Pick a wedding gown

[LavenderBlue]

Marchesa:

http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/04...ollection.html

Oscar de la Renta:

http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/04...ollection.html

I like the sixth from the bottom Oscar de la Renta. The veil has such exquiste detailing.

[Cat Whisperer]

None of the above. I'd like some parts of a dress, then it would have something stupid looking on it. I'd also have to see them being modelled on someone who has had a meal sometime this year.

[Anaamika]

Definitely the Oscar de la Renta. I don't like white wedding gowns.

[Green Cymbeline]

I couldn't look at the dresses because, damn! some of those models are so sickly skinny! See here, here, here, and here. Those girls are skeletons and ruin any beauty the dresses have.

[LavenderBlue]

Originally Posted by Green Cymbeline

I couldn't look at the dresses because, damn! some of those models are so sickly skinny! See here, here, here, and here. Those girls are skeletons and ruin any beauty the dresses have.

I thought it was my imagination but they do look like stick figures. The dresses are still quite pretty, though.

Some more realistic brides at this amusing little blog:

http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/...dquarters.html

I much preferred Kate Middleton's wedding dress to Ms. Wittstock. Then again that was probably at least partially because Kate looked radiantly happy and Charlene looked like she wanted to flee.

[Girl From Mars]

If I could pick anything? Probably none of those. If I had to pick from these, perhaps the 4th and 13th ODlR ones, I like the robin egg blue colour.

[Renee]

Most of these would look better on women with curvier figures--this is one area where the coat hanger look doesn't flatter the clothes. For instance:

This one is pretty, but just looks too big for the model.

I also like this one.

Overall, though, I'm not wowed by the collections.

[gallows fodder]

I pretended I was on a desert island and these were my only options.

This one from Marchesa.


The de la Renta dresses are exquisite in themselves, but almost all of them would look terrible on me. I really love those two with cardigans and would wear them on any other occasion, but they look informal for wedding dresses. (Although if I ever get married IRL, I would probably wear something that informal and not necessarily white.)

[Zsofia]

I'm just thrilled to see that not every single damned one is strapless.

I was shocked when I started trying dresses on - all the styles I thought would look awesome on me judging from the magazine ads were AWFUL. Seriously, awful. Partly because I guess the models are so thin (although the ones in the ads aren't nearly as thin as runway models), partly because half the ads have women oddly contorted, partly inexplicable. I mean, generally speaking I can predict what will look good on me, but not in Wedding Dress Land.

[secretsmile36]

I am not fond of any of them. I especially hate the short ones.

[FairyChatMom]

None of them grabbed me, several struck me as silly or hideous. Each to her own, I suppose...

[panache45]

Doesn't it depend on what kind of figure you have? There's no design that looks good on everyone.

[Chanteuse]

Originally Posted by Green Cymbeline

I couldn't look at the dresses because, damn! some of those models are so sickly skinny!

And from the expressions on their faces, you'd think they were walking the Green Mile instead of down the aisle. I know they're only modeling, but it seems to me that they could look a little happier--they're supposed to be brides, after all!

[salinqmind]

None of them really knocked my socks off, and I am all about looking at wedding gowns cause I never got to wear one or even try one on. I've seen some interesting ones on Etsy, and the Disney Princess collection(s) fascinate me. I weary as the fashion world enters the umpteenth year of the hideous strapless uniform every bride, stick insect or BBW, seems obligated to strap herself into - can there be an end in sight?

[Baker]

The dresses were pretty, but the models, as many have already said, were way too thin.

A wedding dress show question, why is the fashion these days for strapless, sleeveless, dresses? I'd be way too uncomfortable in such a gown, sure it was going to do a "wardrobe malfunction" on me. I'd prefer the security of straps at least, and my arms look better with sleeves too.

Kate Middleton's dress was perfection.

It's not a modesty thing, a woman can wear anything she wants.

[Miss Woodhouse]

The strapless wedding gown can be blamed on Vera Wang. She showed up on the scene in the early 90s. Previous to her we had had a decade of Princess Dianna frou frou knock offs. The bigger the better culminating in the horrendous butt bow. Then came Vera with her simple, strapless sheath. It was a breath of fresh air and everyone immediately wanted that look.

Of course, it's been 20 years and we are all dead bored with it now.

Sleeves please!

I made my dd's prom dress this year because the prom dresses are based on bridal fashion. Which means carbon copy strapless dresses unless you want to look like a Vegas show girl. Since neither Vegas show girl or carbon copy bridesmaid appealed to her, we did a custom gown. I'm afraid we'll be doing the same for a wedding dress when it's time.

