• May 23, 2015, 03:28:29 AM

### Author Topic: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!  (Read 17641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### emwithme

• Member
• Posts: 349
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2014, 04:18:01 PM »
Tip for brides who want sleeves: Look at Mormon wedding dresses.  They're just as beautiful but they all have sleeves for religious reasons.  Your local bridal shop can order them.

Powers  &8^]

Also, dresses worn in (orthodox) Jewish weddings are more modest and involve sleeves and shoulder coverings.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3063
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2014, 04:24:51 PM »
I think this is something that a lot of people don't realise - particularly with the rage of cheap knockoffs from Asia which are now available.

A properly constructed strapless dress has boning through the bodice and is specifically designed to act as undergarment as well as dress.  THey suppose the frame of the body and the breast, creating a smooth line over the torso, and appropriate lift and support for your breasts.  Whether it i s laced, buttoned or ziped, wearing a bra underneath is completely unnecessary if it has been properly fitted to you.  Because of its structure and fit, it won't ride up or slip down.  They can be stiff to move around in - that is the payoff for support.

#### Ceallach

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4932
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2014, 07:29:38 PM »
I'm also somebody who had no idea people cared about pure white vs. off-white!   My sister and I both had ivory because it suits our skin tone.  Nobody commented on it to my knowledge!   (And one of us was "eligible" to wear pure white by the ridiculous traditional standard, the other one wasn't  that was not a factor we even remotely considered relevant!).

#### GSNW

• Member
• Posts: 576
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #71 on: February 16, 2014, 03:53:41 AM »
(I'm only 2'' shorter than DH, so heels were out).

I'm always intruiged when people feel they must be shorter that their OH.  My DH and I are pretty much the same height - and then he slouches.  I still wore heels

I am a LOT taller than the Good Ethnic Boy - he can face plant in my cleavage without bending down (and did, in one of our wedding photos!  ). I didn't wear heels, but that was at least partly because I can only balance in really high ones - think 6" - and that would've been kinda silly.

My DH is a little sensitive about his height.  He's 5'8", not exactly short, but I would have hated to see him uncomfortable on our wedding day!

#### glinda

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 51
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2014, 09:50:44 AM »

• Super Hero!
• Posts: 9669
• Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2014, 11:37:09 AM »
That is gorgeous!

#### Sterling

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3002
##### Re: Wedding dresses ... the cheap and the not-so-cheap!
« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2014, 03:51:38 PM »
This was my dress only I wore it in ivory.

http://www.davidsbridal.com/Product_Petite-Strapless-Lace-and-Tulle-Slim-Gown-7CWG352_Bridal-Gowns-Shop-By-Trend-Lacy-Looks

Looking at it now I am kinda sad because 2 years ago they were selling it for $1200. I paid$600 for it second hand.

I loved the dress though.  I was married in a Victoria hotel so the dress really suited the venue.

Edit to add: I did have the back modified.  Since I bought second hand on ebay I had to order what was available and that was a dress 2 sizes too small.  i had the back changed to a lace up corset style with a modesty panel which allowed the dress to go up a few sizes.  My seamstress added the bra cups and for less than \$50 in alterations that dress fit like a glove and didn't budge at all.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 04:32:20 PM by Sterling »
93 93/93