Life’s been a little hectic for me lately, and unfortunately blogging hasn’t been a top priority. I can’t promise I’ll be able to get back to a regular schedule right away, but the worst of the stresses have been lifted. Hopefully life, and blogging, will be a little more stable in the near future.
The last Rate the Dress I posted was so practical and timeless that a number of you mentioned that you’d happily wear it today. This week’s dress is very of its time, although it heavily references another era, and would definitely make most modern activities a little tricky!
Last Week: a 1910s day dress with touches of colour
The day dress was very popular. At worst you found it dignified but not particularly interesting, at best you were wildly in love with it and wanted; to wear it everyday/recreate it/a pattern of it.
The only real criticism it received was for the collar and collar colour (say that three times fast!). You weren’t convinced by the shape, or the mix of hues.
The Total: 8.9 out of 10
Not quite as fabulous as the banyan, but an impressive rating nonetheless.
This week: an 1870s dress with 18th century inspiration:
Since the last Rate the Dress was practical and wearable, here’s one that’s just a little bit frivolous.
Dress in two parts, 1886, silk, Nicholson and Wordley of Camden Town, London Fashion Museum Bath
Historicism was wildly fashionable in the late 19th century. Couturiers like Worth borrowed liberally from a whole range of eras: Elizabethan ruffs, Renaissance slashing, and 18th century engageantes all make appearances in Victorian dress.
This week’s dress is based on the 18th century, with the aforementioned engageante inspired sleeves, a laced stomacher effect front, and a neckline that references the low square necklines of the Georgian era, and the crossover lace fichu seen in some portraits (like this one of Marie Kunigunde of Saxony, and this one of Madame Sophie of France, and this one of Mary Little, Lady Carr).
Dress in two parts, 1886, silk, Nicholson and Wordley of Camden Town, London, Fashion Museum Bath
It also has an aproned overskirt that resembles the picked up aprons seen in 18th century pastoralist art and portraits (like this one of Mary, Countess of Howe), and a bustled skirt that hints at Georgian picked-up skirts.
Despite all this, I don’t think it’s a costume: simply a very fanciful dress. Compared to other fancy dress of the era it’s too subdued, and there are too many other examples of equally fanciful historicism inspired garments.
What do you think? Does this example of 1880s historybounding-meets-everyday-Disney-princess make your heart happy?
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.