[DianaG]

Lose the cape, and I might get married just to wear this.

Much agreement about the models. I was distracted from the dresses by all the terrifyingly bony chests.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

I'm just thrilled to see that not every single damned one is strapless.
<snip>

I'm not a fan of strapless, either. It is probably the most unflattering style on the most women's body types - almost every normal woman who wears one gets those unattractive "chicken cutlets" from her upper chest flesh bulging out over the tight top of the dress. Blech.

Originally Posted by DianaG

Lose the cape, and I might get married just to wear this.

Much agreement about the models. I was distracted from the dresses by all the terrifyingly bony chests.

That's one of the ones I almost liked. The cape in the back is a little weird, but I could maybe live with that.

I like this one - it's sexy, feminine, flattering, and would look good on a variety of ladies.

[abbeytxs]

I liked the last Marchesa dress and the second Odlr dress. They both seem sort of Grace Kellyish. I guess I am showing my age, but I love the clothing styles from that era.

[Guinastasia]

Another reason why strapless might be popular is that a lot of weddings seem to take place in the spring and summer, and they'd be a lot cooler.

None of them -- they're all too cookie cutter, modern. Now something like THIS would be my dream gown. Or really, just anything vintage-y and old-fashioned.

I do like this one, though. Claire Pettibone has some lovely, old-fashioned kind of dresses.

[Maastricht]

The mark-up on those dresses is criminal. When you see you can get that kind of elaborage dress, new, tailored to your exact size, for under 200 USD on Ebay.

That being said, back when I was still overweight, I tried on wedding dresses for my wedding and I felt like a pretentious meringue in every one. And that was when I wasn't even pregnant yet. In the end, I married in the courthouse, five months pregnant, in these office clothes. My only allowance for festivity was that I bought my husband a new tie to match my belly band. My new mother in law didn't quite get the " casual" part of the dresscode and dressed so lovely that the judge of the peace adressed her initially as the bride. Here's is the picture (warning: takes about 30 seconds to load)

All that being said, and now that I lost 80 pounds and look like this. I think I like a wedding dress that covers up more, and is sleek simple and a bit retro. This would be my ideal, and I could wear it afterwards, too.

[Kimstu]

Just popped in to express my thankfulness that at least we're not seeing so much anymore of the Dread Butt Bow and the Dread Bath-Towel Neckline (i.e., strapless bodice cut straight and unadorned across the front).

But I too am getting pretty tired of strapless gowns in general, even the ones with prettier curvier necklines. Miss Manners, as usual, nailed it in her comment:

That brides now wear debutante dresses is symbolically baffling to Miss Manners [...] why are they now wearing the sleeveless, often strapless, white ball dresses traditionally associated with ladies who are out looking for husbands rather than those who have found them? [...]

A ball dress is a party dress, perfectly suitable for the celebrations that follow a wedding ceremony but not for a momentously important sacrament or ritual [...]

I tend to agree that the sartorial message of the typical bridal gown these days is not so much "Wow, I'm getting MARRIED!" but more "Look what a hot sexy chick I am!"

I thought that the word in the salons was supposed to be that Kate Middleton's dress was going to revive the fashion for wedding gowns with sleeves, but apparently it hasn't had that much impact.

I didn't go crazy over any of the gowns in the link, although I thought the mantilla-style veil draped over a high headdress was impressive.

[Zsofia]

I believe that's a traditional Filipino style? I had a mantilla style veil made for me - it's so pretty, I need to take a picture.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

I believe that's a traditional Filipino style? I had a mantilla style veil made for me - it's so pretty, I need to take a picture.

You absolutely do!

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Another reason why strapless might be popular is that a lot of weddings seem to take place in the spring and summer, and they'd be a lot cooler.

Mmm, I dunno. Yes, a strapless dress with a tight bodice complete with lining, ruching, decoration, etc. and a heavy satin skirt complete with crinoline, lining, beading, lace, etc. is going to be somewhat cooler than a sleeved dress with a tight bodice complete with lining, ruching, decoration, etc. and a heavy satin skirt complete with crinoline, lining, beading, lace, etc.

But neither of them is going to be all that comfortable outdoors in hot weather, and the strapless one just means that your shoulders and arms will get sunburned.

