Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Fabulous Gay Richitans

Who’s the newest addition to the REAL A-List, 2011?

If your answer’s Ryan Nickulas’ lesbian sister, you’d be … dead wrong. But if you said Ole Henricksen, you just won a lifetime supply of Egyptian Mud Bathes and facials.

Unless you’re a lady who lunches, you’ve probably never heard of Ole, the latest member to join Richistan. The Danish expat and facial mogul shot to fame in the 90′s when he became known for tending to the visages of George Michael  “supermodels” (serial maid abuser, Naomi Campbell, Miss Mole Cindy Crawford, Yoga Mogul Christy Turlington, and & the indescribable Linda Evangelista.)

In February, Henrickson – the most famous Danish export since, well, morning pastries – was “bought” by French conglomerate, LVMH, reported record sales of €20.3bn for the full year 2010. Back in the 70′s, Liza Minelli’s BFF & Studio 54 regular, Halston, sold his everything to J.C. Penny, and famously lived (and then died, of AIDS) to regret the sale.

Although Henrickson reportedly kept his salon, it remains to be seen if LVHM is able to maintain the mythic quality of Ole’s product. For years, Ole disappeared “into the back,” and, like a pixie-sized Gandalf, concocted his luxe cleaners and moisturizers.

Now, there’s no doubt that Henricksen – gay, and married to hairstylist Lawrence Roberts – is the newest arrival on the global A-List (LVHM also owns Marc Jacobs, and Louis Vuitton). The real question is whether LVHM can maintain Ole’s branded excellence. Economies of scale (a fancy way of saying, countries like the U.S.A. that buy a lot of shit), demand huge sales. Will Henricksen’s truth serum & night gel be the same now that they’re being made and packaged in Torrance?


  • 9 Comments
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      I missed whatever question you were answering in the first paragraph, but didn’t miss this: The corporation is LVMH, not LVHM.

      As a recovering dyslexic, I can spot others’ spelling mistakes from 6 feet, but it takes 72 hours and a magnifying lens to recognize my own.

      Jun 13, 2011 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michelle
      Michelle

      I agree with the first post. Why is there an answer when there is no question?

      Jun 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff R
      Jeff R

      Dear Tomas,
      You need to work on the spelling, grammar and sentance construction. I’m also
      confused by “supermodels.” Are you disputing that said women were Supermodels?
      “and & the indescribably Linda Evangelista?!?” Her colleagues and peers have
      described her as “a model’s model,” “the gold standard,” “the ultimate professional,
      ” possessing an incredible sense of style,” “a chameleon,” etc. Why refer to Cindy
      Crawford as “Miss Mole” and Christy Turlington as a “Yoga Mogul?” Do you know these
      women? Have you ever discussed them with others in the modeling industry? Perhaps
      you should since they are well respected and have great reputations. Why the snark/bitchy tone? They also all have a reputation for being very supportive
      of their LGBT colleagues and peers in the modeling industry. Halston was
      MUCH more than Liza’s BFF and a Studio 54 regular – do your research. The
      Halston portion of your piece was poorly written. With regard to the
      serial maid abuser,” she allegedly has a reputation amongst her peers for being
      “horribly unprofessional”(“Spanish Vogue” once dedicated an entire article to her lack of
      professionalism), a “megabitch,” a “supercunt” “mean,” “vicious” and “nasty.” I
      assume Domenico and Stefano don’t subscribe to such opinions. Best, JeffR

      Jun 13, 2011 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WTF
      WTF

      Thomas,

      I could not read your article. I suggest you have someone edit your work before publishing.

      Thanks!

      Jun 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Let me guess… It’s the dry cleaner for Lance Bass? No, maybe it’s the clerk at Macy’s who got to help Hugh Jackman 6 months ago?

      This show is beyond pathetic.

      Jun 13, 2011 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tomas Mournian
      Tomas Mournian

      Dear Jeff R. & WTF: Since you both take issue with how this post was written, I’ll reply to you both. This is not a piece about supermodels (or, the more ironic, “supermodels”), or Halston. Jeff, summing him as a Studio 54 regular & Liza’s BFF was a judgment call on my part, but few readers past a certain age are likely to bring the more detailed biographical information that you do to his life.

