Comments on: Gabrielle Reece Parties Like It’s 2005

By: H.

H. — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:16:21 +0000

Yeah, the dress-over-trousers look is difficult to get right. It works best with a pair of trousers in a similar colour to the dress. Jeans can work, but you have to think it through, and not just grab jeans by default.

I don’t really understand why people think the look is somehow intrinsically ridiculous. A salwar kameez isn’t ridiculous, nor are any of the similar outfits found throughout south Asia. A dress over trousers is just a variation on that theme.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:32:03 +0000

Ah, it’s only Americans that can’t do the jeans-under-a-dress look! Thanks for setting us straight.

By: e

Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:29:45 +0000

The only possible explanation is that living with that good-looking and built but intellectually-bankrupt ape of a husband has eroded her fashion sensibility.

Or, living in Hawaii puts her at a disadvantage because the trends hit there too late to be of any consequence?

By: Phyllis

Phyllis — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:24:18 +0000

I guess she stopped by on the way to pick up her drycleaning.

By: belle

belle — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:58:06 +0000

i disagree. The dress over jeans look can often work extremely well. i dont think American fashioistas ever got this look and people there wear it as a fashion fad, but where i come from, the weather in even the middle of july can be cold so this look is extremely practical, and i believe very attractive. However, you cannot put any jeans under any dress, they have to complement both each other and the wearer. it is not as easy as it looks to get it right. And the manolo is 100% correct here in the judgement of this particular outfit.

By: Susanna

Susanna — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:37:35 +0000

Positively tragic, because at 6′3″ Gabby Reece could just about wear anything with authority and make it look good.

But no one makes this style look anything but ridiculous.

By: Annalucia

Annalucia — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:21:25 +0000

The lady appears to have leaped out of bed, pulled on her jeans, and gone out while still wearing the satin baby-doll nightgown.

Perhaps the party responsible for this odd combination is the Trinny (“What Not to Wear”) Woodall. The Annalucia has read these books and found much of the advice to be very sensible (she is built in the Susannah mode herself) but the dress-over-trousers style has always puzzled her.

By: Toby Wollin

Toby Wollin — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:01:18 +0000

Ahem. I realize I’m admitting to (sigh) age, but I remember when just a mite, that we wore pants under our dresses to go to school because we did not want to have to wear the snow pants over our poofy crinolins. I don’t know where this permutation of the look comes from; I saw 13 year old kids in Edinburgh wearing skirts over jeans in 2004 and even THAT gives me the shudders. But this? This ranks down there with dresses worn with leggings, another travesty.
Ditch the jeans, woman.

By: Gorgeous Things

Gorgeous Things — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:54:41 +0000

To quote the Manolo, “Ayiiiiiiii!”

Even here in the hinterlands of Boston, we know better!

By: Style Spy

Style Spy — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:48:33 +0000

I don’t care what year it is or what’s in fashion. Ladies — Wear. A. Support. Mechanism.