Now, it's going to be a casual affair, in a beautiful (modern) barn, in the middle of September. It's going to feel more like a back-yard BBQ than a wedding, and yet, I am much more interested in wearing something "bride-like" than I was at my first marriage.
I love the idea of something retro-ish but WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO ALL THOSE MODELS HAVE 14 INCH WAISTS?? My sweet and very helpful sister has volunteered to remove a few ribs for me with her new cutlery. And I appreciate that. I do. But I have a very low pain threshold. So let's review some options, based on the body (and flaws) that I have. Also, keep in mind that I will most likely be barefoot and will have just a simple white flower in my hair. No frou-frou veil or anything of the sort...but still...I want to look pretty and somewhat like a bride. Important factors to consider when helping me decide: I am 43 years old. I could lose a few (ahem) pounds (but can't promise that I will) and most importantly: I have NO WAIST.
First, I'll show you some pictures of modern dresses that I like, all from JCrew:
I think this is simple, lovely and elegant. It's also $850. But I think I could have something very similar made (in off-white linen maybe) for a fraction of the price. 
I also think this is sweet and simple. But maybe too young?? And also, would the bow at the waist accentuate part of my body I do not love? 
And then there's this, which is hand-made by etsy seller Jane bon bon. I am wearing one of her dresses right this minute and I LOVE it: it is beautifully made and fits me as if it were made for me. I feel great in it. 
Aaaand then there's this little number which, oh my, totally speaks to my quirky-retro side. I ADORE this, probably more than I should. But is it just a bit too much? (David, you don't get to vote.) (I know, I know, he IS the man I'm marrying, but he doesn't really appreciate retro as much as he should.) This would definately, um, "surprise him in delightful ways." And then there are these patterns which I could have made:
Clean, simple, elegant. Maybe too plain? Maybe WRONG for a woman who is not 6 ft. tall, 104 pounds, 23 years old? 
Hello, Doris Day! Again, WHAT IS WITH THE 11 INCH WAIST?? Were women in the 50s really built that much differently? Were there SERIOUS UNDERGARMENTS involved? Did they not have Ben & Jerry's back then?? 
Imagine the long version in an ivory-colored linen or maybe eyelet cotton. Kinda Goldie-Hawnish, don't you think? So. What do you think? Are any of them right or even close? Or just all wrong? Please take a moment and vote up on the left.
And, it probably goes without saying, but I can't promise I'll take your advice. But I do promise to appreciate your advice. I do.
11 comments:
I voted #1 only because if your going to be barefoot it may look a little weird in a short dress. I think it might look more like you just forgot your shoes. Also, strapless... uhhh... during my wedding I was soooooo worried about my armpit & backfat... not worth it. Just my opinion.
PS- to all... I have my blog up and going again...
www.msjackic10.blogspot.com/
Back fat! ha!!! EXCELLENT POINT. Thank you for that.
not saying you have back fat!
Here goes. I love #1, perhaps you could get someone to make it so you don't have to be terrorized.
#2 & 4, not strapless. #3 too plain, #5, nitegown? #6 too Doris Day ? and #7, yes ! in white, w/belt of same white material, bow similar and 1/2 as large as # 2and of a slightly different color, like #2, ecru or something so it won't emphasize the "part of your body you don't like".
How's that for advice. ? naaaah, just on opinion.
You have some good ideas.
Oh yeah, we're baaaaaaack !
Ok, wow. Mom, you just confused the crap out of me. But I think I get it: #7 in an ivory color with a self-tie at the waist with a bow that is a different color than the dress?
Jacki: I TOTALLY have back fat. In fact, I have more cleavage in back than in front. NICE.
3 is my favorite, 1 would be my second choice, 4 would be third choice, but most fun.
Which do YOU like best?
Read it again. Belt of same material as dress, ( so it won't contrast ) and a small bow in front of slightly different shade.
You have the right idea. You want to look like a bride----a glowing , happy bride. Now, if we can get David to look happy too----
oh, I know, #4 could go on your honeymoon. !
Mom, that's exactly what I said. We're envisioning the same thing, just saying it differently.
Lala, my first choice....I really love #1 for it's simplicity and elegance...and then 7 and 4. 3 I like a lot but it is a bit too plain and I worry I'd look like a sofa due to the fabric. 7 I think has real potential; it's retro but not too kitschy. It's like #1 but with more style. I ordered the pattern and I think I'll have a muslin made of it to see how it looks on me first. Jeebus, how's that for a wishy-washy answer?? See why I need help?!
And I love the idea of #4 for the honeymoon!
I LOVE the retro floral dress. But FWIW - not sure I'd love it with bare feet. I agree with Jacki - the long one from JCrew would be nice barefoot.
In the end, you know you will have to try as many of these on as you can. Just like the rest of us! :)
#3 please!!
Post a Comment