If you really want a wedding dress that's relatively cool and comfortable to wear in the heat, it should be made of a lighter breathable fabric with fewer layers and less built-in structure, and be more on the loose-and-flowing than tight-and-molded end of the spectrum. Consequently, of course, it will tend to look less formal, but that doesn't mean it can't be pretty.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Miss Manners, as usual, nailed it in her comment:

It's the bride's choice to wear whatever makes her feel happy, comfortable and beautiful at her wedding, whether that's a strapless full skirted gown or a set of surgical scrubs. The implication that if a dress lookss attractive and shows a woman's figure that she's trying to "catch a man" is basely offensive. Women reinforcing the privilege of the male gaze and using that to shame other women? Not acceptable.

Beyong that, no one is obligated to follow "traditions" especially if they're not their traditions, and the majority of people have absolutely no tradition of wearing debutante gowns of any style.

Judith can stick a sock in it. There's nothing mannerly about being a snob or a priss.

As for the gowns, after that digression, I wouldn't wear any of them if you paid me. This gown, on the other hand...

[Boyo Jim]

The Marchesas -- they're all so... fuzzy and ill-defined. It's kinda like the brides have smoke generators shoved up their asses.

No Spandex?

[WhyNot]

I love the funny cape for that dress! I'm no so crazy about the dress, but that back is exactly what I visualized Galadriel wearing in The Lord of the Rings.

I feel like I might like this dress on a different, curvier, body type. And that makeup is simply ghoulish, and not in a good way. The lighting isn't helping matters.

This one surprised me with how much I liked it. It's positively modern, and that's not usually my thing. I think the curves salvage it, making it retain a certain romanticism that resonates with me.

Everything else I...well, I'd wear it if you paid me, but I wouldn't be posting the pics on Facebook... Not my taste in dresses at all.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

Meh. This one is the only one I like much of the ones to pick. I agree with the disdain for the strapless dresses. My poor cousin wore one for her wedding a few years ago. I thought she looked ridiculous in it. Those, IMO are one style that really does only look good on a couple particular body types, and either hers isn't one, or it was just tailored badly. In any case, her boobs were spilling over the top in the front, and she had a bad case of back fat in the rear. She was spilling over both coming and going, and it wasn't pretty.

[HazelNutCoffee]

I kinda liked the first Marchesa dress, minus the hemline. I really would like to avoid a strapless dress, but it's hard to find anything else in Korea.

[Zsofia]

I told the bridal salon ladies that I did NOT want a strapless dress, and then they all spent fifteen minutes telling me what I wanted. Yes, I know you can shit a sleeve onto anything - I don't want a dress that was built as a strapless dress! Anyway, by requiring that they NOT bring me any strapless dresses I got the most individual and interesting ones they had, by default. So there.

[Cat Whisperer]

Those models pretty much show the only body type that looks good in a strapless dress - they have zero body fat, so they don't get the bulges of flesh over the dress.

Hazel, could you have a dress made by a seamstress there? I seem to recall someone saying that having a dress made in China was a fraction of the price - maybe that applies to Korea, too.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

It's the bride's choice to wear whatever makes her feel happy, comfortable and beautiful at her wedding, whether that's a strapless full skirted gown or a set of surgical scrubs. The implication that if a dress lookss attractive and shows a woman's figure that she's trying to "catch a man" is basely offensive. Women reinforcing the privilege of the male gaze and using that to shame other women? Not acceptable.

There there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. Miss Manners was just making the perfectly reasonable observation that strapless gowns are traditionally more daring and explicitly sexy-looking than other styles. And that daring, explicitly sexy clothing is traditionally worn by women who are out partying (the "husband-hunting debutante" reference simply alludes to the fact that the sexy dresses in this case are in the conventional deb color of white), rather than by women participating in a serious and legally binding public ritual of personal and familial partnership.

There's nothing offensive about pointing out that showing bare skin on the torso, and particularly on the breasts, is conventionally interpreted in Western society as being sexually provocative. (I note the specific cultural context here because such conventions aren't universal: for example, the traditional Indian sari is considered in Indian society a very modest garment despite the fact that it leaves some of the midriff and back exposed, which is perceived as no more daring than exposing, say, the forearms and ankles in our culture.)

So let's not be mealy-mouthed about this. You're using "looks attractive and shows a woman's figure" as a coy euphemism for "bares half the skin of a woman's torso, including a significant amount of her tits". There are plenty of ways that a dress can look attractive and show a woman's figure without uncovering its surface in ways that, like it or not, are conventional sartorial code in our culture for deliberate sexual allurement.

Sure, it's absolutely a bride's privilege to wear a gown whose style sends a sartorial message of deliberate sexual allurement if that's what she wants. But feminist solidarity does not require us to pretend that the sartorial message isn't there, or that recognizing different levels of implied sexual provocativeness in different bridal clothing styles is somehow tantamount to misogynistic "shaming".

