Before I hit you with this week’s LOVE/HATE I have to clarify something. I love Stephanie James Couture wedding gowns. Many, if not most, of her designs are a nod to the 1950s and 1960s, without being at all costumey, and almost all look great on a wide range of bridal body types. That said, have a gander at this dress:
Um, no. You’re aces, Stephanie James, but no. So much not to love, from the uneven layers to the multicolor petticoat to the whatever that is just above the model’s derriere. At least the petticoat can be had in any combo of colors, so I might have found the silhouette somewhat palatable in a different color scheme. And I have to admit that it is a creative design. But in general, this dress earns a mild HATE from yours truly.
What say you?
Actually, I kind of love this. I DO like the sillouette, and it’s funky enough on bottom whie being classic enough on top that I can see some Women With Personality wearing it.
I actually LOVE LOVE LOVE this dress! The first time I saw it was in clips of the runway show that they debuted it in – I gasped and clutched at my imaginary pearls.
I am a bride who loves color (our wedding colors/decor are all inspired by a box of Crayons for example), and this dress makes me so happy when I look at it.
Its like this dress, to be philosophical, is a physical representation of how I feel about my fiance and our wedding day. And ON the wedding day. Its exploding and full of different layers and types of happy, but its all happy! And all under the “bride” umbrella. I call it, in my head, “Love is busting out all over”.
If I could afford it? This would so be my dress. Yes and yes.
(ok, I’ll admit that maybe 15% of the attraction is because I loves me some petticoat.)
It might be a cute, fun, cocktail dress if it was all knee-length, but as is, there’s just too much going on. It would take a very special sort of bride (and wedding) to pull this off.
I took one look at this and heard Tim Gunn in my head saying ‘that’s a lot of look’ as his eyes bulged slightly.
I actually think it’s a great concept taken way too far. It needs a bit of editing to be truly loved in my book, but it’s too good an idea to be entirely hated.
So what would I change to make my love unequivocal? I would entirely ditch the gewgaws at the back of the waistline. They clutter the look annoyingly. If I replaced them with anything, I might choose a glittery brooch or a very simple, flat bow, but I just might leave it entirely plain, too. Then I would choose a set of tulles designed to harmonize a bit better with one another. You’ve got pastels, brights, mostly solids with one patterned piece, and it starts looking a bit clownish to me. I would probably pick graduated tones of one color. If I went rainbow, though, I would pick either brights OR pastels. If I was going to add one patterned tulle, I would use at least two so that one wouldn’t look so lonely and out of place.
I must admit I would very likely wind up ditching the dip in the hem at the back, but that’s a very personal taste, and I don’t think I would hate this dip if the dress weren’t quite so cluttered a look overall. Then it might become a dramatic detail that pleased me.
Actually, I’m looking in my mind’s eye and thinking I might keep this dip if the waistline is less cluttered and the tulles are more harmonious. At that point, it seems to add to the drama in a positive way.
So, loving the concept tremendously/recoiling in horror from the execution. There’s where I stand.
Hmm. I’m not sure. I LOVE her entire line, but when I saw this, I also took a step back. I think it’s a great piece to have in her collection, though. It’s a pop of color and wacky fun amid all of her beautiful gowns. And the dress is also beautiful–just, maybe not for a traditional wedding.
I love that the dress exists…now I want to see photos of someone wearing it on the town!
Didn’t the freaky, nature, spit marking chick on PR do this a few seasons ago? I think the term used was “pooping fabric”.
I say Hate. Maybe not too harshly, but the electric blue polka dot broke this camel’s back. I had to dig deep into my folder of inspirations for this Vivienne Westwood mismatched tulle cuteness which in my memory had some similarity, and having seen that I can’t say much good about this Stephanie James. I mean, are those feathers? Circus, but not really in a good way. And the difference in the length of the side/back and front is too much in my opinion, too much with all those screaming, unmatching layers of tulle. Then again, I could easily see those too combined and even wearing it, taking the white part from James and sticking it on Westwood’s petticoat, maybe even adding a dip.
Good idea with bad execution.
Actually, Jennie, Elysa’s ‘fabric pooping’ dress was long and lean monochromatic turquoise and kind of wonderful…until you got to the train of random blobs of fabric that nearly tripped the model. If she’d just left off the train, she might have been a contender for the win in that challenge (there was only one seam on a long, body-conscious, sinuous gown!). Come to think of it, though, while the silhouette and color scheme are completely different, that kind of sums up how I feel about this dress: a flash of utter brilliance seriously undercut by a lack of editing on the part of the creator.
Johanna, I want that Westwood! Actually, I would kind of love to see Westwood’s gorgeous jacket-styled bodice on the line of James’ skirt. In fact I think it would make a magnificent wedding gown done in shades of white/ivory/ecru or in graduated tones (light to dark) of nearly any color of the rainbow.
slightly tangentially, i love those shoes (what I can see of them) like I love sunshine and roses and mojitos on summer days on the patio. So. Much. Awesome.
Add the contents of a fruit bowl to the headpiece and throw in a pair of maracas, and you’d have the perfect wedding dress for Carmen Miranda.
With different colored tulle and different shaping, I LOVE it. There was a dress like this featured over on Green Wedding Shoes few months ago and I was in utter lust.
Heh. I’m off in the corner, all by my lonesome. That dress is totally not ME – but I’m really glad it exists for the bride whom it DOES represent (which apparently would be De, here on this blog). But I’m generally a big fan of “Less is not more; less is less. MORE is more.”
Actually I think this is a great dress! It’s definitely not for every bride, but I can see tons of girls out there who would go for this style. It’s definitely off-beat but there’s nothing to HATE about this dress. Like my grandmother always said “para los gustos se hicieron los colores” which translates to “for different tastes, colors were made”.