Last week I showed you a lady of 1660s as an allegory of…something. Her vivid teal-y blue and golden orange colour scheme met with general approval, as did the overall silhouette, balancing out the lower ratings from those of you who felt she was a little too generic mid-17th century, and her allegory a little too obvious, giving her a rating of a perfect 8 out of 10.
It’s been said more than once in the comments on Rate the Dress that ‘Worth can do no wrong’ or ‘It’s a Worth – automatic 10’. The is, I think, utter rubbish. Every designer has a bad day, or a client who insists on design features the designer isn’t thrilled about. And the House of Worth was pumping out so many frocks in the last quarter of the 19th century that they had to have the occasional not-quite on to it garment.
On the other hand, past ratings make it very clear that the design works of Jean-Phillipe Worth aren’t quite as warmly received as that of his father. You seem to feel that he may have inherited the business, but he didn’t inherit the genius.
So, as you have guessed, today’s Rate the Dress is a Worth, but it is a Jean-Phillipe Worth, rather than a Charles Worth. How will it be rated?
This evening dress features lush feather patterned brocade in blush pink, accented with blonde lace and a blonde satin sash and bows from picot edged ribbon.
While it was undoubtedly still extremely expensive, the small, overall pattern of the lace indicates it was probably machine made.
The back of the dress features an elaborate butterfly bustle, giving the rear view as much visual interest as the front.
So what do you think? Is this frock proof of the unsurpassed design genius of the House of Worth, whether it was pÃ¨re or fils? Or is this one a Worth miss worth missing?
Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10