There are wedding favors, reception centerpieces, bridal jewelry sets, and wedding shoes for sale on Amazon, so I thought I’d poke around in their gown selection. Searching for ‘wedding gown’ net me plenty of results, but it appears that Amazon’s commitment to carrying everything under the sun does not yet extend to nuptial garb.
I know there are some perfectly serviceable gowns on Amazon, but looking at those is no fun. Plus, there are way more wacky wedding dresses for sale than there are the sort that most right-minded women would consider buying. Here’s a sample set for your amusement:
Home shredders are so convenient, right? Just be sure it’s nowhere nearby when you’re trying on your wedding gown, lest you end up with something that looks like this. But, hey, it’s no worse than this, right?
A little sheer paneling is all right…say, just over the bust line or around the armular area. However, this particular dress defines the word “overkill.” And what, pray tell, is up with the cutout under the model’s bosoms? With all that see-through fabric, I don’t see much need for added ventilation.
The seller calls this one a “glamor dress,” but I call it a cross-dressing football player’s dream. There’s plenty of room for shoulder pads, because who wants to worry about a quarterback sack* on one’s wedding day?
I’m sitting her wondering who, exactly, thought that the one-strap-hanging look would be the hot new thing in bridal fashions because I’ve been seeing it A LOT. To me it looks like the wardrobe consultant for this shoot forgot to pin the model’s bra to the strap itself, resulting in a very minor G-rated wardrobe malfunction.
*Unless that’s what you’re into, of course!
The first dress wants only the addition of a jingly coin-belt or hip scarf, and the Bride may entertain her guests with a bellydance at the reception.
The second is not a dress at all, but the fancy slip which goes under the dress, which the model has inaccountably forgotten to put on.
The third dress would not be bad if it were to lose the leg-of-mutton sleeves (sleek and plain would work nicely) and the lace-doily trim at the bottom of the skirt.
As for the last, did we not see this recently in one of those “White Dresses Made from Toilet Paper” competitions?
Number three would have been popular about the time a lot of my friends were starting to plan their weddings…but it’s now been some years since Princess Diana’s wedding. It feels terribly dated at this point. And the tableclothiness of the lace is doing it no favors.
As for the first couple…well, I guess even Vegas showgirls on their fifth weddings need something to wear for the ocassion.
That last one wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the falling down strap. There were gowns with that detail right around 1900 or so that managed to be graceful and dignified, but the rest of the gown tended to be structured enough that such a detail looked deliberate rather than as if one’s dress was disintigrating before the public eye.
The differences between the first two dresses and the third are really fundamental. While terribly unfashionable right now, the third would have been totally acceptable a generation ago. I pray I will never see a time when this can be said about the first two. The last one is just awful like someone misread a 70s Butterick pattern and decided to use it as a template in order to “update” a mid 80s wedding dress
I think the last one is supposed to be displaying the versatility of the strap..meaning you can wear it up or down. I don’t think that’s a bra strap so much as a second strap showing. I’ve seen dresses with two straps like that.
Let’s stick with the football theme: the first dress is obviously flag football; she has the flags built into the dress, is all. The second dress has those loops hanging down to attach the flags. The third dress is obviously for touch football with pads, as you pointed out. And the last dress is for the head cheerleader.
The first one would be perfect if you’re going as a zombie bride.
I would happily go salsa dancing in that first dress. However “suitable for salsa dancing” and “wedding appropriate” are generally not two categories that I find overlapping.
Of course, I’ve never really liked shredded hems anyway, or even handkerchief hems, for that matter, and that goes for all my dresses, dancing, nuptial or otherwise.
OH HELL NO!! 😀