Re: Princess Diana - Part 2

[dmitri]

well it is a lot of money for one dress ... hopefully a museum may acquire it so it will not sold again and again

[Martyn]

There wont be any more Walker/Olfield/Azagury creations that have this provenance.

No, I meant the owner, as in Diana, not the designer. If the owner is deceased, would it be more valuable, rather than an owner who is alive, say, for argument's sakes, Princess Anne?

Sorry, that's what I meant.

As labels, these designer dresses do have some value, depending on their nature and condition.  Their provenance, having belonged to the Princess, adds extra value. Designer + Princess (deceased) = no further specific creations = very limited supply.  Probably in the same way that garments belonging to Marilyn Monroe must have a considerable intrinsic value?

I can't imagine anyone paying anything for any garment that had belonged to Princess Anne...........apart from the fact that in the fashion stakes, she is usually in last place, she also wears everything to death, or instead remodels her antedeluvian modes and trots them out for a second/third/fouth life................

[Olishka~ Pincess]

Yes becuase obviously nobody is buying it there are no bids. The price may be too high for the market. In my opinion the price is defantly not cheap it is quite expensive to me. The price has to at least drop down a little for some bids to be taking it. The dress is realy pretty I like it. It may be that price becuase a very famous perosn worldwide like Diana wore it. It is is true that the owner of the dress is not deceased and if they were the price would go up on the dress. I rather buy the dress than some lousy baseball!

[Helen_Azar]

I can't imagine anyone paying anything for any garment that had belonged to Princess Anne...

LOL. That was a bad example, I was just trying to make a point and for some reason she was the only one I could think of, who was still alive! :-)

[dmitri]

I also think a baseball bat would be a touch difficult to wear and might raise more than a few eyebrows in a social setting. I'd opt for the dress ladies!! 

[Helen_Azar]

well it is a lot of money for one dress ...

Well, I don't think the price is just for the dress, it's for who was in that dress at one point ;-) It's a dress + a collector's item/museum piece all in one!

[Olishka~ Pincess]

well it is a lot of money for one dress ...

Well, I don't think the price is just for the dress, it's for who was in that dress at one point ;-) It's a dress + a collector's item/museum piece all in one!

The only reason mainly why the dress was so expensive I agree it was who was in the dress a very famous woman everyone knew about Diana.

[TampaBay]

So what are we supposed to infer from this? 

I would not want to but a Diana dress on E-Bay.  A traditional auction yes but E-bay no!

TampaBay

[emeraldeyes]

Maybe it was a mistake to put the gown on eBay.  With all the fake/counterfeit stuff for sale (Fabergé anyone?...) on that site there could have been a bit of a disbelief factor; also I don't know how many eBayers have that kind of dough lying around! 
A recognized auction house would have had significant resources with which to market the sale.  Lack of knowledge of the sale by the general public may be more to blame for the failure to sell this dress than anything else.
That being said, while it is probably one of the more recognizable gowns that was sold - the pictures of the princess at Cannes were absolutely everywhere for a time - I have never really liked it.  Although I know that she had excellent posture and carriage, it always looks to me like she is slouching in this dress.

[Helen_Azar]

Maybe it was a mistake to put the gown on eBay.  With all the fake/counterfeit stuff for sale (Fabergé anyone?...) on that site there could have been a bit of a disbelief factor;

That's a good point, that was my first thought when I found out about it, how do we know it's authentic?

A recognized auction house would have had significant resources with which to market the sale. 

Why didn't they use Sotheby's or something along those lines?

[emeraldeyes]

Maybe they wanted to have as much of the purchase price as possible going to the charity and were reluctant to cough up the fees associated with such a sale??

[TampaBay]

That being said, while it is probably one of the more recognizable gowns that was sold - the pictures of the princess at Cannes were absolutely everywhere for a time - I have never really liked it.  Although I know that she had excellent posture and carriage, it always looks to me like she is slouching in this dress.

I never like the dress either!  I thought the dress was way too old for Diana who was what 27 at the time?

TampaBay

[Helen_Azar]

I never like the dress either!  I thought the dress was way too old for Diana who was what 23 at the time?

TampaBay

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!

[TampaBay]

I like it, although of course it it too sophisticated for a 23-year-old. But compared to some of the other dresses/outfits she used to wear, this is definitely one of the better ones!

You are so correct.  Some of her early attire was definitely dowdy to the max!

TampaBay

[NAAOTMA]

Diana's "bare look" in this dress is not successful. The draping of the chiffon scarf is meant to look stylish and just looks strangling and forced. You wonder if it is taped to her neck to stay put. Or did it swoosh around the whole time and did she have to fuss with it to keep it where it was supposed to be?

What this dress needs is to remove the scarf and wear some serious jewels instead of the small earrings and one afterthought bracelet. And the shade of blue----pale baby blue---just makes her look washed out. In white or in true ice blue, the shade of the Grace Kelly dress this gown is based on, the dress would compliment her coloring more. This dress also does strange things with her waist.