Ralph Lauren's Ivy League step child brand, Rugby (what a name that was, I mean, really), will be no more as of 2013. WWD's David Lipkey reported via Twitter that all 14 retail stores and e-commerce will be shuttered by next year. This news has since seemingly been confirmed via Rugby's own Twitter as well.
I don't know enough about the business side of things to say that I saw this coming, but when your brand is basically the bad Australian gay porn version of American Eagle (LOL American SMH Eagle), does the viability of your economic model even matter?
I know a lot of fools that shopped there, actually, dudes for whom I have reserved a modicum of respect. I guess they had some good sales? Decent neo-prepster basics? I just don't understand what ever brought them through the heavily gilded mahogany doors in the first place. Did Gant Rugger not have enough patches? Was Polo too expensive (I'm guessing about 5% more than the Rug)?
That brings me to my thesis here: Why did Rugby ever even exist in the first place? What was the point? Was it just so the Abercrombie customer had a stepping stone brand between his cut-off cargo shorts, logo hoodies phase and Theory suit phase? I'm just trying to imaging the particular situation of the market that called for shoddy, alt-trad wardrobe essentials as illustrious as skull and bones critter pants, wide wale corduroy suits and patchwork madras briefs.
What I'm trying to say is: My heart goes out to those who will soon be unemployed in this time of dire job prospects, but if you are mourning the loss of your favorite brand you should seriously consider giving up on dressing yourself all together after you dry your tears on a Denim & Supply fringed shawl collar cardigan. And on the bright side, there may be a super rad kick-ass blow-out sale in the near future, bro.