On July 2, Chanel announced the acquisition of famous shirt manufacturer Charvet. Despite Channel’s assurances that it was not planning to expand the company or change production, many expressed apprehension over the acquisition. Here columnist RJ De Mans is giving his views.
By RJ De Mans.*
Chanel recently acquired a shirt manufacturing company charvette This does not mean the tragic death of another independent artisan, as this might fit into a common narrative. Rather, it is Charvette’s best hope for the future. Unusually among luxury groups, Chanel has a track record of carefully nurturing the select brands it acquires. My guess, based on the winds of fashion – and the fashion business – in recent years is that Charvet might benefit from Chanel’s patronage.
I have reason to take this news personally, as I have been an avid customer of Charvet’s exclusive shirtmaking, tailoring and tiemaking, as well as its other products, for the past 20 years. Others, when they learned of the acquisition, perhaps felt a sense of anxious ownership: the Charvet is unique in many ways, and they wanted to add their memories of the house to its long and widely publicized history.
Upon entry the Charvet is charming, quiet and charming.
Delicate objects in a vast array of colors abound: extravagant jewel-tone weaves, suede mule slippers, sumptuous dressing gowns in cashmere or vigorous silk prints, and the myriad of floor-length dresses of its sacred fabric, Charvette. Sanctum sanctorum.
I wrote my book The laundry room alone is the reason to use the Charvet. Bolts of cotton, linen and silk in thousands of different colors, weaves and patterns allow the customer to look, compare and find inspiration elsewhere.
Family ownership of Charvet seemed like an element of its Frenchness. Charles de Gaulle legendarily brokered its sale (to the Colban family, its last owners) in order to keep it French as a piece of national heritage.
At that time, six or seven decades ago, the Charvets Place Vendôme neighborhood was home to many gentlemen’s specialty manufacturers: the tailors Gellot, the bootmakers Hellstern, the London shop of Edouard and the butler of Paris. However, today, Charvet is a rare independent holdout next to the major brands of brands belonging to one or another luxury group: Richemont (Cartier, Van Cleef, Buccellati), LVMH (Tiffany, Chaumet) or Kering (Bouchron).
Many such splashy flagships operate at losses as branding efforts. Licenses (perfumes, glasses, diffusion or outlet lines) or wholesale actually support the business. But Charvet’s wholesale business (mostly ready-to-wear shirts and ties) is in a very limited number of specialty stores.
Ties used to be a moneymaker for luxury brands, costing far more than shirts or shoes and not requiring different sizes. Although its tie is certainly a signature item of Charvet and the house, I can’t help but suspect that Charvet’s tie has been influenced by the general trend of open-necked shirt suits. In fact business uniform.
To Charvet’s credit, it doesn’t license or disseminate lines: its ready-to-wear shirts are made by the same people at Charvet’s own facility in Indre, a former industrial area in France. And its perfume is much harder to find than its shirts, so airport duty-free isn’t hitting Charvette’s bottom line.
All of this contributes to Charvette’s image of integrity. It suggests a different world of quality to those who are aware of it.
Charvet’s exclusive shirtmaking – available only in Paris – may still be a large part of its business. Some ‘big fish’ customers – finance giants and their ilk – may order dozens of shirts a year. However, ordinary people like you and me have to overcome polite but firm resistance from its employees. They try to steer prospective bidders to Charvet’s stock special offer, which is worth almost as much as its ante while requiring very little manipulation of the pattern.
I encountered a similar resistance to bespoke at the recently closed Hilditch & Key in Paris, Chanel’s original historic supplier of prototype shirts. H&K Paris furnished Chanel for decades in addition to creating elaborate personalized shirts for Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld. Over the years, thousands of their orders probably kept Hilditch & Key’s Paris open.
I wonder why Chanel didn’t just buy it He Make a one-time purchase. Hilditch and Key Paris closed in 2024, five years after Carl’s death. The French subcontractor, which had exclusively manufactured H&K Paris, closed down at about the same time.
Chanel’s fear of bringing the same ‘industrial’ approach to the creation of Charvettes to its quilted leather purses seems exaggerated.
In France, Charvette is the subject of considerable reverse snobbery due to its prices and deliberate mythos. A handful of other independent shirt makers in Paris sometimes criticize it for things like machine-made buttonholes on its very expensive custom shirts and a perceived assembly-line approach to making shirts.
While craft is an important part of its brand, Charvet doesn’t hide that its exclusive shirts are almost entirely machine made—but better and more durable than other shirts I’ve owned.
Chanel’s group company is called Parafaction – which translates to “out of love”.
The name supports Chanel’s story of it acquiring companies to ensure the survival of its high-craft suppliers: custom shoemaker Massaro, Scottish cashmere knitter Barry (and more recently cashmere yarn spinner Todd & Duncan), hatters Mitchell, and several smaller specialist companies providing embroideries, feathers, embellishments, and other essentials for its garments.
To my knowledge, Chanel produces its signature garments in France, and it seems to treat its acquired brands with respect: it had Edward Green create a lavish, though short-lived ready-to-wear line for Massaro, and raised Barry’s profile with an elegantly discreet boutique.
Despite the long history with Chanel, Charvet was a natural choice for Chanel, which Hilditch and Key Paris did not have. The Charvet – especially to foreigners – has a quintessential Frenchness.
And Charvet has its own workrooms, meaning it can actually still create prototypes for Chanel couture or the occasional high-profile collaboration to get people talking, like the catwalk model it recently created for Chanel designer Mathieu Blazy.
Will Chanel maintain what is quintessentially Charvet? The incomparable wardrobe, beautiful delicate ties and luxurious dressing gowns are inseparable from Charvet’s identity. I think they will remain the essence of Charvet, like rare perfume bottles.
Will Chanel leave the secret and forgotten corners of Charvet, where wonders can still be found without hindrance? Only time will tell. Chanel has bought Charvet, and Chanel has bought Charvet time.
*Last name of the author, a PS reader and frequent forum contributor
