What not to wear: to your wedding
By raincoaster
Anything that makes you look like a thigh-heavy commando in a skirt spun from nothing more than the morning mist over Niagara Falls.
Sorry, Channing Tatum, you should ditch the closety nudist and get with me.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:22 am
I dunno, I kind of like it. Usually Reem Acra does nice wedding dresses.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Am I the only one who thinks it looks see-through? Or am I the only one who thinks that’s Not A Good Look?
note to self: get eyes checked.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am
It does look see through. I am guessing that it looks fine when kept out of direct sunlight/flash photography.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I don’t think it looks see through at all.
What you are seeing and thinking are her thighs (I’m guessing) is the reflection of light on the feathers. No way are her thighs that big! And I’m also guessing that under the feathers, there is a satin underskirt of some sort. At least that’s what it looks like to me.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I agree that it’s an optical illusion and she’s probably got toothpick thighs (the copy said the dress was white and peach) but I still say that any skirt that makes you look as if you’re not wearing one, deliberately or accidentally, is not a good look for a wedding dress.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Considering that there are a lot of wedding dresses now with transparent (or missing) midriffs, I wouldn’t be shocked if there were a dress with a see-through skirt. However, I believe it’s a peach satin underskirt that just unfortunately looks like some oversized thighs in that photo. I totally agree with you, raincoaster, that it’s not a good look for a wedding dress. But I bet the illusion never came up during try-ons and alterations. Reem Acra does some gorgeous dresses, and some very odd ones. I suspect this may be a bit odd. A few years ago they did some dresses in pale blue that were gorgeous.