This week’s Rate the Dress is a little delayed because I was busy with all the exciting stuff for the Persis Corset launch, and then the even more exciting stuff where I trotted around Europe for a month.
Last Rate the Dress: a 1906-9 formal day dress in warp printed silk
You were mostly very enthusiastic about last week’s Edwardian day dress, although a few of you thought it was far too curtain-y, and not everyone was on board with the silhouette.
The Total: 8.7 out of 10
Those who didn’t like it found it quite mediocre, but enough of you loved it to keep the rating at a very impressive 8.7!
This week: a 1920’s evening dress in dark teal silk velvet
This week’s Rate the Dress pick is inspired by the Baltic Sea. I’m fascinated by how different the colour of the Baltic is to the Pacific and Abel Tasman seas that I’m used to: so green to their azure. The teal velvet is admittedly brighter than I have seen the Baltic be, but its greenish hue is in the right family.
Evening dress, late 1920s, silk velvet, gold lamé, flattened silver cord, crystal bugle beads, silk floss embroidery, lamé underdress, McAvoy, Chicago, sold by Augusta Auctions
The dress features a gold lame underdress, with a wrap effect overdress with a bow on one hip, and and embroidered and beaded ornament with drapery on the other.
Evening dress, late 1920s, silk velvet, gold lamé, flattened silver cord, crystal bugle beads, silk floss embroidery, lamé underdress, McAvoy, Chicago, sold by Augusta Auctions
It strikes me that the overdress bodice, with its V neck and open sides, has elements in common with some red carpet trends at the moment. I can’t count how many red carpet and wedding dresses I’ve seen in the last year with open or illusion sides. Of course, in modern dresses the open sides and neck reveal flesh, or at least pretend to, while this one reveals a rather chaste lamé underdress!
Evening dress, late 1920s, silk velvet, gold lamé, flattened silver cord, crystal bugle beads, silk floss embroidery, lamé underdress, McAvoy, Chicago, sold by Augusta Auctions
I do rather like the idea of the metallic underdress as armour – a soft luxurious slip of velvet, like a 1920s tabard, over beaten steel and chain mail.
Evening dress, late 1920s, silk velvet, gold lamé, flattened silver cord, crystal bugle beads, silk floss embroidery, lamé underdress, McAvoy, Chicago, sold by Augusta Auctions
Of course, that’s probably not at all what the dress designer was going for, and the ornamentation on the dress isn’t remotely medieval. Sometimes the decorations on 1920s dresses have clear historical inspiration, but this one seems to be a more generic stylised flower:
Evening dress, late 1920s, silk velvet, gold lamé, flattened silver cord, crystal bugle beads, silk floss embroidery, lamé underdress, McAvoy, Chicago, sold by Augusta Auctions
What do you think? Classic 1920s at its best, or generic 1920s, and thus unmemorable?
Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10
A reminder about rating — feel free to be critical if you don’t like a thing, but make sure that your comments aren’t actually insulting to those who do like a garment. Phrase criticism as your opinion, rather than a flat fact. Our different tastes are what make Rate the Dress so interesting. It’s no fun when a comment implies that anyone who doesn’t agree with it, or who would wear a garment, is totally lacking in taste.
As usual, nothing more complicated than a .5. I also hugely appreciate it if you only do one rating, and set it on a line at the very end of your comment.
I love this. It IS a bit generic, but I tend to love certain generic styles, like very basic 1840s. This has the same vibe of restrained elegance and letting the material do most of the work.
It’s not quite a full ten for a reason I can’t put my finger on but it’s definitely, for me, a very resoectable
9/10
I’d agree completely. It’s lovely and I’d love to own it but in my mind it’s filed as “almost but not quite”.
9/10
What a beautiful color, so bright and deep. I like the back, but not the front; it says “bathrobe” and “beach cover-up” to me for some reason, though I’m not sure why. I do like the flower decoration quite a lot; it’s fun, but the opposing bow just doesn’t do it for me.
8/10
Maybe the heaviness of the fabric where it drapes on the side?
