Super-Rats.

by Erin on July 27, 2006


Breakfast at Tiffany's Dress

Christie's is auctioning the "Breakfast at Tiffany's" dress. But this picture of it is the dumbest thing I've seen for some time. Why, for the love of all that's holy, would you shoehorn a random employee into this iconic dress, when you could simply pay a few bucks and license one of the official pictures from the movie, showing it in all its glory? Because here the damn thing looks like a dishrag.

Not to mention that often the people who buy these things are not fashion collectors (who want the dress as a Dress) but hagiographists who want something that touched a notable person. The idea of some entry-level employee wearing it impinges upon that aura, I would guess.

Not to mention (as Mary Beth, who sent me this link, pointed out) that shoving a real person into this dress increases the likelihood of accidental rips, tears, and stains, possibly lowering the value.

Feh. Some people have no sense.

Boneheaded move all around.

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

RodgerPM July 27, 2006 at 7:29 am

I know she was a tart in the movie…but in that picture that girl /really/ looks like a tart. Makes the whole thing look cheap, really. Who wants a cheap dress? Pas moi.

Reply

mickey July 27, 2006 at 7:40 am

No-one but Audrey should wear that dress. IMNSHO.

Reply

sal the spider July 27, 2006 at 7:50 am

Judging by the amount of thigh on show I would say it was a bloke’s idea. “Sit there love,cross your legs….lovely “‘click’ LOLSal

Reply

P July 27, 2006 at 7:56 am

Isn’t the internet great – just five minutes and I’ve discovered that girl went to Westminster School and Worcester College Oxford before working at Christies. Which means she’s relatively posh, but unfortunately not that putting her in the dress was a good idea.I’ve never had much respect for the way auction houses handle artworks or antiques – trouble is they only see them for a short length of time so they don’t think these things through…

Reply

litbrit July 27, 2006 at 8:20 am

I cannot believe it’s the same dress! On Audrey, it was a breathtaking, slightly-wicked/slightly proper, envy-inspiring masterpiece. On this woman–and I mean her no disrespect, but she’s no Audrey–the dress looks like one of those ABS knockoffs one might find on the sale rack at Loehmanns.Audrey was a rare creature. Hers was the sort of beauty that only graces humankind every once in a while. I completely agree that they should have used one of the many lovely photographs of her wearing this gown. You know, I can’t even think of a contemporary fashion model who comes close to Audrey in terms of that elegant, otherworldly beauty she seemed to radiate, even in a simple white shirt. Especially in a simple white shirt.All I could think of when I saw this photograph was, She’s stressing the seam on that leg slit!

Reply

Valerie July 27, 2006 at 8:40 am

that’s hideous.

Reply

Anonymous July 27, 2006 at 8:41 am

Audrey was gorgeous in that dress, and it looks great on that model in the pic. Ironic that the author prefers the gingham disaster over this? (shaking head)

Reply

Gigi July 27, 2006 at 8:41 am

The dress fits her like a sausage casing! The seams are stressing! This woman obviously has a fabulous figure but Audrey was a waif, for heaven’s sake. What were they thinking? Well, they just weren’t – obviously.

Reply

Anonymous July 27, 2006 at 8:41 am

I thought the exact same thing when I saw it: “Get her out of that dress. NOW!” *shudder*She makes it look like a freaking Glad bag.–Lydia

Reply

Anonymous July 27, 2006 at 8:51 am

AND obviously a few cup sizes larger than Miss Hepburn! What a shame. Fairly decent job accesorizing tho, in my opinion.

Reply

arabellaesmerelda July 27, 2006 at 10:01 am

Amen! Such an unfortunate way to devalue an auction item. Happily, our memory of Miss Hepburn’s elegance does not suffer as a result.Nice of you to include the word hagiographist for Lynneguist.