      Since there’s confusion about what this is, I’ll explain: it’s a news squib about Ole Henricksen who has cannily leveraged a well deserved reputation for servicing clientele like “supermodels” (a marketing term if there ever was one) into what could be a global brand, and the pitfalls of selling one’s name to a corporation. Maybe you’re not familiar with Queerty, but everything here is pretty much snarky (or, “snarkie” – take your pick.)

      As for my “sentance” construction, the last time I checked, it’s spelled “sentence” (and I believe your advice meant to read, “You need to work on spelling, grammar, and sentence construction”), that’s advice I have most definitely taken to heart. Currently, I’m rereading “The Elements of Style” by Strunk & White AND writing this reply. Amazing, huh?

      Re: Miss Evangelista, is it possible that indescribable (not “indescribably” as you wrote) could that be read also as a positive, not automatically pejorative term? As for speaking with “people in the fashion industry,” I don’t know how that relates to a piece about facial products, besides which, fashion industry people, if your comment (s) are any indication, are probably not a good source for much more than superlatives.

      Finally, what’s not clear to me in your deeply felt reply, is whether you’re subscribing to the reputation of serial maid abuser (that would be, Naomi Campbell and a description about her that’s a matter of public record) or hating on her. First, you quote Spanish Vogue (what issue, please, I need to fact check your statement!) and then go onto say, D&G would differ in their opinion. Right now, I’m pretty sure nobody – Naomi included – would think they’re her best references given that D&G are currently have been subject to an ongoing investigation and, if they’re indicted, face prison for evading over 1 billion in taxes.

      But thanks for the feedback!

      Jun 14, 2011 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      So was this just an add for these products?

      Jun 14, 2011 at 7:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff R
      Jeff R

      Dear Tomas,
      You’re correct. I misspelled “sentence” and I misquoted “indescribable” in my comment on your piece. You referred to LVMH as LVHM. Hmmmm. Have fun with “The Elements of Style!”

      I understood the theme of your piece. That’s why I read the same.

      I disagreed with your choice regarding your portrayal of Halston. I think that many of your readers may know who he is. Halston is still frequently referenced in the fashion press and he is considered a classic example of “the pitfalls of selling one’s name to a corporation.”

      I understood the irony involved in your use of “supermodels” and I realized that your piece is not about “supermodels.” I took issue with the tone of your references to Ms. Crawford and Ms. Turlington, hence my assumption that “indescribable” was being used in a pejorative fashion vis a vis Ms. Evangelista. You’re the one who raised the issue of “supermodels” by referencing them. I agree with your conclusion that “supermodels” is a marketing term but there was a time when the phenomenom actually had some relevance in the industry. Nothing more.

      Naomi: She shot a cover and editorial for “Spanish Vogue” approximately 8-10 years ago. Her behavior was so horrendous that in lieu of publishing the planned accompanying interview the editors published a scathing, detailed account of her allegedly unprofessional behavior. My reference to D&G was an ironic comment on the fact that the fashion house and its designers continue to maintain a professional and personal relationship with Naomi long after others have tired of her antics. I personally think that you’re giving Naomi too much credit by assuming that she would care about D&G’s current legal problems. I disagree with your assertion that “fashion industry people …. are probably not a good source for much more than superlatives.” The quoted comments about Naomi were made by people in the industry and they were not favorable. FYI, I am not in the industry. Looking forward to reading your next piece.
      Best, JeffR

      Jun 14, 2011 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tomas Mournian
      Tomas Mournian

      @Jeff R: my for love supermodels “vis a vis” “Spainish Vogue”, and “Strunk & White”, & “D&G”, and all the ironing – er, irony inbetween – is both “indescribable” (& “indescribably”) sincere. I’m not sure how writing about the pitfalls of Halston diminishes or negates him being a “classic reference” in the “fashion press” but maybe it’s too early for me to grasp all this complicated logic stuff (though I’m sure you’ll explain.) Right now, though, I’m going to the beach to work on my dyslexia! And make a video! Have a great day!

      Jun 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.