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’s Rate the Dress started out as a mystery, as I couldn’t locate the collection it came from.  A number of you succeeded in doing so, but Daniel wins  the google-fu award of the week for finding it first. Things almost everyone  liked about last week’s dress: The colour.  The seamstresses’ cleverness and frugality in recycling the fabric. Things that got mixed reviews: how the original mixed patterning of the fabric, and the way it was used in the alteration, interacted.  The padded, three dimensional trim, and the hem cord. Things that almost nobody was impressed by: the fat, unbalanced trim over the bust. The result?  A very respectable 8 out of 10.  Yay for historical recycling! This week we’re going from bright blue to grass green, with an early 1920s Vionnet dress formed from diamonds in silk velvet, evoking a medieval harlequin. What do you think of this dress?  Elegant and playful, or just silly? Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10