Oh, poor bow dress from last week!  It did even WORSE than the Worth gown, coming in at a 5.8 out of 10 (compared to 6.4 for the Worth).  Reactions were hugely along the lines of ‘blah’, with a reasonable sprinkling of total dislike, and just a few actual fans. Confession time: I’m actually one of the fans.  I thought the way the scallops framed the front bodice was very smart, creating an interesting interplay between the effect of a very tailored bodice, with an almost waistcoast look, and the very summery fabric, and perky, silky, bunchy bustle.  I’d even recreate it if I could find suitable fabric.  But…I would leave off the four lower bodice bows, and just keep the ones on the wrist and bustle.  And do them in copenhagen blue, rather than red, and maybe white-on-white rather than ecru and white.  So definitely not a perfect 10 from me either, but anything that could be considered for a heavily-inspired recreation is easily an 8 in my books!. Todays turquoise blue and bright …

Last week we took a break from Rate the Dress to take a look at suffragist fashion in New Zealand. The last Rate the Dress was an embroidered 1880s dress which received two main reactions: love, because it looked like a film costume in all the right ways, and ‘nice, but somehow not exciting’.  Still, it came in at 8.6 out of 10, so the fans were in the majority! I posted an 1880s House of Worth dress in pale stone with red bows 7 weeks ago, and it didn’t do particularly well.  So I was fascinated when I found this 1880s dress from the MFA Boston with the same general design scheme: It’s so similar, but in cotton rather than heavy silk, with soft ruffles and scallops rather than crisp pleats, and as a day dress rather than a reception gown, the overall effect is quite different. Is it different enough to get a significantly improved (or reduced!) rating?  Would you like it more or less if I hadn’t pointed out the similarities to …