say thanks to you to the anonymous commenter who explained this dress, which belongs firmly in the “close, no cigar” category. I mean, undoubtedly I am on the side of pockets. great pockets are good. poor pockets are worse than no pockets — type of the method crappy chocolate is worse than no chocolate, since it takes up area without really satisfying the underlying need.
These are not adorable sufficient to be decorative (and I abhor strictly decorative pockets anyway) as well as you couldn’t put anything of compound in them without weighing down the gown unattractively. even the design isn’t *really* putting her hand in the pocket — she’s just holding it there awkwardly, nearly as if the pocket were somebody she didn’t truly like however was being required to take a chummy fake-hug photo with.
This type of pocket is truly just for little-girl dresses. On little-girl gowns they are little sufficient that you truly can’t put anything heavy in them (the strange rock or marble notwithstanding) as well as they are enabled to be patterned, edged with ruffles, appliqued, you name it. When I was five or six I had a gown that was an “artist’s smock” with an appliqued pocket in the shape of a palette. Man, I liked that dress, as well as I liked that pocket, but–I was five. When I was five I likewise liked the Brady Bunch, scaring myself silly imagining that Dracula was REAL, “Encyclopedia Brown” as well as eco-friendly Starburst, none of which I take pleasure in today.
So. ten points for Gryffindor (or, I guess, ABS Allen Schwartz) for trying pockets, however five points off once again for screwing it up.
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Secret Lives of gowns Vol. 8September 13, 2006
Pockets = FreedomMarch 23, 2007
the very first gown as well as the last dressMarch 12, 2008