The "reinforcing the privilege of the male gaze" is happening in the designer's studio where the boob-baring dress is created and in the advertising photos where it's marketed, not in the words of the onlooker who opines "that dress looks rather unsuitably sexy for a wedding ceremony".

[Ellen Cherry]

Since this seems to be a receptive audience to this comment — when I got married (the first time) in 1986, I was stunned to find out All About Wedding Gowns, which was a foreign country to me. I thought you could pick out, literally, any style you wanted. I (foolish of me, I know) had no idea there would be current trends in wedding gowns. They are ALL old fashioned (thought I)! No one wears gowns, except for the few that cling to the deb/cotillion scene.

Silly girl that I was, I had announced for years that my dress was going to be straight out of the late Victorian era with a bustle and a parasol. I was 25 years ahead of the steampunk movement. Today I could probably find someone to make me one, given the Etsyfication of the world, but all I had back in the 80s was a seamstress and a Butterick book. I did find something a little off the beaten path, and dammit I did wear a hat, but that's it.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

Since this seems to be a receptive audience to this comment — when I got married (the first time) in 1986, I was stunned to find out All About Wedding Gowns, which was a foreign country to me. I thought you could pick out, literally, any style you wanted. I (foolish of me, I know) had no idea there would be current trends in wedding gowns. They are ALL old fashioned (thought I)! No one wears gowns, except for the few that cling to the deb/cotillion scene.

Silly girl that I was, I had announced for years that my dress was going to be straight out of the late Victorian era with a bustle and a parasol. I was 25 years ahead of the steampunk movement. Today I could probably find someone to make me one, given the Etsyfication of the world, but all I had back in the 80s was a seamstress and a Butterick book.

Ah yes, 1986, the heyday of the Princess Di years in bridal gown style. Yeah, there's never been a way to get a bridal gown style totally independent of current fashion; even custom dressmaking options are subject to what's available in patterns and fabrics.

[Antigen]

Why so many mullet skirts? Short in front and long in the back - just looks wrong.

Models are too skinny, and Marchesa needs to train their ladies not to model in "duckface".

If I had to pick one, I guess I'd take this one but cut off the cape in the back.

Had I been made of money and been a few pounds lighter at the time I got married, I would have loved to wear something like this.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Antigen

<snip>

Had I been made of money and been a few pounds lighter at the time I got married, I would have loved to wear something like this.

That's really pretty, but the model looks like a blow-up doll with those weird lips.

[UntouchedTakeaway]

One other caveat of strapless/sleeveless dresses - a number of churches do not allow strapless/sleeveless dresses in the church. It's best to check with the minister or the church coordinator if this is the case.

UT

[Cat Whisperer]

I love this dress! Look at that beautiful, stomach-hiding ruching! No nasal feeding tubes needed here!

Here's one with a different neckline.

One shoulder draped charmeuse gown - now, *that's* elegant!

[psychobunny]

I have to ask why anybody would show this? Either that is the most unflattering dress ever or the model has the worst boob job ever. Was that seriously the best picture they could get of that dress?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by psychobunny

I have to ask why anybody would show this? Either that is the most unflattering dress ever or the model has the worst boob job ever. Was that seriously the best picture they could get of that dress?

"Ow!!! You're squishing my sunburnt boobs!"

[psychobunny]

It's the square right one that bothers me more.

[Renee]

Originally Posted by psychobunny

I have to ask why anybody would show this? Either that is the most unflattering dress ever or the model has the worst boob job ever. Was that seriously the best picture they could get of that dress?

From the same site: http://weddingchicks.wpengine.netdna...inaTorna32.jpg

Did they forget to zip the side zipper? Or does the dress just gape that badly? And why photograph a white wedding dress against a white background?

Edit: Actually, that whole collection is awful. Look at this monstrosity.

http://weddingchicks.wpengine.netdna...inaTorna05.jpg

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by Chanteuse

And from the expressions on their faces, you'd think they were walking the Green Mile instead of down the aisle. I know they're only modeling, but it seems to me that they could look a little happier--they're supposed to be brides, after all!

This....seriously---every single one looked miserable or contemptuous. Why in the world would you have bridal models wear that expression? You want people to think "The bride is so happy, she's glowing", not "Did she just step in a pile of dogshit?"

[Zsofia]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I love this dress! Look at that beautiful, stomach-hiding ruching! No nasal feeding tubes needed here!

Here's one with a different neckline.

One shoulder draped charmeuse gown - now, *that's* elegant!

