Wow.  I really never do know what you guys with think of a frock!  I post the most saccharinely sweet 1850s dress, and you like it, because you like the period, and then I post a fringe covered 1850s dress that almost makes me like fringe (and that’s saying a lot), and your reaction….well!  Elise called it “…what my spiritual ancestress would have worn in the 19th century to campaign for gay civil rights”, but the overall concensus was piñata.  Poor piñata frock took a hit at (OK, I haven’t managed to add up the scores yet, but I know it’s under 7 out of 10).

Update: Oh wow.  7 out of 10 was way ambitious.  The final tally: 4.5 out of 10.  The piñata is busted.

This week I’m sticking with the rainbow stripes for our striped theme.  This is Elizabeth Hawes’ 1937 “Alimony” dress, in all its circle skirted fuschia and teal and lime and lemon and ochre and mallard and pumpkin and gold and white striped glory.

Alimony dress, Elizabeth Hawes (American, 1903—1971), 1937, American, silk, Metropolitan Museum of Art

To tone it down, and for chilly evenings, the dress gets worn with a muted burnouse inspired cape (yay!  Burnouses!  ) with a cleverly coordinated tassel.

“Alimony” dress worn with “Misadventure” cape, Elizabeth Hawes (American, 1903—1971), 1937, American, silk, wool, Metropolitan Museum of Art

I’ve just realised this is the first Elizabeth Hawes dress I have ever posted as a ‘Rate the Dress’, and I am astonished at the oversight.  I wonder if you like it?  It does have some design elements in common with the zig-zag 1942 Worth frock I posted which you weren’t so fond of.  And it has a lot of the same bright colours and striped going vertically and horizontally (and diagonally) that you thought were daft last week.  But it’s quite a different dress.  Will that make all the difference?

Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10