It’s been a rough, drawn-out demise for Lucky, the magazine that completely pioneered the conceit of an entire monthly read devoted to shopping when it launched in 2000. It brought a particular kind of magic to its readers every month (or every day online), and that's what its alums are quick to remember when given the chance to look back — even after moving on from the cherished publication. Alas, Lucky's last print issue came out in May, and it’s been living online as LuckyShops.com since then. That quietly came to an end on Friday; the site stopped publishing content, and remaining staffers packed up and left.A whirlwind of changes have rocked the beloved glossy since last August, when the magazine’s parent company, Conde Nast entered a joint venture with now-defunct e-comm company Beachmint to form The Lucky Group, and the title’s staff moved out of Conde’s digs in November. A round of layoffs occurred in February; editor-in-chief turned chief creative officer Eva Chen departed in April , and one month later, the magazine shifted from monthly to a quarterly publishing schedule . In June, Lucky ceased publishing its print edition entirely, and subsequently endured an (even bigger) round of layoffs. (We’ve reached out to The Lucky Group’s CEO, Josh Berman, as well as PR reps for comment.)To put it lightly, it’s been a tumultuous time for the magazine and its staffers, and there’s been enough exhaustive rehashing of what’s gone down. We’d rather focus on its legacy as an early advocate of street style’s importance and a veritable bible of styling hacks. It was a fashion magazine focused on developing and celebrating personal style instead of tossing out rigid sartorial mandates, and that was so novel. It was empowering, it spoke to us like peers, and in so doing it felt very ahead of its time. (On a superficial note, we were all about those color-coded ‘Love This’ stickers…)We could keep waxing poetic about what made Lucky so special. But in the words of a dozen people who truly knew the magazine best — the talented folks that spent time on the its masthead, including the three editors-in-chief from its 15-year lifespan, and lots of top-level editors — this is why the magazine mattered so much.