It’s only money – between the original, amazing, dress of your dreams… and, the bargain, re-make, dress from your nightmares.
Exhibit A: The Audrey Hepburn Dress
This exhibit is a mild example, however, it still brings the point home. Below, is the original dress worn by Audrey Hepburn, in “Sabrina.” (I think it is Oscar de la Renta?)
Gorgeous. Absoulutely gorgeous.
Now… I came across the following dress on a place called (gulp) “Bargain Bride.” Now, granted… this dress is not a total nightmare. But, it is not the original. It is missing that “thing” that makes it amazing – and, it ends up looking less like a dress for wedding – and more like a costume of some sort. I don’t know – the less observant eye may not agree…
Thoughts?
Well, I don’t like it. That’s my opinion. Thumbs-down on this knock-off attempt.
Exhibit B – The Titanic Dress
Alright… now this is one of the worst disasters that I have ever seen. And, the story along with it is so awful. Poor bride… poor, poor, bride.
So, nearly everyone has seen the dress from Titanic – worn by Kate Winslet – and gorgeous.
Very pretty. Athough, as an outsider, I am looking at this dress and already thinking that it would be pretty, damn difficult to duplicate successfully. But, whatever. So, they handed over responsibility to a seamstress, and the seamstress went to work on turning Kate Winslet’s dress into several bridesmaid dresses.
This – is what they had returned to them on the day of the wedding…
Oy, vey…
Oh… the horror!!! Read the full story of this dress, and how they managed in an emergency. It includes a wedding picture that shows what they were able to pull together in a few hours. (And, check out the bridesmaids that this dress was meant for… my first thought was, okay – so the seamstress blew it. But… making that dress for those girls – you may as well just ask the seamstress if she keeps a magic wand on hand.)
The moral of this story???
It is okay to not have tons of money to spend on a dress!
However, it is not recommended that you take the $10 you have, find a seamstress, and request a miracle.
You’re better off borrowing a dress. Seriously.
Remember, there ain’t no shame in where you got the dress… just as long as the dress itself ain’t shameful.
April 27, 2007 at 10:29 am
Oh, Abby…but did you see the dress of the BRIDE? I’m not sure that the horror movie outfits wouldn’t have been a good fit…
July 11, 2007 at 8:36 pm
The dress worn by Audrey Hepburn is a Givenchy dress. She wore almost exclusively his creations, and Oscar de la Renta was not even designing by that point.
July 12, 2007 at 1:51 am
Ah – you are correct sir. I remember when I cited this actually thinking that it didn’t sound right – but in the end I guess I trusted my wrong instincts…. sorry readers!
(And, thank you to David “smarty-pants commenter” for the correction.)
May 4, 2008 at 1:08 am
I was doing a google image search for this specific Audrey Hepburn dress and found your blog. That knock-off dress is atrocious! It looks like she’s going to a gothic ball, and doesn’t seem to me in any way graceful.
)
I’m making my own attempt at recreating this dress for a wedding, I hope I can pull it off!
Cool blog by the way.
-Jade
May 12, 2008 at 3:16 am
Audrey’s wore Hubert Givenchy’s creations in most of her films and off screen, too. They had a very friendship that extended many decades…in the PBS Biography of Audrey Hepburn, her son Sean describes their closeness like “sister and brother.”
Why not enjoy some more of Givenchy’s dresses on the web. They are breathtaking….especially when worn by Audrey!
July 24, 2008 at 3:42 am
just wanted to let you know that the dress that Audrey Hepburn wore in the movie Sabrina was Givenchy not De la Renta. Givenchy was Ms. Hepburns designer of choice from this movie going forward
December 9, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Well, firstly, I think that the reason the Givenchy dress Audrey is wearing is that much more spectacular is because an informed fashion-lover will know that the embroidery is done by hand. The contrast between the embroidery and the sheer fabric is greater because it is farther apart. The swathing of the pattern at the bottom is reminiscent of Greek art in a way, whereas the modern “version” (aka travesty) is all done by embroidery machine. It does lack that “little something” and I think that’s the difference between slightly “goth bride” and breathtaking gown. The modern dress also lacks shape. The crinoline underneath appears to be crushed by the fabric, and then dragged downwards, whereas Audrey’s dress has a lovely bustling effect. It gives it a dreamy lightness.
I also don’t like the satin ribbon on the woman’s veil. What’s up with that? Not to mention the black gloves with a white dress. Not sure what kind of statement she’s trying to make. It is my belief that if the dress is mostly pale, then go with pale gloves. Mostly dark, then dark gloves. Unless you are a magician or mage, then your gloves should match the trim on your cloak for the sake of “effect”.
Those are my thoughts…
January 23, 2009 at 9:02 pm
The first attire is absolutely gorgeous!