Well, you have had two weeks now of vivid red Rate the Dresses. You liked the rose-red of Charles I’s outfit better than the tomato red of the 1860s dress, but other than the colour Charles’ 1610s outfit didn’t fare too well. You rated it a paltry 4.7 out of 10, and dubbed it a representation of the ugliest period in fashion ever, but I daresay it would have come off worse had it not been red.
Popular as it may be, I can’t show you red outfits for every Rate the Dress. It would get monotonous, and I think it gives them an unfair advantage. Personally, I’m a huge fan of neutrals, partly because I feel a neutral frock really has to work for approval: if it isn’t right, you notice, where a bright colour can hide shoddy design.
Shoddy design is, of course, a matter of taste and time. It had never occurred to me that this was a fashion no-no, but in Flora Klickmann’s Flower Patch books, she complains about the “innappropriate, vulgar, inartistic fashion of trimming frail transparent dress material with fur.”
What about you, dear readers? Do you also think that combining fur and fragile chiffon and lace is a fashion faux pas? Let’s test it with a frock by noted Parisian designer, Jacques Doucet. The frock is held in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Doucet’s dress combines lavish amounts of silk satin, lashings of draped lace, elaborately embroidered chiffon, and just a touch of fur on the cuffs, all over a linen underlay.
Too much? Too many fabrics? Does the neutral colour scheme hold it all together, or just make it boring? And what about those bits of fur?
Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10.