Marmite

I know this might be a little controversial, but I’m loving the new trend for ‘underwear as outerwear’ at the moment. In theory, it should be so wrong. More Vicky Pollard on a night out - heavy bosoms heaving over strained corsets and indiscrete nipples poking out from behind padded bras - than Linda Evangelista looking supine and elegant in a stunning floorlength gown. But if worn right, then phew, ain’t nobody got a hope in hell’s chance of outshinin’ ya!

For me, the coveting of this trend in my subconscious started when Christina Ricci wore that stunning Givenchy dress for the 2008 MET Costume Gala. Romantic and feminine, with the rose-coloured chiffon barely hiding the scarlet, heart-shaped body behind, it was timeless and elegant, drawing breath-taking gasps from an appreciative crowd. And then there was Gwyneth Paltrow wearing a stunning Antonio Berardi body-hugging, monochrome frock. Often mind-numbingly dull with her fashion taste (wearing a shift dress to an Oscars ceremony? Come on!), this gave a whole new direction to "Goopy" Gwyneth’s style that was much revered.


More recently, the A/W ’09 catwalks were peppered with underwear-inspired eveningwear, each with their own starkly different sensibilities. Stand out designers for me were Bottega Veneta (satin corsets worn with faux fur and velvet, showcasing irresistible glamour for vintage belles) and Richard Nicoll (shiny metallics, heavy alabaster boning and futuristic shapes that belong today, today, today!). The secret to their success is the simple word: class. Each outfit was far, far removed from the heinous perma-tan, chav-tastic corseted WAG-look of old – thank GOODNESS – and was timeless in its creation.

So, you have been told. Underwear as outerwear = divine. So long as you don’t look like you’ve just run out of the bedroom after a steamy liaison with a 3rd division footballer... then you’ve got problems.




[Style.com, Google images]