Archive for the ‘Romona Keveza’ Category

LOVE/HATE: One Tight Trumpet

Thursday, April 26th, 2012

Okay, setting aside for one moment the fact that this gown is about the bisect this poor model’s bazooms, can we talk about the extreme hobble effect of the super-tight skirt? Because I think this woman is going to need to hop down the aisle with that little room at the knees.

And then there’s that… sleevelet? That odd little blip hanging halfway down her left arm. Is that meant to be a sleeve? Is it meant to be there at all? Because it looks a little like someone told Ramona Kaveza that sleeves are in and she tucked a Kleenex around the model’s arm to see how it would look and forgot it there.

In short, I’m HATING this one, and I don’t think if it fit it would help very much.

What say you all?

Spring 2012 Bridal: Sleeves Start Sneaking Back In

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

For the past couple of decades, it’s been nearly impossible to walk into a bridal salon and find a gown with sleeves. No matter the season, no matter the preference of the bride, sleeves have been a dirty word in bridal couture for some fifteen to twenty years.

Then, last year, something happened.

Kate Middleton wore a wedding gown with sleeves, and the world stood up and cheered at the style.

Cries went up for copies. And then the last Twilight film came out and Bella wore long sleeves, too. The knockoffs started hitting the markets nearly immediately.

So one popular royal bride and one pop culture fictional bride made headlines for wearing sleeves… and suddenly they’re starting to show up on the bridal couture runways again.

LOVE/HATE: the short stuff edition

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

I got all excited as I was preparing for this post because, hey, it’s finally Thursday and that means it’s time for LOVE/HATE and I have a picture of an uber gorgeous short dress that I’ve been sitting on for weeks now! At least I thought it was so gorgeous as to be beyond reproach.

Maybe I just wanted to love it so badly that my mind played seamstress?

You see, this dress has so much going for it: It hails from the gray matter of Ramona Keveza, who I utterly adore. It’s short, and I like when bride’s switch it up with something abbreviated. Plus, it’s sort of ruffly but not too ruffly, if you know what I mean.

And yet I just can’t shake this weird feeling that if the camera angle was just a tad different, we’d all come face to face with the model’s right nipple. I mean, where exactly do bosoms go in a dress like that? Once they get to wherever they’re supposed to go, are they in danger of falling out during bouts of serious boogying?

In conclusion, there’s a part of me that does love this dress, along with its more colorful cousin. There is, however, an even bigger part of me — a part that measures in at 36DD — that hates this dress and all dresses like it for being a forever unattainable ideal.

FYI: My book, iDo: Planning Your Wedding with Nothing But ‘Net (Paperback) is arriving on people’s doorsteps! This is neat both because it is happening slightly ahead of the June 10 schedule and because, duh, it’s my first book! I’m just a tad excited, and I do hope you’ll check it out…whether that means buying it or asking for it at your local library.

So cheap, it can’t possibly be legal…but it is

Tuesday, November 6th, 2007

Will you get the dress of your dreams or a crappy copy?

The legality of counterfeit (or so-called designer inspired) dresses is confusing to many people. No one wants to pay full price for what they believe is a designer dress and then discover that it’s a knock-off. But some brides-to-be and their maids, in the interest of saving money, gladly patronize eBay sellers and online shops that blatantly advertise from scratch copies of high-end wedding gowns and bridesmaid dresses.

Counterfeit Chic has a straightforward explanation of how laws and lace intersect:

Like other items of clothing, wedding dress designs are not protected by intellectual property law. One designer did manage to find a loophole, however. In Eve of Milady v. Impression Bridal, 957 F.Supp. 484 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Judge Shira Scheindlin granted a prliminary injunction against an alleged copyist of the distinctive lace designs on certain bridal dresses. The reason? While clothes are not subject to copyright, fabric designs are considered protectable forms of writing, and the court found lace patterns to be a form of fabric design.

So where does that leave sites like Designer Duplicates and The Bridal Chalet? Here’s a bit of copy from the latter’s web site: