Jil Sander Mens S/S 07

[Casius]

Surprised she hasn't come up yet in this forum, so I'm glad to bring it up.

I've loved Jil Sander's designs for years now and with the introduction of Raf Simons into the team, the clothing has been taken to a whole new level for me. The construction is flawless, every little detail is cared for and every piece really shows what kind of time was put into it. Jil Sander to me, is a very good take on a futuristic design. Clean lines, different silhouettes, fine attention to detail, and wonderful fabrics.

I am really impressed with the introduction of some bold colors for Jil's Spring 07 line. The use of the bold blue and orange is just a nice change for menswear and the pieces aren't too "in your face" construction wise so I think it allows for the bold color to work.

Here's some of my favs from Spring 07.

I really like the baggy top (I will be trying to purchase this outfit come spring!)

Fabric is interesting here

[Faust]

Re: Jil Sander

Well, I can't say I ever loved her designs. While her quality and construction were impeccable, indeed (perfect black pants or a perfect black suit), and she spoke well for the minimalist movement in the 90's, I can't say that her designs were ever visionary or futuristic the way Helmut Lang's were. She never struck me as fresh, never raised my eyebrows once. Neither do I think that Raf is doing anything interesting there. I think this collection was off-putting, to be frank. He says he is trying to be in a tradition of Jil, but I'm not sure he understands it, to be honest. Yes, the style is minimal, but only deceptively so. If we think of minimalism as simply lack of details, than Raf is interpreting Jil correctly. But those volumes, colors, and choices of fabrics are anything but minimalist.

[Servo2000]

Re: Jil Sander

The minimalism that I most appreciate is when a designer is able to do as much as they can with very little. While I certainly have seen some individual pieces that have done so from Jil / Raf for Jil over the years, overall there really is just a lack of information and details, and the removal of these extraneous details, often, in my mind, does not actually reveal anything more interesting about the piece. I think Raf Simon does this better with his own line, and on a more price-friendly note I think APC tends to do a pretty decent job as well. I think a good phrase for it might be "deceptively simple." Although, admittedly, some of the construction of some Jil Sanders pieces I've seen over the years have been really interesting, but overall the line has never really made me go, "wow," although from time to time I have seen pieces I would've liked in my wardrobe.

[Casius]

Re: Jil Sander

I think that is one reason why I like Jil's latest lines, is because the futuristic look put into Raf's own line is a little too much for me, although I respect where he takes his clothing. I've always been into a simplistic way of dressing and I think Jil Sander, for the most part, gets it right on the mark. And then with the design input from Raf, I get to see some Jil modernistic ideals with some futuristic takes on color and fabric.

This is an exerpt from AnOtherMan magazine on Raf Simons for Jil Sander;

"Another Man-You're working on two lines now-your own and Jil Sander-how do you keep them distinct?

Raf Simons: I think it's quite natural in a way. Jil Sander is a very established label and mine's still a young generation label, or maybe it's somewhere in between. Also the attitude, the aesthetic, is different. I think the big difference is that for my line we work more conceptually whereas at Jil Sander, it really all starts with fabrics and shapes and the questions is always what kind of fabric do we have to create to achieve a certain shape?"

One thing that I think interests me about the line is my own strive to become a more refined man. I love being young and dressing young, but sometimes I just feel the need or want to be older than I am. I guess that's how it always works, when you're younger you want to be old and when you're old you want to be young. :)

[interman]

Re: Jil Sander



I have a somewhat strange relationship with Jil Sander. The thing is that I really like the idea, or should I say concept, but the past few seasons haven't had that many pieces I've been interested in, beyond the usual pants and suits, and so on.

With that said I love the experimentation with fabric, shape, and color, and I'm definitely looking forward to f/w 07. I might not buy any of it, but I'll probably do my share of drooling.

[casem]

Re: Jil Sander



I'm a Jil Sander fan (see WAYW and recent purchases). I wrote something about it in an old thread (Jil Sander F/W 06 i think) so I'll try to summarize. I really like what Raf has done with the brand. When I first saw his the F/W 06 collection, I hated it, but the look grew on me and once I saw it in stores there was a lot that I loved. The oversized padded jackets are interesting in their material and construction, but the look isn't for me. But I was happy to discover in store there are many different fits and you can always size down to get something more fitted. The skinny black pants are fantastic and he improved the JS button up 100%. The knitwear this season is also a highlight. Having different cuts and price points (depending on material) is really smart business but I think Raf has managed to do it in a credible way.

I know that Raf does not call what he is doing minimalism, but the strict repetition of certain elements (pants, shoes, shirt) to put the focus on a single element (jacket silhouette, material, neck line) sure seems like a minimalist concept to me. I do appreciate the simplicity and subtelty of what he's doing, there often is more than meets to eye, and the quality seems to have remained high. However, I would not dress head to toe in JS and I only ever tend to buy 2-3 pieces each season. Personally I would get bored with too much off it, sometimes I just need interesting detail and "wow" pieces. But JS does fill a little niche in my wardrobe.

About SS 07, the vivid colors are definitely nice, the half dbl. breasted suit is a neat idea and the continued innovations with fabric and great. However, I HATE those oversized boxy button ups in bright colors, they just look so 90s and 99.9% of America wears ill fitting button ups, so it's just something I can't do. I kinda want a transluscent colorful jacket for the spring now, but I may go with Patrik Ervell instead, as I assume the JS ones will be really expensive for what may end up looking a bit like a $1 poncho.

As for Jil herself, I really enjoyed the few collections she did when she came back. My feelings toward the brand where still basically the same, I would only pic up a thing here and there, but the sweater and suit I have from her last collection I covet, they are just perfect. I really liked her approach and I think what she was doing was richer in a way than what Raf is doing. But at the same time I don't think what she did had as strong and clear of a point of view as what Raf is doing, so it's a bit of a trade off. I do wonder what she thinks of it...

[onemancult]

Re: Jil Sander



Jil Sander has never interested me much, and I only started to pay attention when Raf came aboard. I find what he's done interesting visually, but it doesn't seem fitting with
the overall aesthetic that I would suppose Jil Sander is known for. I do believe Faust has already touched upon this.

It should be interesting to see where things go in the future with Raf at the helm of menswear, but as it stands now, I can't say that the label thrills me, or even piques
my interest all that much. A few interesting things here and there, but the general feeling I
get from JS menswear is that maybe, someday, it will reach its potential.

[rach2jlc]

Re: Jil Sander



I love Jil Sander, but I must say I don't like what I've seen on the runway from Raf. Of those pictured above, I couldn't imagine wearing any of them. The coats/jackets all look like some skinny boys borrowed daddy's big-coat (from the fit in the chest, waist, all the way to the too-long sleeves). As for that blue polo, the fit on that is so unflattering.If I wore that, I couldn't imagine somebody saying, "Wow, great outfit."

I wouldn't mind so much if this were a new brand, but the idea of Jil has always been a razor sharp silhouette. Take away that and it just isn't the same. Nice fabrics aside, take those looks off the runway and in 99/100 situations you wouldn't look fashionably-savvy... you'd look like you don't know what size you wear. I suppose you could wear a different size than usual (size down, maybe?), but even still I don't see how those boxy straight coats are going to look good.

[Casius]

Re: Jil Sander

This is one of the reasons why I think it's so great. I'm sure some time ago the same thing was said about slim fitting styles of clothing but now look where clothing is. Men's clothing is slimmer than ever.

I for one agree about maybe it not looking good in every day life, but I guess time will tell on that. It took me a while to get used to real skinny denim, now I absolutely love it. We'll see if this is some ongoing trend or just another thing for the runway that never transcends in every day life.

[Servo2000]

Re: Jil Sander



I see what you're saying, but while slim clothing took a while for some people to "get used to," in this case, that jacket just looks ill fitting. To my eyes, it falls strangely on his waist, the arms are cut too long, and overall it's just rather sloppy. I think Raf's main collection is a good example of "oversized" jackets that don't look like they're actually the wrong size.

No offense, Casius, just my humble opinion. I can understand what you're seeing, but it's just not there for me.

[Casius]

Re: Jil Sander

No, no offense taken man. That's why I wanted to post something on Jil's clothing because I am interested to see what others think.

One reason why I like this forum, people seem to be able to rationalize and convey thier opinions in a very professional and non-demeaning manner.

