All Reviews By Ruru

Other than my Development (from the Lim days!) skinnies that I bought by accident before Kate Moss first started the trend (5 years ago?), everything I've tried just looks dead ugly on me, regardless of designer or price. Current/Elliott Stiletto is the only style that works for me. Of course, one generally should size down in C/E from other designer brands.

So - give an hourglass body any fitted dress it'll probably look fairly hot. But - Alex Kramer is really my new go-to for a sophisticated but new take on the fitted sheath. The styles never look "seen that before"; the fabric has the perfect give and the cut accommodates you all throughout your curves, rather than compresses in the chest and bottom but then is too baggy in the waist. The neckline is very high and so one can safely wear this into their 40's and 50's. :) Awesome. Just perfection,

I really liked the fit from top to almost knee...I just wish these weren't such big sweeping bells! Your mileage may vary, obvs. Love just about everything else, the construction, the fabric,the cut...

Great idea, no? But doesn't seem to be well constructed in real life. The "cover" and the actual connector do not fit seamlessly together. There's a gap in between even as you snap them "shut". And, the alignment is off on one cufflink - it looks "twisted". The finish is chintzy, like cheap jewelry. For great most people, these cufflinks are just too big, like wearing a fruit chew or something - counterintuitive if you're imagining being "stealthy"...

I'm an hourglass 35-24-35 - and this dress makes me look surprisingly masculine (kind of an unusual experience) and takes away from my curves. I definitely don't shy away from padded shoulders - scored the famous Roland Mouret dress a few years ago - but this dress's shape (or is it the length) does me no favors at all. So, chances are if you have a pear/triangle shape, the padding will counteract it. Also - Rachel Roy dresses this season are running small (I wore 2 last season, but 4 this year). I'm not loving the amount of polyester in her dresses running near $400. It's not like the wool ones she made before. *sigh*

I wasn't sure about the design - it seemed a bit old-fashioned, not in a Hollywood-glamour way, but reminded me of movie depictions of an auntie-type who's trying to recall her youthful days. :( I don't see myself wearing this to go out. It just would seem like I was trying too hard to be vavavoom and not really exercising any creativity. Maybe I'm just biased by the fabric - it feels like a rumpled t-shirt material. And, as you can see in the back photo, the elastic thing that holds the top of the 'skirt' to your waist, serves to cheapen the look of this. I would've preferred a finished waist band, hook & eye, zipper, etc. But that's just going back to the material again...t-shirt material that makes this dress contradictory in its execution. And, for $350? Lastly - I should have noticed from the model's stance - she's keeping her feet very close together. Moving in a realistic way, the front panels just part, showing the underskirt. Not sexy. Sorry.

This dress is classy. Looks a little conservative (on this model); in person, it's cut well and floats over you without being loose, and the column cut elongates & slims. Be sure to wear the belt with the side that matches the mid-section facing out - not the olive side.

Size: A.L.C. dresses very frequently fit smaller than other designers in the same price range. This style fits even smaller - I tried an S, and it fits like other A.L.C. dresses in XS. I'm 24" in the waist, BTW. Style: the ruffle-y double hems seem to contradict the sleek top (I'd buy the top just by itself, if they made it). I prefer A.L.C.'s usual cool-y sophisticated style, so the hems don't do it for me. Construction: the inner slip? Its spaghetti straps are placed too wide, and keep sticking out the dress's armholes.

The color is paler on the screen than in person - it's just too bubble-gum for me, which destroys the classy thing that I was looking for...yes, this dress, despite the down-to-the-waist neckline, isn't shocking on, and as this model wears is, feels almost demure w/ the full length + cap sleeve + high-collar behind the neck. I think you need to be a bit on the flat side to keep the look streamlined, another reason I'm not keeping this as the girls point outward and that isn't the vibe I want. I was also expecting a higher grade silk fabric, which ended up feeling more like a crepe/jersey. Oh well.

So it is obvious that 1) the dress is see-through and 2) there's an inner slip for mitigating that. But wow - unless worn over a swimsuit near the beach, I cannot see myself going out in this without a self-supplied additional slip. Your undergarments are on display (every seam, ridge and line from your bra and undies), and your legs' outline. Sizing, this is kind of typical of A.L.C. (i.e. fits smaller than other designers in the price range). The rayon fabric doesn't stretch that much and so makes it that much smaller. In particular, it's a pull-over entry, no zipper - which is really kind of wrong for something this restrictive. It's very puzzling that this one, sans zipper, is actually $100 more expensive than another white rayon A.L.C. which does have a zipper (albeit that dress is knee-length and not tea length, but that doesn't add to the cost that much). I like the design, I'm just not sure it was executed as it should've been.