Hall of SHAME
Far too many retailers are using the words and qualities associated with WOOL to sell products that contain little or no wool AT ALL. This must stop. Please send any examples of mislabeling and poor product description to wovember@gmail.com.
0% WOOL: URBAN OUTFITTERS The product descriptions on the Urban Outfitters Website are extremely imprecise, with the euphemism ‘mixed fibres’ often being used in place of the proportionate fabric content. This shirt – described as WOOL FLANNEL – is in fact 100% COTTON.
0% WOOL New Look: This “wool” jacket is actually composed of 98% Polyester, 8% Viscose, 2% Elastane
0% WOOL: FRENCH CONNECTION. This 100% acrylic item is described by French Connection as a WOOL SNOOD.
0% WOOL:MUJI Muji doesn’t list the fabric composition of many items on their website, but from the example given here, one must assume that many things they describe as wool contain NO WOOL AT ALL. The exterior fabric of these earmuffs – clearly described as being ‘made of wool’ is 100% polyester, and the interior lining 100% acrylic.
0% WOOL, NEW LOOK. This cardigan is described with the words, “luxury yarn, WOOL mix” but is in fact 100% acrylic. One might also take issue with the curious and completely inaccurate use of the words ‘Fairisle’ and ‘Aztec’ in this product description.
0% WOOL. These THICK WOOL TIGHTS from Manoush at Asos contain NO WOOL AT ALL
0% WOOL: ORLA KIELY These winter tights are described as a wool blend, but where’s the wool, Orla? Their fabric composition is, in fact 70% Viscose, 27% Polyamide 3% Elastane
0% WOOL: DEBENHAMSThis garment is described as ‘wool coat’ but contains NO WOOL AT ALL.
0% WOOL: BRITISH HOME STORES Many purportedly WOOL coats on the BHS website contain little or NO WOOL AT ALL
0% WOOL: A search for ‘wool dress’ on the Dorothy Perkins website turns up this 100% polyester garment.
0% WOOL: These WOOL tights at Miss Selfridge are actually composed of 75% cotton, 23% Nylon, 2% Elastane. NO WOOL!
0% WOOL: BOOHOO.COM. BOOHOO describes many items with the mysterious and euphemistic terms WOOL-LOOK, or POLY-WOOL. This means that these garments turn up in a search for WOOL, and have value added to them by the connotations of the word WOOL itself, though they, in fact, contain no wool at all.
0% WOOL: A similar strategy has here been used by Topshop in describing these 0% WOOL tights as MODAL WOOL. I didn’t know there was a MODAL sheep. Perhaps Topshop knows better . . .
7% WOOL: Though the words ‘Merino Wool’ are prominent in the product descriptions, the wool content of this sweater and cardigan from Marks & Spencer turns out to be a mere 7%
10% WOOL: Though high-street family retailer Joules stocks many good-quality items with a high wool content, their product descriptions are bizarrely inconsistent and this sweater, listed as MEN’S WOOL JUMPER contains a mere 10% wool.
5% WOOL: MONSOON Despite the fact that this sweater is described as being made from “lovely soft wool” its actual wool content is just 5%
5% WOOL: Can a garment in which wool is the lowest constituent fibre legitimately be described as WOOL MIX? Next clearly think so
12% WOOL Again, wool is actually the lowest constituent fibre in this £445.00 “plaid wool” skirt from Cacharel at ASOS.
0% WOOL: HOUSE OF FRASER This sweater contains 15% Angora, but no wool at all.
20% WOOL: This garment is described by ASOS as a WOOL SKIRT, though it contains only 20% wool. The same garment is described more accurately by its makers, Ted Baker, as CHECKED SKIRT
MARY PORTAS AT HOUSE OF FRASER The dresses in MP’s new Winter collection are mostly composed of 70% acrylic. The wool content of these garments is 30% or less. Surely Mary’s ‘mid-price’ market could expect quality fabrics, and most women over 40 enjoy wearing clothes that don’t make them sweat! WHY NOT USE WOOL, MARY?
