I saw this dress at Intermix yesterday and I just about fell over.
It's Matthew Williamson, it's called "Poppy" and it's truly gorgeous. This photo doesn't come close to doing it justice -- those are sequins covering the dress, beautiful, colorful sequins and beads that make the thing weigh about a ton but who cares because it's so freaking gorgeous. We all know I like sparkly things, but these aren't cheesy flashy sequins, they're gorgeous, rich-looking, jewel-like sequins. Truly drooly.
Now, much as I adore this, the Want Monster is only whimpering, not roaring, for a couple of reasons. The first one is the price tag: this baby is going for about $2800. Not so much in my price range.
The second reason is: look how dingdong short it is!
Everything is short right now -- it is a very cruel summer for those of us with less than perfect stems. I knew we were going to be facing this when I saw the Onslaught of Minis that was the Spring 2007 shows, but I was hoping that hemlines would drop down a little more than they did. Surely, I thought, surely the demands of grown-up Fashionistas will cause hemlines to drop nearer to the (perchance not-so-lovely) knees. But no, not so much. So here we have a dilemma: when does a trapeze become a babydoll and vice-versa? Is this distinction even important? And how is a person who is not 24 years old or possessed of runway legs supposed to deal with this? Even Diane von Furstenberg, that always-reliable purveyor of wonderful, wearable dresses, has gone high-hemline bonkers. Of the 56 garments shown on the "Dresses" page of her website, only four of them cover the model's knees, and two of those are floor-length!!
One solution that is being posited a lot is the tights/leggings/pants underneath the dress look:
How are you guys feeling about the hemline sitch? Am I the only one feeling a little frustrated?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go do my Fluidity workout in a desperate attempt to tone up my legs...
Photos: Intermixonline.com, style. com, dvf.com