Reply

patsijean July 27, 2006 at 10:37 am

That woman is way too big for that dress and Audrey would NEVER sit that way. I am sure that the woman modeling the dress is thrilled to be doing so, but I would rather see them put the gown on a dressform or a hanger, rather than risk damaging a valuable, historic gown. Have they no sense?

Reply

Carol@Dandelion Vintage July 27, 2006 at 11:18 am

I agree. The idea of the dress being worn by someone else takes away some of the mystique of it having been worn by Audrey. The photos are not tasteful, and it bugs me that the dress is touching the sidewalk when she is sitting.At least they didn’t put Paris Hilton in the dress.

Reply

Sara Noemi July 27, 2006 at 11:26 am

Oh my goodness. First of all the dress does not fit. Hepburn had the tiniest of figures. I doubt it would really fit anyone.Second of all, I didn’t even recognize the dress. I thought it was a trashy remake, considering the tasteless way the “model” is working the high slit. I just really don’t want to see the dress on anyone other than Hepburn. Ugh.

Reply

Marlena July 27, 2006 at 12:58 pm

Not to mention the vulgar pose! And is that just an ordinary, unadorned cigarette?!?! After that great party scene with the foot-long cigarette holder? That picture really makes me feel a little ill.

Reply

lucitebox July 27, 2006 at 1:27 pm

Quick, somebody fire that stylist.And, yes! All of the mystique goes away when a commoner is wearing this iconic dress. The memory of St. Audrey (as most of us seem to know her) has been irreovacably tarnished by the lady who is too big for the dress and shows far too much leg for the auction catalogue.

Reply

Amanda #1 July 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Egads. That’s awful. And slightly sacreligious. If they found someone who the dress actually fit it wouldn’t bother me as much. It’s painfully clear, however, that the dress come no where close to fitting her. Hell, she’s sitting up stick straight in an effort to suck it in for all she’s worth, and it’s still not working. Frankly, I shudder to think of how strained that zipper must be.Somewhere, I am certain, Audrey and Givenchy are rolling in their graves.

Reply

Summerset July 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Just wrong, on so many levels.

Reply

liz July 27, 2006 at 2:07 pm

Maybe it’s having spent 6 of the last 7 days without electricity in the midwest, but I just don’t get it. What’s the big deal? If I had a prayer of fitting into a Givenchy gown and someone said, “Try it on.” I’d jump at the chance. And it’s a COSTUME from a MOVIE (a movie about a “kept” man and a call girl as I recall) not the Magna Carta. I love dresses as much as the next girl and enjoy this blog a great deal, but geez, do we have to go all “The Crucible” over a bad pose? Certainly Audrey Hepburn was lovely, but a saint? Maybe just a hint of perspective here?

Reply

enc July 27, 2006 at 2:29 pm

Indeed. Let’s be catty and point out that the midriff doesn’t fit properly, the lighting doesn’t work, the necklace spoils the neckline of the dress, and that’s far too much leg–too vulgar. Decidely lackluster. I wouldn’t give you a tuppence for it.

Reply

Absinthe July 27, 2006 at 3:23 pm

liz, you aren’t by chance the model in the picture, are you? LOL. Anyway, I think this picture definitely does not do the dress justice. And it is in grave danger of being damaged by the extremely poor fit. I can’t imagine anybody deciding to use this shot for publicity and thinking that it looks just fine.

Reply

Sara July 27, 2006 at 3:42 pm

That dress absolutely does not fit that woman. It looks downright foul — total defamation of an otherwise gorgeous dress.I echo the comment above about no one but Audrey wearing that. Put it on a fucking dressform — preserve its integrity, people. Really.

Reply

lucitebox July 27, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Do you suppose that it just didn’t seem interesting enough on a dress form? That’s what I’m guessing the folks at Christie’s thought. I really was kidding about St. Audrey even though most fans of her work (on screen and off) seem to worship everything her persona represents. When you say, “That dress is so Audrey!”, most people know exactly what you’re talking about. It sure isn’t worn the way that model is wearing it. She’s a VERY lovely model with a great figure, but that dressssssss is just tooooo tight.

