Last weeks blue-grey and white late 1870s dress was one of my favourite kinds of Rate the Dresses: one that sparks lots of interesting discussion, quite strong feelings, and hilarious comparisons (personally, I think anything that can be described as Victorian Dalek fancy dress should automatically be  a 10 😉 ).  The feelings, while strong, were very mixed – a solid block of very high ratings, an equally solid block of very low ratings, and a lot people who thought it was, ummm…interesting.  Personally I give it an intellectual 10 and an aesthetic 6, but your ratings evened out at 6.3 out of 10 – I guess the aggregate rating was closer to my aesthetic reaction than my intellectual reaction! This week we’re rating a dress has done the rounds on pinterest, but where I unfortunately can’t find the original source.  I generally try not to post Rate the Dresses if I can’t credit the collection, but occasionally breaking that rule, and asking for your help in finding the source, is a good way to …

Last week’s Rate the Dress post was Halloween themed, with  Eva Marie Veigel in a subtly Oriental outfit, with mask.  The outfit was a little too subtle (aka, boring) for some, but most of you loved it, bringing it in at a very nice 8.5 out of 10 (with the additional bonus for me that the maths were all so simple I could do the adding up and division in my head) This week, we’re looking at a frothy white gown with fascinating floral embroidery.  FIDM describes this as a day dress, but with its short sleeves and low neckline, I would say it’s almost certainly an evening dress (and, in other places they date it to the  1830s.  I would say it is very late 1820s, possibly early 1830s). I think it spoke to me as a Rate the Dress pick, because I’ve spent my week  making New Zealand appropriate Christmas-in-summertime bunting, in spring greens and red pink florals – with no traditional Christmas motifs  at all.  Though it definitely wasn’t used for that …

Last week’s New Years Rate the Dress was a glam-but-slightly quirky Vionnet gown with a bow-trimmed lace overdress and a gold lame slip.  Some of you didn’t like the bows because they were bows, and some of you didn’t like them because of the under-bust placement.  Overall most of you thought it was rather fabulous, but the bow aversion  pulled the rating down to 8.3 out of 10, rather than something more impressive. Since  the main objection to last week’s dress was the bows, which some of you dislike on principle for their connotations of little-girl saccharinity, this week I’ve picked a dress that, while it is completely devoid of bows, is in complete contrast to the sophistication and sexiness of last week’s frock by being just about as sweet as you could possibly get without covering a dress in bows. This 1825 ball dress is pink and white, and features typical mid 1820s embellishment like heavy lower skirt trims, combined with the equally fashionable Renaissance-inspired historicism in the form of faux front-lacing, sleeves which …