Misleading product descriptions: ANTHROPOLOGIE do not list the proportionate fabric composition of any of the garments on their website. Who’s to say, then whether these items, both of which turned up with the search term “wool” but which are clearly made primarily of man-made fibres, have an actual wool content of 50% or 5%?
Imprecise product descriptions: Do these ‘wool’ tights sold by whistles contain any wool at all? Who knows – since no information regarding their fabric content is given.
When is TWEED not TWEED at all? When it is sold by TOPSHOP These “TWEED” garments contain 0% wool
What an impressive collection of incredible cheek! It is presicely the same here in Germany. Good quality ecological wool clothers for small children are no more expensive than High Street Chic with prominent names imprinted as a “cool detail”. It never entered my mind not to dress daughter or myself in these plastic alternative. Yet somehow the power stays in the hands of the big brands. Spreading the word,
Jo
So many examples out there. I found this on the New Look website “made from luxury yarn, wool mix. 100% acrylic.”
Here’s the link: http://www.newlook.com/shop/womens/knitwear/fairisle-knitted-cardigan_228737087
Can’t fault Hobbs, though. As far as I can tell, if they say a garment is wool, it is (although I haven’t looked at everything they sell).
adding the new look attrocity now. Hobbs are good, as you say. Perhaps we should have a hall of fame, too . . .
I was impressed by TOAST in general… I like the idea of a HALL OF FAME for the companies who are getting it right.
cabbages and roses are exemplary
Yes please!
And they call it Fairisle knitted to top it…
Pingback: Villavember. « Kata .. koob.
Given the legal issues surrounding mislabelling and misrepresentation I presume there must be huge loop holes here that these companies are exploiting. Perhaps there have been no test cases brought by Trading Standards. They should be taking this up vigorously.
Great research, a Hall of Fame would be good to see too, maybe prompting some of these to think again. I was curious about how shops in my local town would match up, I checked out the ones I could think of easily.
Viyella. I’d have expected this company to be spot on with descriptions as their company name is all about the wool-cotton product that made them famous, sadly not. They came up with this gem:
http://www.viyella.co.uk/fcp/product/viyella//Wool-Crepe-Jacket/793 and this one: http://www.viyella.co.uk/fcp/product/viyella//Petite-Vertical-Button-Wool-Crepe-Skirt/1494
It looks like they think wool crepe means the product doesn’t need to be high on wool content.
Mistral has this one:
http://www.mistral-online.com/product/0000724600/mistral-jewellery-ca-red-wool-dotty-scarf.html
Wool with no details about fibre content at all, its not knitted fabric so I’d be surprised if ther is wool in it.
Dash, at last! no mis-leading descriptions, but very little wool content in anything in the online shop.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wool
“2 a thing resembling wool, in particular:. ”
Really…?! Now I’m just confused.
You may be confused, but that is a perfectly standard way of using the word in common language. As much as people might complain about it or wish it were different, meanings of words are determined by their use. Wool does not always or necessarily mean made from sheep’s wool.
I agree completely that there ought to be clearer labelling and stricter rules for trade description purposes – not least for the sake of people with allergies, as well as the issue over valuation. But I don’t think you can tell people how to use words.
And I think it is completely reasonable for a product containing angora wool to be described as angora wool mix. Wool is not, and has never been, limited to sheep’s wool and to claim so really weakens your argument on other points.
Pingback: Wovember « Yards of Yarn
Pingback: Did You Know? | KnittingGolfer's Blog
Pingback: Wovember Samplers | fibrefables
Pingback: January 2010 “snowcase” revisited « Wovember
I actually think it is fine as long as it is another animal fibre. “Wool” is really not restricted to sheep, I’d use the word for alpaca or other fibres, too.
But if a garment is 100% man-made fibre, it really shouldn’t be labelled as wool. But I think this is just one aspect of a general tendency to advertise products with alleged natural contents, see fruit juice and stuff like that. People buy it because it sounds good, and hardly anyone reads the fine print.
In one of my English-Swedish dictionaries, “wool” is translated as “garn” (yarn)…
I also *think* I have met “knitting-wool” (instead of -yarn) in literature (in English)?