Reply

Miss O'Hara July 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

Oh. My. Goodness.I didn’t think it was the real thing until you said so. I thought it was a cheapo knockoff/imitation. And her pose is hienous. Get some class, lady. I know Audrey was a * cough * in the movie, but even SHE didn’t work the skankella factor like the model here.That poor dress looks like a cheap rayon Kmart special.

Reply

amyliz July 27, 2006 at 5:06 pm

I was thinking it should be on a dressform, too, but if you must do a current-day photo, it should have been done on a model closer to Audrey’s proportions, and she should be STANDING UP so that we can actually SEE the dress, not the model’s upper thigh and butt cheek. Get rid of the cigarette, or at least put it in a holder, and get rid of the sunglasses. Audrey wasn’t wearing glasses with that particular dress, if I remember correctly. I have the piano sheet music for “Moon River” and the cover has a picture of Audrey wearing this dress. I guess I never realized the slit ws so high, unless it’s just so tight on this particular model that when she sits down it rides up that high.

Reply

Anonymous July 27, 2006 at 5:07 pm

I don’t know how to send links, but this month’s O (Oprah) magazine cover has O herself in something I think is duroesque – Yes? As can be seen in the grocery store check-out or on her web site (except I don’t know how to send links)….if you are interested.Betsy

Reply

john July 27, 2006 at 5:33 pm

i wonder how many of these dresses there actually were. Most movies have multiples of main items in case of rips, tears, spills, etc.

Reply

Anonymous July 27, 2006 at 6:23 pm

I heard about the sale on the car radio during the morning commute-my first thought was “Wow, I can’t wait to get home and check ADAD!” I had visions of a pic-tasteful dress form, impossibly thin…This is just nasty. Sorry Christie’s, but after this pic I won’t be cashing in CD’s to bid with since you’ve broken the unbreakable rule-art is not worn, it is tastefully displayed. Your version of ‘display’ in this case is just nasty.Is there any hope this is a mock-up of the dress?I can hear screaming seams from here!

Reply

Zazzu July 28, 2006 at 12:46 am

Oh, Dear. SO ill-fitting. This model has a fine figure, but looks fat and frumpy in this dress. And did Audrey Hepburn have greasy hair like that? Ew.Potential buyers want to see the dress…not some Audrey wannabe vainly attempting to recapture her magic.Sad…just sad.

Reply

Anonymous July 28, 2006 at 6:31 am

This sometimes devolves into such a mean-spirited catty comment forum. Why on earth characterize the model as an Audrey wannabe vainly attempting anything? The photos are a result of bad art direction and a lack of preservational couth. And it’s so jerky to say she looks fat. Meow! The dress is too too small for her. Period.It’s the auction house’s fault not the poor soul who was probably paid a pretty penny for the privilege of coming into contact with this historic Givenchy.RANT off

Reply

Anonymous July 28, 2006 at 6:31 am

This sometimes devolves into such a mean-spirited catty comment forum. Why on earth characterize the model as an Audrey wannabe vainly attempting anything? The photos are a result of bad art direction and a lack of preservational couth. And it’s so jerky to say she looks fat. Meow! The dress is too too small for her. Period.It’s the auction house’s fault not the poor soul who was probably paid a pretty penny for the privilege of coming into contact with this historic Givenchy.RANT off

Reply

Anonymous July 28, 2006 at 7:57 am

The front of the dress is pretty basic. What I like are the other photos for the dress where you can see the back pretty well. That’s great, because I would love to try to “knock off” this dress some day. And as long as I don’t try to copy Audrey’s makeup and hair, folks will just comment on what a great dress I have on. Amy

Reply

robertajune July 28, 2006 at 9:18 am

Slutty is as slutty does! A perfect example of the wrong person wearing this dress.

