| but why? |
|
Cute of you're under 10 or going for a what ever happened to baby Jane / lena dunham wedding dress
https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-o6vy9cv/products/155301/images/150774/107246__31507.1583217240.500.500.jpg?c=2 |
| Fine, if in your twenties and not at a professional event and you have a lean rectangle body. It reads young and I’m not differentiate styling can change that. |
| Great if you’re going to a 60s themed party. Otherwise, no, it’s simply too, too precious. |
| There’s nothing attractive about that fit, even on the model. |
|
Three thoughts:
1) this is kind of cute, if you have the figure for it (no boobs whatsoever being #1 with a bullet) 2) you could wear this for photos or a party, or two parties with no guest overlap. But you can't just wear this to everything this holiday season unless you're promoting being signed to play Sailor Moon in a remake or something 3) this is possibly the worst thing you could do with $650. If someone was wearing this dress and told me it was from shein.com I would take it at face value. Material is cheap, it's unlined, etc. |
| Definitely not my taste but it looks more like an Easter dress than Christmas or New Year’s Eve to me, OP. |
|
I think it could look fantastic and fun and memorable on the right person. It's "a lot of dress" as the fashion critics like to say, so you need to have a lot of confidence and LOVE the dress (you can tell when someone loves their outfit and that can really help someone pull off a dress that's a little more over the top.
I disagree with PPs that this is a dress for a short woman, though yes you need to be pretty flat chested and slim. I can imagine Kiera Knightly, Michelle Williams, or Zoe Saldana all pulling this off in slightly different ways. I think it would look best with a pixie cut or bob with some volume (leaning into the 60s vibe) though if your hair is long and in fantastic shape it could look great down in long waves (you need super shiny, healthy hair for this). Silver shoes, bare legs, keep lips in the nude family (not skin tone but something very subtle) and play up the eyes. |
| Victorian |
|
OP here. Thank you all for the honest feedback (DCUM is a great place for brutal honesty). For family pictures, would this one be a better bet? https://www.sezane.com/us/product/tal-dress/vintage-blue#size-2
I don't trust my fashion sense at all at this point. |
No, I prefer the Saloni dress to this for photos. I think that wrap neckline in that fabric is going to be hard to keep from looking sloppy in photos, especially if you might be sitting down. |
| It's not my thing, but I think it's cute, and I think it would look great on someone who loves it and wears it with confidence. Would photograph really well, I'd think. |
| great for a four year old!! |
| I don' mind the dress, but the color is terrible. If you are not olive-skinned at a minimum, this color will wash you out and look terrible. |
|
First, DCUM will hate this dress (as evidenced by nearly all the posts by page 2).
Bright pink is an in color this year and a holiday color too - just a quick stroll through Tyson's II last weekend showed me that. This is a very individual, unique dress that is also very expensive. If you have the money and it looks good and you like it, go for it. FWIW, I like it. It would look hideous on me. It would not be too hard to get the gaps closed a little. The gaps exist though because the dress is very sweet, and it needs some edge. Right now, the edge is in those gaps (and the models very dark, contrasting skin). If you are a pale blonde, with flowing hair, I think it would just be too much. Makes me think of something someone like Kristen Chenoweth might wear on stage - it's bright, it's big, edgy boob possibilities, good legs with high platform heels. If it looks good on you, and you style with some level of edge - the shoes, the make up, your hair - I think it could look fabulous. It's a lot, though. I think the second dress is not attractive and would not photo well. |