Last week you LOVED the 1950’s festive party frock. I’ve never seen so many 10/10 in one post! Alas, just enough of you were party poopers to make our frock miss out on a perfect belle of the ball rating, but it still managed a very popular 9.3 out of 10.
Since I’m focusing on wedding dresses this week on the blog, what better way to celebrate it than by rating a wedding dress? Not one from 1911 though – we’ve done quite a few frocks from that era lately, and the focus on 1911 dresses might taint your vote. So instead I’ve picked an 1860s froock.
This dress from the Met is the epitome of wedding dresses. It’s WHITE, it’s BIG, it’s RUFFLY. It’s even got a faux-pannier effect (do you remember being little and drawing wedding dresses and they always had split fronts with panniered poofs?) If ever a 1940s costume designer wanted inspiration for an 1860s wedding dress, it would have been their holy grail.
It’s not all typical bridal froth though. The dress has almost no train, no lace, and it is made of cotton, rather than silk, mixing complete bridal over-the-top ness with a form of restraint in materials and design.
How do you feel about the dress, its puffs, its ruffles, its girth, the combination of design maximalism and bridal minimalism? Too much, too little? And any chance that you would wear it as your wedding dress?
Rate the Dress on a scale of 1 to 10