When Rihanna stepped out onto last year's Met Gala white carpet in a jaw-droppingly exquisite Valentino Haute Couture gown and cape (created just for her by the maison’s creative director Pierpaolo Piccioli) the internet went into meltdown.
The impact - from the eyelashes on her cats-eye frame sunglasses, to the 5 metre train on the dress - was devastating. The cape alone was embellished with 30 silk camellias, each comprising 500 petals, which were made by 30 seamstresses. As a celebration of another designer’s work (this year’s theme honoured late designer Karl Lagerfeld) but still staying true to their own codes, Valentino Haute Couture could have written the assignment.
But moments before her white carpet arrival, Rihanna exited the Carlyle hotel hand in hand with A$AP Rocky, wearing what looked like a mink fur coat. PETA, who has called out the megastar before for wearing fur, was quick to tweet about the look. “Rihanna is stuck in cruel times! Lagerfeld House has evolved and banned fur. You have so much influence Riri, use it for good instead of trying to make it cool to rock something cruel.”
GLAMOUR reached out to Rihanna’s stylist Jahleel Weaver for confirmation on whether Rihanna's vintage fur coat was real fur or not but received no reply. We've since seen that the coat is tagged as Lab2022 on his Instagram feed. Lab2022 is an exclusive archive of Tom Ford-era Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent pieces curated by collector Neil Leonard and the coat in question dates from Karl Lagerfeld’s own collection for Fall 1987 (and it is real fur.)
As Rihanna's vintage fur coat is 36 year old pre-loved piece, does that negate the ethical questions? PETA disagrees. Earlier this year the animal rights organisation sent Rihanna a fake fur coat to replace her real ones and wrote an open letter requesting she stop wearing real fur. (Although rewind three years previously and PETA actually gave Rihanna a Compassion in Fashion award for Fenty’s faux leather collection…).
A similar conversation has been raised over the last few days, after Hailey Bieber jetted to Aspen in Colorado with her husband, Justin, and best friend, Kendall Jenner.
Seemingly unafraid of the chill in the air, Hailey posted a series of photos on Instagram wearing a tiny a new season two-piece from N°.21's Spring/Summer 2024 runway. But it was her choice of outerwear that is raising eyebrows.
A dramatic feathered coat from Roberto Cavalli’s autumn/winter 2005 collection - originally worn on the runway by Australian supermodel, Gemma Ward - the piece has reignited the question as to the ethical implications - and occasional forgiveness - of such fabrics when they have not been made or recently purchased ‘as new’.
Emma Håkansson, Founding Director of Collective Fashion Justice, explains the ethics around vintage fur. “Of course wearing vintage fur doesn’t directly contribute to suffering in the way that purchasing and wearing new fur does, but it perpetuates the acceptability of the latter. As a result, wearing an animal’s skin, regardless of where it’s come from, can be a slippery slope back to popularising cruel fashion, particularly when the wearer has such great influence.”
It’s also essential to look beyond the aesthetics and discover the deeper meanings behind Rihanna’s own outfit choices… Nova Reid is author of The Good Ally and runs an anti-racism course and explains, “There is a history of Black women wearing fur, particularly in America, where Black Americans weren’t allowed, by law, to buy a home so acquiring fur was often used as a symbol of status. Historically, when you are denigrated because of your social status, the way you look and the colour of your skin, you try to have proximity to belonging. For Black women, fur was seen as an investment.”
So, on the biggest night of the year for the the fashion industry, there could be nuance behind Rihanna's choice of vintage fur? “I’ve seen disproportionate reactions to Black women where there is policing of their commercial choices, what they wear, their looks and their behaviour," Nova says. "We are human beings and we are allowed to make choices. That includes ones that are poor or that might give offence to others but disproportionate reactions need to be looked at with curiosity."
For more from Glamour UK's Fashion Editor Charlie Teather, follow her on Instagram @charlieteather.
For more from Alex Fullerton, follow her on Instagram @alexandrafullerton
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7qLjApqauqp2WtKLGyKecZ5ufY8Kse8Crq6KbnJp8s7XHmqWnmV2isrV5xpqjmmWmnru1rcaeZJ%2BtomKwsK3T