LOVE/HATE: The ‘Who Does This Flatter?’ Edition
I’m going to come right out and say that I’m mystified by this style of dress. Advertised as a 1930s era bias cut silk wedding dress on Dirty Fabulous, I can see how it might look sharp on someone who was quite thin – the way most clothing looks good on people who are quite thin – though it always seems to make brides look short. As it stands, I’m in the hate camp for this particular style of gown. BUT I know that I have some amazing readers who know a thing or two about vintage fashion and I’m hoping hoping hoping that you’ll weigh in to change my mind. My question is really what body type is most flattered by this wedding dress – what bride is going to look her best in it?
I’m in the love camp. My wedding dress was a lot like this, though it didn’t have the long sleeves and high neck. It was a very, very simple silk bias cut 1930s style dress with a low back and a cowl neck. I’m thin, but far from rail thin. I do have curves. The dress was stunning. I did not look short (though I was wearing three inch heels.) It’s a refreshing change from the over-jeweled, princess-y gown, strapless, lacy numbers that are endlessly repeated in the fashion rags. I was an older bride, too, so I wanted something sophisticated and comfortable. This style was perfect.
I think it’s a style that suits many brides, and not just the stick thin super model types.
I wish I had a picture online, but this looks like my grandmama’s wedding dress. She was quite thin, and she looked like Katherine Hepburn. That’s the kind of look this dress needs: thin, but not in a modern, heroin-chic way, athletic and mildly curvy. It really works on people with broad shoulders and narrow hips who might actually have a hard time finding a formal that doesn’t call for an hourglass figure.
I’m also firmly in the LOVE camp. Bias cut dresses are actually pretty flattering, because the fabric has a little stretch. It hugs the curves without pulling. I think it can be pulled off by an hourglass or pear, but maybe not an apple.
Emily! My grandmother’s dress was like this, too! She was 5’7″ and 115 lbs. (The only genes I got from her were the lack of bosom. Otherwise, I channel the shorter, plump grandmother.) She fit into her wedding dress on her 50th wedding anniversary.
I like how it looks, but at the same time . . .
It makes me think of the dresses that the crazy mother wore in “Carrie”. And that association has out me firmly on “hate”.
Seems very like the dress Sandra Bullock wore for the wedding in “The Proposal.” So that kind of figure.
It’s interesting looking at fashion from various decades and noticing that not just style but fashionable body type changes. It’s obvious when you look at the New Look in the 1950s–wasp waist, drooping shoulders, and big hips (bouffant skirts). And they had corsetry and girdling–and most adult women wore them. It’s a kind of tyranny now that we are supposed to accomplish the same results, regardless of genetic heritage, with just diet and exercise. I bet that’s why Spanx and the like have become so popular.
I love the dress but think that you would have to have the perfect figure to be able to wear it. The fabric is just too unforgiving for 99% of us!
I think a tall hourglass would rock it, too. It reminds me of the cuts that Christina Hendricks wears as Joan, but long. Speaking as a quite thin person, my main concern would be not filling out the bust and hips enough to give any figure. Then it’d just look saggy and ill-fitted, and I’d feel like a tall boy. But not on purpose. I’m all for androgyny but only when it’s on purpose.
I’m also firmly in the LOVE camp. Bias cut dresses are actually pretty flattering, because the fabric has a little stretch. It hugs the curves without pulling. I think it can be pulled off by an hourglass or pear, but maybe not an apple.