Reply

Anonymous July 28, 2006 at 12:08 pm

By the way that Oprah Duro dress is sort of a crossover front–everytime I see it in the checkout I’m trying to memorize how it looks so I can try it.This model is just not as small as the person wearing this dress should be. Sigh–not many of us out there can pull off this dress…

Reply

____Maggie July 28, 2006 at 12:15 pm

I think this is a National Enquirer photo. Get the model on a smoke break…

Reply

Erica July 28, 2006 at 12:46 pm

Definitely not a good display!Anonymous – I don’t think anyone called the model “fat”. I just think most of us are in agreement that the dress is very ill-fitting and detracts from the whole Holly Golightly persona.

Reply

P July 28, 2006 at 3:09 pm

she’s not a model, she works at christies. It doesn’t really look like they paid an art director, either. The catalogue’s not out for the sale yet but I doubt they’ll use that picture – I think it was an ill thought out rapidly put together press call.

Reply

Becky July 28, 2006 at 4:44 pm

It would have looked better on a hanger!

Reply

Gidget Bananas July 28, 2006 at 6:04 pm

The value of a collectible depends on its condition. Collectors want things they buy to be in pristine condition, and the condition of the dress was compromised by being worn at all, never mind being worn improperly, whether the dress is too small or the model too big. You’d think Christie’s would know better — they’re obliged to describe the item in detail, including its flaws, for the catalogue. I can just imagine some of the comments now — “slight discoloration under arms from non-Hepburn sweat; stain of unknown New York seating type on back; slight tear in stitching above side slit; contemporary cigarette burn.”

Reply

Anonymous July 29, 2006 at 7:50 am

could you post the link that Marybeth sent you? I have googled the hell out of this, and got no hits. makes me spectulative.

Reply

Anonymous July 29, 2006 at 8:06 am

If you click on the picture it will go to the yahoo news story.

Reply

Kerokonich July 30, 2006 at 4:27 am

I think that the dress that the “employee” modeled was a repo of the original. If you look at old stills from the movie, and at the modeled dress, they are ALIKE, but definitely not the same. Usually these auction houses only show the dresses on molded forms due to the fragility of the fabric. After the Marlyn Monroe auction, one could see why they only showed dresses on forms.

Reply

Beaker December 7, 2006 at 5:16 am

That dress IS NOT the same dress used in the movie. The Christie’s own catalog say so. As far as I know there is not a single picture in publication of Audrey wearing that dress.

Reply

Audreys biggest fan!(love the dress, even if its not the real thing) May 6, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I don’t think its the same dress at all, it wasn’t that shiny in the mvoie and it looks fake, as for the modle goes, don’t be so harsh. It’s not her fault they made her pose like that. Shes soo pretty and shes not fat. Yes i agree that they should have put an audrey hepburn picture on here, but life goes on. Who wouldn’t want to wear a dree that audrey hepburn theretically wore? I would have!! STOP JUDGING PEOPLE!

Reply

Audreys biggest fan!(love the dress, even if its not the real thing) May 6, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I don’t think its the same dress at all, it wasn’t that shiny in the mvoie and it looks fake, as for the modle goes, don’t be so harsh. It’s not her fault they made her pose like that. Shes soo pretty and shes not fat. Yes i agree that they should have put an audrey hepburn picture on here, but life goes on. Who wouldn’t want to wear a dree that audrey hepburn theretically wore? I would have!! STOP JUDGING PEOPLE!

Reply

Anonymous May 15, 2008 at 12:12 pm

“That dress IS NOT the same dress used in the movie. The Christie’s own catalog say so. As far as I know there is not a single picture in publication of Audrey wearing that dress.”Yea, I was more than certain it was not the same one. I VERY HIGHLY doubt they would let someone just wear a dress worn by Audrey Hepburn in one of her most famous films, or even sell it for that matter…maybe one of the couple copies but, if you look at the photos of the original and this one the side splits don’t even match and there are other areas that don’t match. It doesn’t even look like the same material. Glad to know they called it as not the real deal.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: