Post # 1
After going back and forth and over and over too many inspiration dresses Ive narrowed it down to a final two. I am in the middle of designing a dress and whilst I originally thought I would love the opportuity for customisation I really quite like the elements of both of these dresses as is. So, I’m asking (for the last time!) Bees, which do you prefer/ would you choose? Do you like/dislike particular elements of either dress? Would you change anything given the chance?
Dress One. Naomi Neoh ‘Beatrix’
“A bias cut gown in silk crepe with softly draped cowl evocative of the elegant 1930’s era. The neckline and cap sleeves are embellished with the most delicate French Chantilly lace which covers the back, closing with tiny silk buttons.”
Dress Two: Monique Lhuillier ‘Nightingale’
“The very light ivory Stardust Embellished Tulle Trumpet gown with embelllished sleeves, Illusion Neckline and sweep train”.
Post # 3
@justjade: I voted for the first! It is a stunning dress. My only qualm is with the way the belt cuts the lace back in two. I would pick that one without hesitation, though, and ask the tailor to adjust the belt so that it came together below the lace, or stopped at the edges. That back is far too beautiful and elegant to be interrupted like that.
Post # 4
Oh shut up. Shut up so hard. They are both GORGEOUS!! I loooove the first one because it’s so vintage and I’ve never seen anything like it in today’s stock. I adore the back of it, and now you’ve got me thinking about having a gown custom made just so I can have the same back, since I could never pull off a bias cut dress. Damn apple-shaped body!
For the first dress, where the waist band cuts across in the back, I think I’d customize it so that it follows the curves down the lace. Know what I mean? I just think that with the way it is it cuts across and leaves an awkwardly small amount of lace under the band in the back.
Post # 5
- Wedding: August 2012 - Motor museum
I know it isn’t what you are asking but I love the one with the pink rose! That would have been my dress if I had seen it sooner.
I think if you can both! The first one as an evening dress and second as day. But if not then the first one is my fave, but is difficult to say without seeing you in the dress.
Post # 6
They are both sooo gorgeous, but I think the first one is my favourite. So elegant and the back is beautiful. But I agree about getting rid of the strap in the back.
Post # 7
I’m just sitting here drooling over the first dress. It actually took my breath away. Just stunning. And THAT’S how you do lace, IMO! None of this over thetop plaster-it-all-over-the-dress like so many of the styles I see in North America. Geeze, if this is any indication of the types of wedding dresses they have in Britain, I may just have to do my dress shopping there when the time comes! That designer even has a Lady Mary inspired dress. I’m so in love with this designer.
Post # 8
I am SO obsessed with the second one!
Post # 9
Neoh (although there is nothing lacking in the ML) –> simply because this is one the finest, most understatedly elegant illusion back gowns I’ve ever seen, and I am an ardent fan of bias-cut gowns.
- Neoh: this gown is utter perfection and I would not change a thing; her work is just stunning; the belt is one of my favorite parts of the dress because it adds a rather interesting ‘street’ edge to an otherwise sweet illusion back gown (like this Lorick Barlass dress):
But if you alter it, I would advise you simply raise the scoopback, instead
- ML: I’m no help because this gown is what I’d picture a fallen star would wear for her wedding dress (Stardust reference); I adore the delicate beading and the fact that it shimmers/twinkles instead of glares
Post # 10
That ML kills me. Every. Single. Time. One of the most elegant, exquisite and sparkly wedding gowns I’ve ever seen. If it was me, I would choose the Nightingale – but that’s also on the basis that the Nightingale would be more flattering for an hourglass shape, whereas the Beatrix would be amazing on a more waifish figure. Which one are you? They are both stunning, and I have gushed over both of them when you prevously posted!
In terms of getting the details as close to the original as possible (or at least close to the couture-like standard of the original), I would imagine the Beatrix would be easier to replicate. The beading on the ML looks like a more complex task.
Post # 11
God I love them both so much. Please don’t make me choose!
ETA: If i have to, I would say echo the previous posters who have said that the ML is probsbly a better choice if you have curves of any kind, or anything resembling a tummy.
Post # 12
@MlleFabuleux: I am reading Stardust at the moment! What a perfect reference!
Post # 13
@peonyinparis: Agreed. Dresses cut like #1 are extremely hard to wear unless you’re very, very thin. And even then, the model on the runway is a stick bug and even she doesn’t look great in it. It’s too bad that the designer didn’t put the back of it on a more universally flattering dress shape.
Post # 14
So dress #1 is a lot like mine so I’m a little biased. It depends on what your going for. Dress #1 is more fitted, less forgiving, and little bit more antiquated, plus sexier. Dress #2 is a more princess-y cut, sparkly, sweet, almost what one expects in a bridal gown. The illusion neck and sleeves make it stand above similar cut/shiney gowns.
I would choose based off what your going for as far as your”bridal look” goes. Romace/sweetness vs understated sexy/retro
Post # 15
Why not go the preowned route and wear them both?
Post # 16
I love the back of dress 1 but the front is just ok. I voted for 2 bc its stunning all over.