Almost certainly. The use of ‘wool’ to mean all kinds of yarn was (and still is) very common indeed in the UK, especially among the non-internet knitters.
I think a lot of people use wool for garments that are “knitted” or “plaid” because they don’t know any better. I come from a linguistic background. Admittedly, the meanings of words do change over time with usage. However, I don’t think it is right to let the confusion, created mostly by advertising and marketing, surrounding the meaning of certain words with positive associations mislead people into buying products. Sometimes there is confusion over the meaning of words when the context changes. Because almost everything knitted or “plaid” used to be made of wool as recently as two or three generations ago, most people still associate “wool” with the final look of the product. Just because our collective understanding of “wool” is vague, it doesn’t mean that we should let companies take advantage of it. I thing that through education and regulation we can change the collective meaning of wool back to what it used to mean. The food industry is facing the same challenges. If we stipulated that because most people think apple juice is any liquid that tastes like apples and use the words “apple juice” in that way, it makes it acceptable for any company to describe their drinks using these words, then the same argument would apply to “wool”. People are fighting for better food labeling and education and I believe we should do the same with the contents of everything! Not so long ago, there was no need for labeling the contents because it was obvious. The advertising industry is abusing our ability to guess the contents from the outside appearance of products, which used to be straightforward. They are taking advantage of the fact that many people don’t know that the synthetic products do not have the same properties as the natural ones they are replacing. Letting the confusion go on under the pressure of companies that benefit from it is simply not right.
This is so interesting. I have started looking at my “woolen” items with a different eye. I have a lovely scarf my friend sent to me as a gift from her trip to Germany last year. I love it as it is very soft, and for some reason I thought it had Cashmere in it. I took a 2nd look at the label this week only to find it labelled “Cashmink” with a tiny trademark circle with it? but upon looking closer…it’s actually 100% acrylic! I have another cardigan purchased at a boutique last year that was quite expensive and “felt” like a woolen sweater but I now see it is actually 80% cotton, 17% nylon and 3% spandex. I am proof of an ignorant consumer feeling like she is buying a luxury item because of it’s supposed “wool” content or “wool” aura?. In my defense, I do have a stunning cardigan bought in Scotland from Hilary Rhode studio that is 100% Cashmere and hand knitted in Scotland, so it isn’t like I don’t know the difference between acrylic and Cashmere….or so I thought. I have been knitting myself for quite a few years, but have just in the last year or so started paying closer attention to what I knit with. Now I will have to expand that scrutiny to what I am buying clothes wise. Since I knit, I really should know better! Have ordered myself a Wovember button on Etsy, so I’m off to a good start!
Hilarious to see that those Whistles tights give the washing instructions as ‘Do Not Wash’! Brilliant, but given the context utterly depressing. Aaargh. Retailers please note: please treat consumers with some respect – label things accurately!
Found another –
Mamalicious Annine Wool Jacket
Mamalicious. Toggle front woll (sic) duffle coat with hood and matching belt.
90% Polyester, 8% Viscose, 2% Elastane
http://www.newlook.com/shop/womens/maternity/mamalicious-annine-wool-jacket_233924001
many thanks – I’ve added it in.
I know it’s a bit off topic but we bought this Cath Kidston knitting kit for our daughter and found that the three balls of “wool” were 100% acrylic.
http://www.cathkidston.co.uk/p-17001-cath-kidston-chelsea-roses-knitting-set.aspx
Pingback: Wovember | Creating Ruth
Pingback: Wovember | woolmix
Pingback: Settling in — Hail Britannia
Pingback: The Domestic Soundscape » Archive » Wovember post-script #1: The Slow Wardrobe
Wool is such a special and unique fibre and totally needs our promotion/protection and usage!! Those of us in the industry really need to see an end to false advertising as not only is it misleading, it also means the wonderful properties of wool are being overlooked and replaced with often inferior man-made fibres.Let’s educate the public at every opportunity !!! (if some of you want to dress up as sheep don’t let me stop you as long as the meassage gets across!!lol)