FASHION / THE MYTH OF STEALTH WEALTH 

The popular soap opera Succession (loosely based on the Rupert Murdoch family) has introduced the concept of “stealth wealth” to fashion journalists around the world, content to have a new angle on articles on T-shirts, trench coats and dinner jackets. 

Briefly summarized, it is the concept of not flashing your wealth and not dressing conspicuously by avoiding big logotypes and ostentatious jewellery. 

New York Magazine’s The Cut claimed that the show made luxury fashion appear “brutally basic”, while The Guardian offered an in-depth interview with the series’ costume director Michelle Matland to explain the concept.

In a world where even the cashier at the local supermarket wears Chanel-branded glasses, it’s no wonder that luxury has lost its lustre. 

Coincidentally, this was also the title of the Dana Thomas 2008 book (Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster), in which she described how luxury brands today are less about quality craftsmanship, and more about marketing and branding. 

Often produced in the same Chinese factories as fast fashion-garments, the only difference between luxury and mass market garments is in packeting and price. 

Thorstein Veblen’s seminal research on luxury fashion, published already in 1899, has informed more than a century of research on fashion. 

His thesis was that affluent people buy luxury items to display their wealth. 

Their choice in fashion reflects their social position, and this is also the main reason behind their sartorial practices. 

That’s why the privileged people of his lifetime wore white suits (that stained easily), high heels (difficult to walk in, and large hats (completely unpractical for manual labour). 

Veblen is cited in David Marx’ book Status & Culture, in which he proposes that the underlining principle of all human culture – art, fashion, travel, food, wine, et cetera – is the quest for status. 

Viewing the costume choices of Succession through Marx’ lens, in combination with Veblen’s idea of conspicuous consumption, the wealth of the main characters isn’t so stealth at all. 

Everyone in this select community recognizes the trademarks of brands like Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli and Max Mara. 

In fact, this fashion is not so subtle to those in the know, it’s just not obviously branded. 

And the reason for this is that logotypes and luxury brands have gone mainstream – a trend that began decades ago. If you need for someone to read on your shirt that it’s expensive (like the ironic Moschino T-shirt “It’s very expensive being Moschino”) then most would assume that you’re not aspiring to give the most subtle impression.

Already in 1911, the haute couture house of Paul Poiret launched their first perfume, allowing consumers to take part of the allure of the brand without having to buy their expensive clothes. 

And once Pierre Cardin had begun launching his approximately 840 licensing deals, the value of the haute couture-logo became diluted for those wanting to use it as a communication device signalling exclusivity.

In sum, it’s a misconception that the understated clothes of the show are in any ways a surprising choice. 

In fact, they are completely in line with how the upper classes have dressed since Veblen’s times (and before). 

If you find it strange that there aren’t more logos present at the dinner parties of the upper echelons, you simply haven’t been paying attention to how fashion is communicating by using the most basic rules of semiotics. 

When luxury fashion went mainstream in the 1960s, the couture houses’ former clients had to find new ways to convey their distinction. 

And so, they opted for the brands that actually communicated what they wanted to say – that they hold an elevated social status and should be clearly distinguished from the lower and middle classes. 

Fashion is only a reflection of the human experience, and for most people, status is key. 

Philip Warkander, PhD fashion studies