And Now For Our Favorite Game...

"Pretty or Ugly"?

I'm not sure how many people have followed me from GreatestJournal yet (my guess: not many) but it is officially spring so we're going to have a springtime edition of Pretty or Ugly.  I bought many new dresses last spring so I probably won't be adding to my wardrobe this year, but it's still fun to look at the fabulous (or horrific) options in Women's Apparel ("full figured" or "plus size" as many know it). 

For this installment, I'm concentrating only on daywear, with a focus on dresses which could be worn in a non-business wear work environment (with the addition of a cardigan or similar).

This was actually really hard this year.  The higher-end stores and designers have actually noticed that Women's is an underserved market in the fashion industry and over the past several years have really been putting out good to high quality clothes for the market--much of it quite "in fashion".  Either I'm getting nicer, or there really wasn't much to snark at!

(1)  I actually rather like this dress.  I'm not sure how it would look on a larger figure (although I do have my suspicions...) but it is really a sweet and normal looking springy dress.  If you don't understand the "normal looking", this is probably your first visit to "Pretty or Ugly".  You'll see. ("Context", Lord & Taylor, $168)

 

 

 

 

(2)This one is a tougher call.  It is most certainly Not For Me but I can't decide if it's hideous or kind of off-the-wall cute.  I'm leaning to cute, but I can't imagine where one would wear it.

("Kate Hill", Lord & Taylor, $168)

 

(3)  Possibly a better alternative to the first yellow sundress, though I do know from experience that this designer has serious quality control issues.  Everything looks great from afar or on models or mannequins but up close or once you try them on it can be a real mess.  Cheap fabric that looks terrible up close, really poor workmanship and worst of all, no attention to proportion at all.  Type of designer who makes dresses in all sizes but doesn't adjust the size of armholes, or lengths of skirts or something.  It can be bad.

 

("Robbie Bee", Nordstrom, $88)

 

 

(4) Same designer as above, so same potential issues.  Basically the same dress but done differently.  Now, beyond my issues with the designer's questionable quality I really can't make my mind up about this one.  Black and white and turquoise is very nice but that print!  It kind of looks like a barcode or something.  Maybe if it was a floral black and white....or are the blocks nice?  I'm really on the fence.

("Robbie Bee", Nordstrom, $98)

 

 

 

 

 

(5) Another one that could go either way.... I'm all for girlie, trust me.  But the ruffles and flouncy cap sleeves.....that might be a bit much.  Plus, beige?  Why beige?  I suppose such a ruffly thing would need to be in a muted color.  I just don't know about this one...

("Suzy Chin", Nordstrom, $158)

 

(6)Now, I really love this one.  I'm not sure I could wear it (it's very bold for me and again the cut is questionable for my figure) but I think that this is among the nicest I've seen, in terms of the quality and how "in fashion" it is.  I can't really say much bad about it.

("Maggy London", Nordstrom, $128)

(7) This one is probably my favorite which is kind of weird because I'm not crazy about bold colors and prints (as was my problem with the one above).  Wouldn't you know, it's also the most expensive by a long shot. Imagine that. I'm a big fan of the Empire waist and while V-necks are still new territory for me (too much cleavage and I'm still convinced that they make your shoulders look wider), I know logically that they are quite flattering.  I like how it kind of reminds me of cherry blossoms (somehow) and the colors, while bold, are very nice especially for my coloring. A+ dress! ("Rachel Pally", Nordstrom, $234)

That's it for now!  That's all that caught my eye this early spring season.  There will be more, and likely more snark at a later date!