Anonymous wrote:STA and NCS are very different vibes. IYKYK

Someone in the fashion and STA/NCS know should do both. That's not me as I don't know fashion.

Anonymous wrote:Darn I was hoping this was about the kids nicknames for these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

So exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Coco was a double agent working both sides and specifically trying to work the situation to gain control of Chanel Perfumes which was "up for grabs" under Nazi occupation because a major stake was owned by a Jewish family at the time.

Nazism is not core to the Chanel Brand DNA nor is it relevant at all to Sidwell, so I'm not sure why you would think it would be included in this analogy of brand personas...

Up for grabs being German for "seeking to steal it from its rightful owners"? Coco Chanel is not someone who should be glorified, nor should the crimes of that era be forgotten.

That period is well documented. During the occupation, companies owned by Jewish families were seized and redistributed to those in favor with the regime.

I am not glorifying her. I’m just am not highlighting a notably dark, but also irrelevant (to this conversation) period in her life. This was a comparison of brand DNA, not a full biography or glorification of any individual.

I agree Coco Chanel's personal history is not relevant to this conversation but let's not sugarcoat it, she was a Nazi collaborator at best and likely an official intelligence agent of the Nazi party (code name: Westminister). However, as a Jewish Sidwell parent, I get the brand comparison! Also, the Jewish descendants of the family that CoCo Chanel tried to take the company from (using the Nazi Aryan laws) still own a controlling interest in the company.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Coco was a double agent working both sides and specifically trying to work the situation to gain control of Chanel Perfumes which was "up for grabs" under Nazi occupation because a major stake was owned by a Jewish family at the time.

Nazism is not core to the Chanel Brand DNA nor is it relevant at all to Sidwell, so I'm not sure why you would think it would be included in this analogy of brand personas...

Up for grabs being German for "seeking to steal it from its rightful owners"? Coco Chanel is not someone who should be glorified, nor should the crimes of that era be forgotten.

That period is well documented. During the occupation, companies owned by Jewish families were seized and redistributed to those in favor with the regime.

I am not glorifying her. I’m just am not highlighting a notably dark, but also irrelevant (to this conversation) period in her life. This was a comparison of brand DNA, not a full biography or glorification of any individual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Coco was a double agent working both sides and specifically trying to work the situation to gain control of Chanel Perfumes which was "up for grabs" under Nazi occupation because a major stake was owned by a Jewish family at the time.

Nazism is not core to the Chanel Brand DNA nor is it relevant at all to Sidwell, so I'm not sure why you would think it would be included in this analogy of brand personas...

Up for grabs being German for "seeking to steal it from its rightful owners"? Coco Chanel is not someone who should be glorified, nor should the crimes of that era be forgotten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Coco was a double agent working both sides and specifically trying to work the situation to gain control of Chanel Perfumes which was "up for grabs" under Nazi occupation because a major stake was owned by a Jewish family at the time.

Nazism is not core to the Chanel Brand DNA nor is it relevant at all to Sidwell, so I'm not sure why you would think it would be included in this analogy of brand personas...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

You left out the Nazi agent part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!

Appreciate the history lesson. With that spin, Chanel works. And Coco said to always go back and remove one accessory before heading on the door. The minimalism part works with Sidwell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

And STA/NCS is more like Barbour.

Yes! Another solid brand comparison for STA/NCS!

St Johns and UnderArmour is apt because the founder of UnderArmour went to St. John's after he was kicked out of Gtown Prep. Once he made it, he pumped a lot of money in to SJC. It's one of the reasons why they have become such a sports powerhouse. Additionally, the kids get to test prototype gear. So SJC and UA truly are synonymous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, wouldn't ever equate Sidwell to Chanel. Sidwell is more like a workhorse. And the whole simplicity and modesty of the Quaker ethic is lost. Sidwell is more like Patagonia to me. Some kids who are first generation Americans, working hard -- rugged yet elevated.

And let's not forget the real missed opportunity that is literally correct: St John's = UnderArmour.

Hit the nail on the head with St. John's and UnderArmour! Both are very solid local brands with great sports performance.

I think your disagreement actually comes from a shared misconception that both brands actually share. From 1983-2019 under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel was a leader in the over the top runway trend which was the lifeblood of fashion houses at the time. Because of that they gained a more theatrical reputation when in reality if you look closely, they were just doing an incredible job of staying true to who they were within a flashy time period.

Similarly around the same time, all eyes were on Sidwell as it became widely publicized that "the president's children attend Sidwell." And people unfamiliar with the actual school, started to associate Sidwell with this over the top flashy wealth.

However, if you truly know both, they are actually eerily similar. To the point, both Coco Chanel and Sidwell Friends were born in 1883. Both became popular because they designed something radically simple and anti-fussy that was in direct rebellion with the over the top excess of the time. Chanel literally introduced the little black dress removing the need to status signal through adornment, a value ironically held on the other side of the world by the Quakers. Chanel also introduced the use of Jersey fabrics to women's wear in line with the Quaker value of utility over display and practicality.

No matter the side reputation the world tries to put on either one, they both maintain at their core that simplicity is the ultimate flex.

That being said I see your Patagonia, and I think you truly are nailing it with your comparisons!