That third one is exactly what I thought would look awesome on me in a wedding dress. (It didn't. Wow, did I look fat.) But it's exactly what I dreamed of.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Renee

From the same site: http://weddingchicks.wpengine.netdna...inaTorna32.jpg

Did they forget to zip the side zipper? Or does the dress just gape that badly? And why photograph a white wedding dress against a white background?<snip>

I couldn't see the dress because of the glare off the model's forehead.

But seriously, that could be a very pretty gown, but you're right - it was hanging weirdly off that model.

[Ellen Cherry]

Originally Posted by Renee

Look at this monstrosity.

http://weddingchicks.wpengine.netdna...inaTorna05.jpg

She's skinny AND she's got a blob of yuck around the top of the neckline! These dresses are atrocious. The second time around, I got married in a suit. A SUIT. There, I said it. It was a pretty ivory suit, though, with lots of white-on-white embroidery.

EDIT: I even have a photo! Not taken on the wedding day, though. I got a lot of mileage out of that suit.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

There there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. Miss Manners was just making the perfectly reasonable observation that strapless gowns are traditionally more daring and explicitly sexy-looking than other styles.

Which is, in itself, false, especially given that strapless does not always equal daring or even decolletage-baring. Unless the presumption is that bare shoulders is explicitly sexy, which is about as goofy as anything I can imagine.

And that daring, explicitly sexy clothing is traditionally worn by women who are out partying (the "husband-hunting debutante" reference simply alludes to the fact that the sexy dresses in this case are in the conventional deb color of white), rather than by women participating in a serious and legally binding public ritual of personal and familial partnership.

But it wasn't a simple allusion. Beyond the categorical presumption of what is and isn't "sexy," the suggestion was that the only women who wear "sexy" clothes are ones on the prowl is false on its face. And the presumption that a wedding must be a "serious" ritual is itself false, and that a serious ritual should be devoid of anything that might be categorized as sexy and/or unserious is false as well.

The whole concept is already loaded with so much baggage sat upon women's heads for no good reason except the logical fallacy which is the appeal to tradition that it was offensive from top to bottom before we go any further.

I'm sorry, but Miss Manners was entirely wrong. And so are you.

[shantih]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

She's skinny AND she's got a blob of yuck around the top of the neckline! These dresses are atrocious. The second time around, I got married in a suit. A SUIT. There, I said it. It was a pretty ivory suit, though, with lots of white-on-white embroidery.

EDIT: I even have a photo! Not taken on the wedding day, though. I got a lot of mileage out of that suit.

Gorgeous! I had to do a classic double take at the picture, though -- it looks like you're holding a baby and cupping the disembodied head of a young boy.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

Which is, in itself, false, especially given that strapless does not always equal daring or even decolletage-baring. Unless the presumption is that bare shoulders is explicitly sexy, which is about as goofy as anything I can imagine.

Well, as you can see from the illustration in the link to the chapter that I provided (if you bothered to look at the link rather than just flying off the handle about the short excerpt I quoted), the types of "white ball dresses" that Miss Manners was describing as unsuitably sexy for a wedding are in fact decolletage-baring, as well as being revealing in other ways.

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

And the presumption that a wedding must be a "serious" ritual is itself false, and that a serious ritual should be devoid of anything that might be categorized as sexy and/or unserious is false as well.

A classic case of shooting the messenger. You personally may dislike the conventional societal presumption that a wedding ceremony is considered a serious occasion at which explicit sexual provocativeness in clothing is out of place, but that doesn't mean that that conventional presumption doesn't exist in our society.

Heck, many houses of worship of all denominations even have official policies requiring brides to wear a jacket or a shrug or some other cover-up for the wedding ceremony if her gown doesn't have what is considered a sufficiently modest bodice. Wanna argue that a serious ritual doesn't have to be devoid of sexually provocative-looking clothing styles? Tell it to the rabbi, or the pastor, or the priest.

Fume at Miss Manners all you like, but she's just describing a genuine and still applicable etiquette tradition here. There is nothing misogynist or anti-feminist about recognizing the uncontroversial fact that clothing that looks deliberately sexually provocative (according to common conventions in our society about the sartorial implications of clothing) is traditionally considered unsuitable for a wedding rite.

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

The whole concept is already loaded with so much baggage sat upon women's heads for no good reason except the logical fallacy which is the appeal to tradition that it was offensive from top to bottom before we go any further.

I'm sorry, but Miss Manners was entirely wrong. And so are you.

I can see that you would very much like Miss Manners to be wrong about this particular etiquette convention, and that you passionately wish that the convention were changing in our society faster than it is. But the strength of your wishful thinking doesn't make you right.