Interesting photo. That shows Jackie in motion, which shows that the dress had a lot of give in the lower half when the wearer moved. My guess is that when she stood still it hung down much straighter and in a more form-fitting way. I believe the fabric is some sort of chiffon, which is very light and moves a lot with motion.

I have a relevant story on that, involving Jackie Kennedy. When JFK was president, she was heavily criticized for wearing designer gowns, and foreign-designed designer gowns at that. The NY Times reporter decided to go to the garment district in NY and briefly interview a few people about what they thought of that. One of the people stopped (actually, two, because one was me) was my girlfriend and me, young ballet dancers on our way to class at the old Met. My friend wasn’t the least bit shy, and she said, when questioned, “Let her tell them off! She’s First Lady, isn’t she?” and that became the featured headline of the story in the Times.

When my friend grew up, she became a highly successful powerhouse NY lawyer. I became a blogger who hides behind an apple. There’s a lesson there.

So occasionally, I casually wonder at this fashion and that, whether there are not dabs of glue placed with great care and strategic sense, tending toward a fascination in order to grip the gaze of beholders? I do not know, but yet can imagine.

Plus, I don’t know if it happened here, but I believe the way this often works is that the designers loan dresses and jewelry to people in the public eye, so that often they aren’t actually paying to wear it.

I agree it would have been better with a matching hair part.

But I was just so stunned to see the dress at this late date, so similar to the Jackie dress. It’s not like it’s a style you see every day, either. It’s unusual.