That is correct, born in February 1955, the Chanel 2.55 is the latest It bag, according to Lisa Armstrong, who knows. Though she doesn't call it an It bag, because It bags are just so 2007.
I have been obsessing about the Chanel 2.55 for months, and in this I cannot claim any originality. Every other fashion type is now carrying or lusting after one. It’s just that it’s small, can be slung across the body and no one’s calling it an It bag, because It bags are very 2007.
10 comments:
I've been seeing 2.55s around for awhile now. Sleeker lines and clutches seem to be slowly but surely coming back. I never really liked them much, but they are a welcome improvement over those HUGE bags that have been so popular of late.
I don't think the photo you show is actually a 2.55 though. Another useless fact - the original in the 1950s did not have a logo - there are photos of Coco Chanel with hers hanging from her wrist. I agree it is a lovely bag and totally timeless like all design classics. Another good thing about them is that they age so gracefully - with time they come to have that expensive lived in look that only top quality leather can give. I reckon if you buy one at age 40 you can count on being buried with it! I much prefer them to any Hermes, which have a rather bourgeois uniform look.
I've actually been lusting after a 2.55 since Chanel began reissuing them in 2005. Trop cher pour moi! And the author of the article is right, only someone with a limo or a valet can scoff at carrying a bag at all.
I really liked the article. It puts into words, thoughts I've been having for quite some time, especially that even £25,000 can't buy you style. I have worked in the fashion industry for many years and am firmly of the opinion that a woman's bank balance (or that of her husband's) is in direct proportion to her lack of style or creativity with her personal look. Sweeping statement I know! And there are, of course, many exceptions but on the whole ... My favourite exception? Isabella Rossellini - the most beautiful and stylish creature that every walked the earth!.
A propos of the editor of French Vogue, I've never found her in the least bit attractive. Franca Sozzani, editor of Italian Vogue, has much more personal style.
I've always thought a woman without a bag looks rather incomplete. Condeleeza Rice doesn't seem to carry one and whenever I see her I can't help wondering where she keeps her hankie!
As I already have a challenging relationship with bags (I prefer to be sans bag; the things I think I must carry dictate otherwise), I'm interested in the language Roitfeld uses: she "wears" a bag.
Inspired as usual by Linda's provocative posts, I'm going to take up Roitfeld's choice of words on my own blog in the coming days.
With the exception of one thin gold band, I don't wear jewellery on my hands/wrists; instead I enjoy the pleasure of holding a bag (rarely expensive, usually vintage) that enhances or plays with the chosen outfit.
If I can't find something that works, I'd rather go without - it's amazing where lipstick and money can be hidden. Hurray for good foundation garments.
In response to Miss Cavendish's observation regarding 'wearing' a bag - in French and Italian there is only one verb for 'to carry' and 'to wear' (French - porter, Italian - portare) - this could explain a lot.
HMmmm. I wonder if that Hong Kong second hand shop you blogged about does mail order for 2.55's.
Hmmm. That bag in the picture does nothing for me. I vastly prefer the bags I purchased at embarrassingly cheap prices. So if that's the new It bag (even if they don't call it that), count me out of style.
I don't think carrying a bag (or not) is a faux pas or preferable either way fashion-wise, I just try not to carry one when I can because it's one more thing to worry about.
Post a Comment