Uh, how surprising would it be if I told you that a store where the cheapest thing was $75 (a pair of socks) and shoes went for five-digit figures might have a little bit of an attitude in the staff? (The picture above is of the store’s "fragrance chamber," where scents go for $165 to $430.)

A few weeks ago we published this article about designer Tom Ford’s new menswear store in New York, and any store that keeps its clothing in hard-to-reach glass cases is clearly not going for the customer-friendly experience.

I used to have a little thing for Gucci-era Tom Ford, although less about the brand itself than about the turnaround he did on the clothing line — beginning with his 1995 debut that included the velvet hip-huggers at left, which Madonna wore that year to the MTV awards where she had the memorable run-in with Courtney Love. However, the man himself — well, I guess you have to have a sizeable self-worth to survive the scathing reviews of the fashion world, but there’s a fine line between self-worth and ego.And along the way it seems he started putting together ever-more-fantastical scenarios with himself as the star — and his acolytes kept letting him. He cast himself as the star in a W magazine spread (not safe for work) where’s he’s buffing male models’ buttocks and making out with mannequins, and tried to rationalize it in the accompanying interview by saying he’s striking out against a plastic version of beauty … while still looking pretty plastic and beautiful himself.Vanity Fair — always the arbiter of subtlety — let him guest-edit their Hollywood issue. Maybe you remember it? One actress refused to pose nude, the two who did on the cover look horrible and who’s front and center? Tom Ford, in a creepy nuzzle/sniff with Keira Knightley. (And just in case you missed it, the issue is titled "Tom Ford’s Hollywood.")So, why is it that the New York Times thought the store would actually be friendly? I won’t even set foot in the Gucci store in Scottsdale Fashion Square for fear the laser burns of the staff will reduce me to a pile of ash, so I can’t imagine why the Ford store would be any different.But a Times writer who decided to pay a visit learned what most people already figured out: High-end stores are often — I won’t say "rude," but let’s settle on "significantly less friendly" — to customers who don’t look and act like they’re loaded or connected. (When he’s told he can’t go upstairs because it’s appointment-only and asks to make an appointment, the guard says of the store manager, "Let me see if he has the time for you."When Horatio Silva writes, "When I heard that Mr. Ford had appointed an in-store maid … (T)he last thing I expected was a display of help-as-spectacle." Really? Had he not done his research? Was he just struck simple-minded that day? Because that’s the first thing I would have expected from someone who earlier "apparently melted at the sight of his butler using a Bunsen burner to warm shoeshine wax" (from the same article). It’s over-the-top affectation.I wonder if Silva wrote such a huffy article because he wasn’t immediately recognized and given the glorious treatment he expected — he makes a point of telling us he attended a party there a few days earlier, and also makes a point of going back to contrast his initial brushoff with the treatment he received once the staff knew he worked at the Times.This just in: Places that sell $4,000 men’s dressing gowns and trousers that unbutton at the cuff so your butler can whisk away the day’s detritus have snobby help! Duh. Why would you expect anything less?

Posted in: Uncategorized |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.