Oops!  Sorry!  I’m sure many of you woke up this morning and went to check on the Rate the Dress, and there was nothing there.  The sad truth is that I was so tired last night that I got confused and thought Rate the Dress wasn’t until tomorrow. Last week I posted a simple 1860s gown, and the initial consensus was that it was so boring that it was neither wonderful nor dreadful.  But then Tenshi pointed out “It’s not a ballgown, so it shouldn’t be judged like one” and a rather interesting conversation about ordinary clothing developed.  The eventual rating acknowledged, that yes, it was the simple, practical dress of its time, but a reasonably good one at that, and it rated a 7.4 out of 10 This week I’m playing with the idea of not every dress being made for a pretty young thing on her way to a ball, but taking the concept almost as far as it can go in the opposite direction.  I’d like to present an outfit that very …

Hrrmph.  I try to keep my opinions about Rate the Dresses under covers, but your review of last week’s Worth dress rather disappointed me.  Whilst I knew the aesthetics of the zig-zag Roger Worth dress might prove challenging, I’d hoped that more of you would recognise the artistry of the construction: the brilliance of the stiffened front-raised hemline, allowing easy walking and dancing, and creating the most amazing movement in the skirt; the clever, clever sleeves, cut at one with the bodice; the un-pieced skirt, with shaping achieved through tucks.  And yet, it was these very things that so many of you disliked!  A few loved the dress (I love the dress), but so many of you hated it that it came in at a 5.3 out of 10.  Poor Roger: worse even then his grandfather! Carrying on the zig-zag theme from last week, here is Queen Adelaide (consort of William IV of England and aunt to Queen Victoria) in a very regal 1830s gown with fascinating zig-zagged sleeve details, and luscious blonde lace sleeves. …