[Y][Y]

[deuxmille]

Re: Jil Sander

I'm a big fan of the new silhouette that Raf introduced. It's pretty much the way I see myself wearing clothes: boxy upper, slim trousers, slim long shoes. I think it's a look you really have to commit to in order to look decent and somewhat not too much out of place.

I'm surprized by the mixed reaction on here, it's interesting to view the different points of view.

[rach2jlc]

Re: Jil Sander



[quote user="Casius"]. I'm sure some time ago the same thing was said about slim fitting styles of clothing but now look where clothing is. [/quote]

I don't know... "slim fitting" clothing styles don't mean "too small"... it just means closer to the outlines of the body. Too small styles exist (Thom Browne, anyone?) and I think they look just as odd... or more odd... than theRaf silhouete.

But, as for "slim fit"... I don't know that I quite agree that it "took some time to get used to." YES, the super-skinny Dior style seemed new, but what about all those photos you see of jeans from the 70's? Furthermore, what about the trousers worn in the 18th centuries? They were awfully tight. I once found in my grandmother's attic a men's suit catalogue from 1911, and the trousers and jackets werevery fitted (with lots of waist suppression, flat front pants, etc.) and not at all boxy or loose.I think we have BRooks Brothers and the widening American waistline to thank for anything that wasn't fitted.

For this new, "bigger" style... I think it actually goes against 100 years or more of precedent... where a jacket's sleeves don't go halfway down your hand, where the chest and waist aren't oversized, etc. I think that this WILL take some getting used to... but in reality I think it is just going to be one of those fashion radar-blips that someday we look back at and say, "Yikes, we looked really odd" sort of like polyester leisure suits or Pierre Cardin's 1960's "futuristic" garments that today look exactly that... dated 1960's futuristic-styled garments.

[Faust]

Re: Jil Sander

[quote user="rach2jlc"]

[quote user="Casius"]. I'm sure some time ago the same thing was said about slim fitting styles of clothing but now look where clothing is. [/quote]

I don't know... "slim fitting" clothing styles don't mean "too small"... it just means closer to the outlines of the body. Too small styles exist (Thom Browne, anyone?) and I think they look just as odd... or more odd... than theRaf silhouete.

But, as for "slim fit"... I don't know that I quite agree that it "took some time to get used to." YES, the super-skinny Dior style seemed new, but what about all those photos you see of jeans from the 70's? Furthermore, what about the trousers worn in the 18th centuries? They were awfully tight. I once found in my grandmother's attic a men's suit catalogue from 1911, and the trousers and jackets werevery fitted (with lots of waist suppression, flat front pants, etc.) and not at all boxy or loose.I think we have BRooks Brothers and the widening American waistline to thank for anything that wasn't fitted.

For this new, "bigger" style... I think it actually goes against 100 years or more of precedent... where a jacket's sleeves don't go halfway down your hand, where the chest and waist aren't oversized, etc. I think that this WILL take some getting used to... but in reality I think it is just going to be one of those fashion radar-blips that someday we look back at and say, "Yikes, we looked really odd" sort of like polyester leisure suits or Pierre Cardin's 1960's "futuristic" garments that today look exactly that... dated 1960's futuristic-styled garments.

[/quote]

I agree with John here, and well put. It will probably be a "nice try" kind of thing. You can't get away from human anatomy - it's a thing of beauty that clothes need to correspond to. Any meaningful tampering with a silhouette will have to account for it. Look at how Yohji does volume, for example - it's never out of line - he can make an oversized garment that will fall beautifully on the body. These things just look like potato sacks.

I thought about why Raf can make a more or less successful (runway-wise at least - not sure how it sells) oversized silhouette - and it's gotta be the details. Jil's aesthetic is so bare and detailless that the razor-sharp silhouette and great fabrics become the ONLY things that can give it some kind of meaning. Well, not only ones - Jil is the one that gave it meaning because she was the creator behind the idea. It seems to me that the kind of a thing Jil did you can only do once. For someone else to do it would be absolutely meaningless, kind of like painting Kandinsky's The Black Square over and over again. Where there is no artistic mastery (or difficulty, if you will), what can be a subsitute to a person who has made the statement first? Witness a total failure of Jil's line without Jil. She had an intelligent clientelle who bought Jil precisely because it was Jil. Without Jil you are just looking at a pretty boring black suit.