Yes or No?
Posted on March 22, 2008 by SB&C
In my regular search for those crochet designs that were obviously made by someone who never saw the human form, I found this:
Now the label would make anyone drool….. but it’s got some issues…
Tell me how thin you’d have to be to make this kitchen string thing work!
And BTW - Happy Easter!!!
Filed under: Clothing Designs, For Women
It has Mary Kate Olsen™ written all over it. It might also fit over my Grandma’s coat rack. (Too bad. It’s kind of pretty.)
Fugly and not very viable as a garment unless lined or worn with a slip. Plus the black shoulder straps are hideous and look very stuck on, why not have them the same color as the dress? Also, the waist looks like it would hit well below the actual waistline, and the front pockets look like they will also hit too low. Poorly designed.
Ugly and completely nonfunctional. Waste of materials and time.
Personally, i don’t believe (most) dresses should be made out of yarn when silk or a lighter softer flowier material is far better suited; however I could see some young, lovely blonde starlet in Vogue making this look quite stellar. It’s kind of a throwback to art-deco couture, and that has a lot to do with the silhouette (read: not curvy, dropped waistline) which was popular in that era. Certainly not suitable for everyone, but i would say it’s more “fashion” than “fug”.
I’m going to leap to the defense of this one- and art and couture type-crochet in general- and argue that just because MOST women aren’t thin enough to wear something, that doesn’t automatically make it fug fodder. Yes, this is not a practical design per se, but clearly it’s a couture piece and it’s not intended for common use. I’m very sorry we’re not all skinny minnies here who can wear anything we want, but just because it’s not something you’d rock while grocery shopping doesn’t automatically make it ugly.
Victoria Beckham might like it as a house gown, with high heels of course.
Maybe the dress if meant for Princess play
The waist line at the hips, and the front pockets on the thighs are actually quite common in dresses from the 30’s.
I have a vintage knitted dress from that period and it has the same features and is quite attractive.
The shoulder straps are a bit odd though, and with the shortened hem length, I’m not totally sure what period they were aiming for here.
looks like someone tried to turn a table cloth into a dress. ick. And why does it look so dirty?
With a few minor adjustments this could easily be passed off as the world’s largest pot scrubber. I’m trying to imagine wearing something like that. I have three little housedogs who would have their toenails stuck in that mess in a matter of seconds. Can you see me walking into the vet’s office with the dogs hanging in my dress?
apparently you have to be thinner than the mannequin because it certainly didn’t look right on it . . .
Oh yes, I would have made that for myself 35 years ago when I was 22 and 5′9″ and struggling (yes struggling, I used to add 1000 calories per day) to get my weight over 110. This style appealed to me then. I had no chest, no real waist and loved the dropped waist line look.
Well speaking asa “skinny minnie ”
still wouldnt make it it just seems like a waste of time LOL somithing thats just meant to be desiigned to make the designer look good I guess, yea it has some nice feathures but as somione who is an admmitted slob (I swear im worse than the kids LOL) im always throwing out shirts and clothes cause i mess them up so fast LOL, but then again I guess thats what ya get when ya have a small farm and 4 kids this is just totally not practical for me or other “real” women out there I guess. besides it would take me orever to finnish this between every other project I have to do LOL
A definite NO. LOL