I’ll be perfectly honest with you. Â I was NOT expecting you, on the whole, to like last week’s Rate the Dress. Â I thought all of you would be calling curtains and poof and froof and Miss Havisham. Â I mean, it had puffed sleeves divided by puffs with triple rows of ruffles at the edges, and layers and layers of puffed skirts, all surmounted by a puffed sash. Â But you loved it! Â Perhaps all that paleness made the puffiness work, because it came in at a respectable 7.7 out of 10 (not bad for a dress that did, in the end, get compared to curtains & Miss Havisham).
This week I’m sticking with pale, but going outside the date perimeters of the Historical Sew Fortnightly with a 1950s gown (though Massignac was the designer for Paquin from 1945 to 49, so I question the dating slightly).
This dress reminds me of the moonflowers that used to grow wild all along the roads growing up Hawaii. Â They would bloom at dusk, and fade early in the morning. Â Massignac may have been using the exact flowers as her inspiration: evoking a fragile night bloom for a delicate evening gown, using a pale colour to glow against the dark of night, and adding rows of diamantes or sequins to further catch the light.
What do you think? Â Would the wearer of this dress be the blooming belle of the ball, or sad, wilted wallflower?
Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10
(and, as always, extra bonus points for anyone who can identify what collection this is from. Â I’ve searched and searched, but all the sites link back to commercial sites that are using other images from collections I recognise, without crediting them, and their links send you to shopping sites).