The fabric is lovely and l do prefer the open sides trend with an underdress..the glimpse of gold adds to it and breaks up a large expanse of plain fabric
I thought from the length it was early 20s ,,when hemlines went down again for a bit . It looks a transitional style , the new length but retaining the low waist
Not really my era , but elegant
I give it 7.5
this is, to me, a pretty perfect 1920a dress. it’s got the luxury of velvet and lame but the ornamentation is restrained, and the lines of it are elegant. i would absolutely wear it myself, and i am very picky about 20s attire. if it seems too restrained, perhaps picture it with gold shoes, a sleek matching/coordinating evening cap in velvet or lame with feathers, and a bold necklace in shades of jade and teal…
OH! and a rating… 9/10 from me
Mmm, ah, and mmm again. Heavenly teal color, and I like the abstemious hand with the trim. Perhaps the intent was to evoke a sea-nymph rising organically out of the waters.
However, it doesn’t come off that way as the velvet does not hang that well. It droops near the lowered waistline, and then again below the waist. The effect is unattractive and heavy rather than sinuous. The fabric and the cut don’t marry smoothly, which is a shame. A straight cut would have hung better.
6 out of 10
Natalie the naysayers in KY
I have to admit, the 1920s are not my favorite era style-wise, so that will impact my rating. That column look only really suits certain figures–even if you have a narrow waist, wide hips will make you look large in this style of dress! The fabric is my favorite part: that teal color of velvet is lovely.
5 out of 10
There’s a whole lot of “just not quite”
I am positive that this is the kind of dress that needs to be on a person.
The kind of woman who wears the dress and not the dress wearing her/Love the color, love the underdress/tabard effect, Velvet shimmers with movement and is one of the fabrics of 2023 too. But can lose some effect when static.
I then tried to imagine an updated version…perhaps red carpet today.
Again, I thought it needed movement-a live body
even imagining the tunic without the undergarment for a 21st century risque (side view being settled with strategically positioned tape) and again, I just longed for a live body and movement.
Would love to see this on a person but until then
6/10
8/10, a stunner without anything especially striking or distinguishing about it.
I liked it, but wasn’t sure if I loved it, but then I read nofixedstars suggestion of shoes, hat and jewelry to pair with it, and now I think it would have been beautiful!
9/10
I love the colour, the fabrics, the drape of the velvet. The back looks really sexy to me. The flower on the side is okay. I wonder, if it has faded and originally had a different colour.
8/10
I love this dress. It looks so simple, but it has enough little things to avoid being boring. It looks symmetrical enough to please my symmetry seeking eyes, but doesn’t betrayed its wrapped front. The fabric and colour are gorgeous. It’s a dress that I think would work on someone of almost any age. It is confident and gracious, polite, but not willing to cede its ground just to be agreeable. I like Leimomi’s tabard over armour metaphor. The dress isn’t perfect and doesn’t care to try to be. This dress cares about ideas, justice, human rights… I not only want to wear this dress; I want to go out for drinks with this dress in a quiet cocktail bar where we can sit in a corner and talk for hours. 10/10 for its gestalt.
The open sides WITH the crossed front feels off for me, and then I don’t like the bow AND the flower. With either of these two things if it was one or the other I’d like the dress better. Gorgeous colors, and lovely fabric choices.
-1 for not my favorite era of clothes
-1 for WITH
-1 for AND
7/10
I don’t really know, but I expect that whoever wore this was dressed in a perfectly appropriate way for whatever parties she was at. I imagine that she looked good in a way that was expected and probably didn’t especially stand out. To me this dress looks like a very nice, but not especially interesting, example of it’s type.
I do like the colors and fabric choices. Actually, I like the whole thing – I just am guessing it was much like the average evening attire of it’s time and place (though probably average for a higher price point).
Note- I’m not a dress historian of any type, so I could be entirely wrong about how standard it was.
7
Absolutely elegant. There’s something to look at from every angle without it feeling busy or overburdened with decoration. The color is gorgeous, and as others have said, I feel like I would enjoy spending time with the person who would wear this.
10/10
I thought I would love this (Teal! Velvet! 20s!), then I scrolled to the full pictures and found that I didn’t.
It looks like something made for or purchased by a woman who dresses in evening wear all the time, like a uniform. She didn’t love this dress, but it served its purpose. No flair, no passion, no heart.
It’s still teal velvet ’20s though, so:
7/10
Brand new, it must have been stunning. Even older, with the lame seeming a bit faded, it’s still fantastic.
9 out of 10.
Something about the front seems not… quite… right. It drapes awkwardly. I realize the preferred 20’s look is rather flat-chested, but I think a human wearer with curves would provide the correct drape to take this dress all the way. The color is lovely and I really appreciate the flower design in an unexpected place with its interesting contrast. Although it’s completely not my favorite era or body style, I’m gonna be generous if on the right wearer.
8/10