When I posted last week’s 1910s Rate the Dress I knew that the colour scheme wasn’t likely to be popular (personally, I’m sure you know I adore neutrals, and I thought the plum-y contrast of the collar was an inspired choice), but I forgot about your hate of the top-heavy, blouson 1910s silhouette. Despite that, you did like the crisp tailored look of the ensemble, so it managed a passable, if not brilliant, 7.3 out of 10 For this week’s rate the dress, we’re going allegorical.  Our subject, possibly  Jeanne de Marigny, is shown in a mid 17th century allegorical portrait, possibly as ‘Fortune’ or ‘Vanity,’ literally dripping in wealth. She has a pearl circlet on her head, pearls around her neck, garlands of pearls festooning her neckline, with further strands of jewels and pearls across her chests.  She carelessly lets more precious gems and gold coins drip from her fingers, and gathers them up in her skirt as if they were no more than flowers. While the painting is an allegory, and her dress …

Last week I showed you a ca. 1908 gown in shimmering beaded  black, with just a touch of blue around the neck.  Quite a few of you had problems with the touch of blue (clunky fringe), and the oh-so-fashionable for 1908 asymmetrical sash.  Despite the universally agreed utter fabulousity of the skirt, those two elements dragged the otherwise sterling sparkle of the dress down slightly to an 8.6 out of 10. To finish off the year, here is a lady from one of my favourite time-periods in a lavish golden gown: The dress features the fitted, boned bodice of mid-17th century fashions, which would later become the 18th c. robe de cour bodice.  The sleeves look back to the 16th fashion, with strips that form a slashed effect, allowing the fine linen of her shift sleeves to peek through, and fall in ruffles below the short sleeve.  A fine ruffle of lace or shift frames the low neckline, which is framed with a twisted scarf of fabric, pinned with a jeweled ornament. Caspar’s lady pairs …