Comments on: Tuesday’s TPS Report: Nicole Miller’s Reverse Charmeuse Dress

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:45:06 +0000

anon – Michelle was just criticizing spelling, not content.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:09:31 +0000

Michelle,

What’s wrong with defining your waist at work?! Bare arms…eh…I see your point.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:53:49 +0000

This is a pretty dress, the cut is clean, yet still striking.

However, I’m not into reversed charmeuse. It must be a trend I don’t get. Charmeuse is a gorgeous fabric, if you don’t want the sheen side to show, use a different fabrication.

Its so thin, serious shapewear would have to be worn.

By: S

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:25:50 +0000

jojo, it is not just you. “bondage-y” was the first thing i thought as well.

By: Eva

Eva — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:00:38 +0000

Sorry, Michelle. I caught that right after I posted (while on a conference call). Harvard needs to give me a refund!

By: jojo

jojo — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:10:04 +0000

Am I the only one who thinks those buckles whisper “bondage”?

If not, I hope “defined waste” was intentional.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:40:03 +0000

don’t forget “trippled”

By: Michelle

Michelle — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:53:52 +0000

“defined waste”? “bear shoulders”? I know it’s just the internet, but this is a blog aimed at professional women!

By: Eva

Eva — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:39:47 +0000

Can you suggest a reasonably priced piece to wear over this? I would love to wear this around the office, but the bear shoulders just won’t fly and I can’t think of any of my current cardigans or jackets that would work on top.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:24:38 +0000

Very nice. I wish I looked better in sheath dresses but they make my arms look like drumsticks and I’m not overweight.