll meet the contemporary Coach gang every season, but it never shows up. I'm exhausted by seeing the same ad campaigns, the same 1970's/western/prairie theme/shearling pieces/floral prints.
Tangent: How many floral dresses will they continue to show?!? There has been multiple floral prints in every 1941 collection since it was officially split from Coach New York, and it is so boring and predictable.
Vevers has a great niche for Americana. He understands "cool" and how to retool Coach's archive. I want to see a modern Coach girl for once, not this Prairie Wench from the 1970's living out of rusted cars.
The NYT hits the nail on the head with their review:
"In case you didn’t get it, [Coach] had lured everyone to the Far West Side of Manhattan and a pier by a bit of beach just abutting the Hudson, and seated the attendees around a little hut on the prairie that had been built inside a structure complete with tumbleweeds on dusty ground. But the story was so obvious, the setting wasn’t necessary. Whack! It hit you on the head. Whack!
It might have been better to let some of Manhattan in.
Because, while it is perfectly clear what Mr. Vevers’s Coach stands for, it is a limited idea. This time around he stretched it a bit — literally: the dresses swirled at mid-calf, instead of at the knee; there was a hint of hip-hop in the sizing and the symbolism — but save for one pair of patched jeans, prairie girls apparently don’t wear pants (those were left to the boys), or suits, or ever go to the ball. Even Laura Ingalls Wilder moved on, and she got a whole book series out of it. If his ambitions for Coach go beyond a little dress, cool bags and a great coat, Mr. Vevers needs to do the same.
Completely agree with you. Also very tired of this mini bag look that sometimes are smaller than my regular size wallet. Cute yes, practical.....not even close.
On the RTW front, I feel like all these super printy dresses aren't in my wheelhouse. However, I am quite curious about this plaid jacket!! There are definitely pieces in this collection that can be taken in a more modern and less... rural? direction.
Last edited:
Do you think the small bags are a strategy to upsell? Am I going to now have to buy two bags to equal a whole look? Or is this a cool look all in itself?
I do love it, I admit.
One bag for work and one for bare necessities or to run errands. Together they all you need to get through a fashionable day.
I guess many of us can do this now. A pink tea rose Rogue 25 paired with a pink tea rose wristlet on a chain strap at the same time. There...we've already got that vibe happenin'...
I do love it, I admit.
One bag for work and one for bare necessities or to run errands. Together they all you need to get through a fashionable day.
I guess many of us can do this now. A pink tea rose Rogue 25 paired with a pink tea rose wristlet on a chain strap at the same time. There...we've already got that vibe happenin'...
Love your tea rose pieces.
I have a slim laptop case and carry a micro bag with it for work. Otherwise, I'm just using a micro bag. I know from a business standpoint, it offers a lower barrier to entry for consumers (a sub-$400 limited edition runway piece is kind of brilliant); however, I just prefer the size and convenience. I find large bags too heavy either because of the bag or that I'll fill it to the brim. I appreciate that there's options for sizes now. I stopped buying bags for the longest time because everything was huge.
I would need to buy 2 if I was buying that size just so I could carry the basics! [emoji23][emoji23]
That's the idea. You buy two to wear at the same time. Coach is listening and laughing their heads off right now knowing the smaller they make the bags, the more you need to buy in pairs.
My family thinks I'm nuts now for how many bags I own, if I start wearing 2 at a time they'd probably have an intervention!!!
Ha! If that's their thinking I believe it will come back to bite them in the butt......don't know many women who want MORE items to carry.
