Not exactly bag related, but still Coach....
- Thread starter tannedsilk
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Thats not a really fair judgment. Their ready to wear line has only been out for two years now and its barely even carried in stores. It clearly hasn't picked up yet and they probably aren't reeling in that much of a profit from it. If it's not selling that much in the first place, why would they go ahead and make extended sizes?
I agree. It's the same thing with shoes. I wear a narrow size. Very few companies make narrow sizes. Many don't have half sizes. This isn't discrimination.
If it made good business sense, i.e. there were going to be good profits, Coach would be making plus sizes. I don't think they especially want to limit their market to a certain body type. This is something Abercrombie & Fitch is guilty of; I don't think it is true of Coach.
I'm not buying any of their clothes because they aren't in my price range.
Why would they? Because the average woman in the US is a size 14. Larger sizes would create a MUCH broader potential customer base for their clothing.
+1........exactly because I'm not even gonna look at your clothes if I can't fit into them.
This whole stigma of "your to fat to work for this brand" is such juvenile. I hope Coach fire anyone who think of this stigma. I don't see every sale employee at Louis Vuitton are skinny.
TWO years?
Come out and look at the REAL world.
Coach has been making womens' clothing items for more than TEN years. The infamous and highly faked Scribble Bikini was from Summer 2005. The Denim Poppy Jacket was from the same time as the Poppies For Peace handbags, again within a year or two of 2005. They had womens coats and jackets to match many of the major purse lines, especially the Scribbles, at least as far back as the middle part of the 2000 decade, which were available in the catalog, the full price stores and later at the outlets. There was a Shearling Coat in the November 2005 catalog, sizes 2-14. There was a Scribble Safari Shirt in the Spring 2005 catalog, sizes Two thru TEN ONLY There's a tweed peacoat in the Summer 2004 catalog, sizes 2-14 ONLY. There are at least 5 womens sweaters, coats, and tunics shown in the Spring 2009 catalog. ALL only available in sizes 2-14 or XS-L. Not even one stinking XL in sight. Their LARGEST available size is actually the AVERAGE size of US women! Bigger than average? Coach's answer is apparently "Go F yourself, we don't want your business"
From 2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060516...px?product_no=125&category_id=164&easyask_id=
from 2007:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608...ch.com/content/thumbnail.aspx?category_id=164
http://web.archive.org/web/20071002...ch.com/content/thumbnail.aspx?category_id=164
I remember a decent selection of t-shirts made to match the early Poppy designs - that was at least 5 or 6 years ago. Let's jump into the Wayback Machine and set the dial for 2009:
https://web.archive.org/web/2009062...-10051-78-en?viewType=viewall&t1Id=78&t2Id=78
https://web.archive.org/web/2009080...-10051-78-en?viewType=viewall&t1Id=78&t2Id=78
and 2010
http://web.archive.org/web/20101219...051-38476-en?t1Id=78&t2Id=38476&tier=2&LOC=LN
and 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/2011010...-10051-78-en?viewType=viewall&t1Id=78&t2Id=78
In almost every single month where "Apparel" or "Outerware" can be pulled up on the Wayback there are at least 3 coats and jackets shown, and sometimes Tees, bathing suits, sweaters, tunics, pullovers and more. Sizes never run larger than 12 or 14.
And through the entire time, even limiting it to just the last ten years that I can find examples for, even while the entire clothing industry was busy adjusting size numbers to fit the "new" larger American shopper, Coach never budged from its XS-S-M-L size availability. NEVER.
So not only have they NOT "only been doing it for two years", they've had plenty of time to see what clothing sizes are being bought in the REAL market and adjust to it. And for dog's sake, they're located in freakin' NEW YORK CITY. It's not like they're isolated on some blasted inaccessible peak in the middle of Tibet!!!
Coach avoids larger sizes because at the heart of their corporate "philosophy" there's a prejudice and apparently even a disgust for larger women. None of their excuses OR the excuses that their cheerleaders make for them can even cover up that basic problem. The lawsuit by a former employee is just a symptom of a real and UGLY corporate sickness.
Last edited:
I know for sure that I would buy some pieces if they had sizes to fit me.
SEMPER UBI SUB UBI
" .. they'll ride up with wear."
Ooooooh, Mister Humphries, how we miss you!
it seems as though you might be dealing with some deeper issues here if your'e getting that upset. Unfortunately it's a business, and luxury houses tend to not make larger or extended sizes, and while i personally don't agree with it, I'm sure that business wise there is a reason for this, not some sort of discrimination. There are many heavy men and women that work at the different COACH boutiques I shop at as well as brands like LV, Chanel, and Burberry. I highly doubt that out of every employee in their entire company they singled this woman out. It sounds as though she left on bad terms and she just wants to get revenge, it wouldn't be the first time someone did something of the like.
Since the area manager said her weight was not the reason but was a "factor" in her termination and since Michigan protects against weight and height discrimination it sounds as if she has a strong case.........thanks to the idiotic management who don't seem to have any 'filters' or manners.
News flash Coach, we don't all have to be a size 2!
News flash Coach, we don't all have to be a size 2!
I've had the manager at a Coach FP look me up and down and tell me I'm not the "target" customer for Coach. If she looked up my history of purchases she'd see my wallet disagrees with that statement and supports her job.
I'm in MI and I completely BELIEVE this happened to this woman. When they switched to the blue jeans dress code a couple of years ago the SAs at the outlet I shop at told me it specified "skinny jeans."
After the employees complained that tat wasn't appropriate for some SAs they backed off on it a bit.
I have no problem believing Coach has discrimatory employee practices as alleged in this suit.
Last edited:
Why would any salesperson tell someone they weren't the target customer? That is so unbelievably rude! How insensitive and stupid do you have to be to insult someone who is willing to spend money with you? I don't think I'm Coach's target customer because of my age but I wouldn't expect someone to tell me that to my face.
I understood the skinny jeans dress code to mean jeans that were slim in the leg and narrow at the ankle as was the style at the time. I think they did it to be stylish, not discriminatory, and they chose jeans to give a more casual vibe to be in tune with their customers.
In my opinion, these employees were wrong and insensitive but they were not enforcing an official company policy. Coach has corporate lawyers who would have advised them against having such a policy.
