This decision is probably based more on the bride’s personality and preferences than any standard set.

I don’t think it’s the worst thing for one to have a reception gown TBH. There’s no rule saying that it has to be white right? Therefore, it could probably be worn again for some formal function. And who says it has to be a dress anyway? Why not a white pantsuit or something?

I am a very traditional Catholic so I would have the whole Mass in Latin at a huge (bigger than some Cathedrals) Church. That would require shoulders covered and limited cleavage… and with a huge long aisle it’s hard to resist the train.

At the same time I LOVE to go swing dancing and I would want a shorter swingier skirt for the reception (even as short as just below the knee) so I could really have fun and dance. Even with a bustled skirt a dress with a long train is heavy and cumbersome.

I recently saw on some wedding website the perfect thing for me. It was two dresses that were essentially the same… just one was the short length that I love, and the other was long with a train. I think as a hobby photographer I would want the continuity of having basically the same dress in all the pictures.

My own sister, less than three weeks before my wedding, chopped her all her long hair off. I was distressed, because the style of the dress was meant to be worn with long hair, but you know what? She’s still my sister, I still got married, and I just roll my eyes a litte bit at the pictures. (Except the one where she looks like a blonde version of Gypsy Girl by Franz Hals – it’s really cool.) And if I ever get married again, I don’t care if she dyes it blue, or shaves it off, or has the cat sit on it, as long as she’s there.

Oh, and she didn’t speak clothing-language. At. All. (I mean REALLY at all – she didn’t know that she had to specify that she wanted the sleeves FITTED if she wanted … fitted sleeves. Fortunately, she was a sweetheart to work with.)

And yet, I managed to make exactly what she wanted, and she looked lovely. I designed the train as a separate overdress, with sleeves (the whole overdress/train was sheer silver-embroidered organza; the sleeves were mounted on peach-coloured organza). It was elaborate, with a high half-collar in the back, and the whole construction looked just like part of the dress. When the train/overdress came off (it hooked up the front, under many little jeweled buttons [except for the one the cat stole]), she was left with a sleeveless bodice with a sweetheart neck which laced up the back; the skirt was as full as an 1890s bell skirt could get. The bodice was covered with the same silver-embroidered organza that the train/overdress was made from, and the skirt front was made en tablier with the organza. There were yards and yards and YARDS of silver trim, and the dress weights that kept the skirt down also helped it spin – they were covered in grosgrain ribbon, and over that, they were covered with blue satin ribbon rosettes – one weight/rosette at each seam – except for the front two, which were covered in white.

So she got her formal gown, and she got to dance all night, too, without – well, I was going to say without two separate dresses, but hers was closer to that than not. But it is possible to make it happen without a separate dress for the wedding and the reception – unless, of course, you actually are looking for an excuse for two dresses! There’s nothing wrong with that, but most folks have enough trouble getting one dress that’s “right;” getting two seems to be more of a challenge than most folks would want. And really, how many excuses will there be to wear that wedding dress, after the wedding?