Vera Ellen's "Sisters" Dress From White Christmas-Photos Added

Vera Ellen\'s \"Sisters\" Dress From White Christmas-Photos Added

Hello,
I was browsing ebay and came across this listing
http://cgi.ebay.com/SILK-HALTER-50s...3QQihZ020QQcategoryZ48868QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
for what looks to be the dress worn by Vera Ellen in the "Sisters" scene in White Christmas. It looks as though it has been altered as the original dress has a blue lace overlay blouse. (I had to get out the movie and watch that scene a couple of times to see if it was the real deal.) Other than the missing lace overlay bodice, it looks to be the real thing. It would have been designed by Edith Head which would be so neat to have just for that reason alone. I think it's odd that it isn't being promoted more for it's provenance than as a prom dress. It seems sad that this might end up on some teenager at her senior prom and not in a museum or collection. I emailed the listing to the Rosemary Clooney House in Kentucky. I think they have a "White Christmas" room in the museum with costumes and memorabilia from the movie. I just thought you all might be interested in this piece of Hollywood history. I wish I could afford to purchase it!
Carrie

 

No mention of Edith Head at all, either. If I got ahold of this I'd never part with it, if indeed its the real deal.....this isnt exactly a seller known for honesty, sadly. Pretty dress regardless....

Ang

 

Yeah, I know what you mean about the seller. That is why I really looked at the movie scene. I wonder if the lace overlay was a bit damaged and she removed it? What a shame.
Carrie

 

It's quite possible it was altered by the studio for a later use - another film or a personal appearance for an up and coming actress. Repeat use was common and dresses were restyled.

I suspect it was completely recut in the top - the understructure to the original bodice woul have been a nude tone, and there would not have been a double layer of lace when done. And it wouldn't have been a halter style.

Hollis

 

wow imagine getting your hand son one of these pieces of history!!Gosh l DO LOVE this biz...

 

I found a site with stills from the movie. I thought it would be fun to look at. I did not realize that it was common for the dresses to be made over for later use. That is very interesting information. The thing about Vera Ellen is that she suffered from Anorexia for years and she smoked. By the time she made "White Christmas" her skin, especially around her neck, began to age. Every costume in the movie was designed to cover her neck. If the dress was made over, it wasn't for her to wear. Anyway, enjoy the photos!
Carrie

<center>
<a href="http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/wellbornideas/VeraEllenDress4.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>
<a href="http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/wellbornideas/VeraEllenDress3.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>
<a href="http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/wellbornideas/VeraEllenDress2.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>
<a href="http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/wellbornideas/VeraEllenDress1.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>



<a href="http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/wellbornideas/VeraEllenClose-Up.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>
</center>

 

White Christmas is one of my favorite holiday movies.....and I just love those dresses!! What a wonderful piece of history!

Gail

 

It looks like the lace was cut off and finished off around the liner neckline and then converted to a halter.

I always wondered how she managed to be so very thin.

Hollis

 

2 of my friends and I did a Sisters song and dance routine on stage for a talent show when we were in 3rd grade.

 

I thought she might have been anorexic. I always thought she was freaky thin.

-Chris

 

It looks to me that there was also a layer of net removed from the skirt.

It is possible that the studio restyled the dress, but it would have to have been for a very small actress. We need to all keep our eyes open while watching old Paramount movies from 1954- what? 58 or so.

What really bothers me is that knowing this seller, it is very possible that the changes are recently done. The changes are obvious from looking at the photos, but they are not even mentioned in the listing. The dress is being sold as a wearable, not as a collectible.

 

Sold for $1100.

I'm sad for that buyer.

Ang

 

Wow! Can you believe that? $1156 My only hope is that the person who won it is someone who appreciates it's place in Hollywood history, ya know? I mean it was originally designed by Edith Head for crying out loud! I'm wondering the same thing about the alterations. I think she does a lot of repairs and things to her clothes (judging by what she buys). I wouldn't mind so much if it was an alteration done by Paramount in the 50's but if it was an alteration done last week...not good! I feel kind of guilty because I emailed several people about this listing...the author of Vera Ellen's Bio, the Rosemary Clooney House, and other fans. I was trying to assure that the dress would make it to a museum or something. Lining you know whos pockets was the last thing on my mind! Anyways, just so everyone knows, I wasn't trying to make this an issue about the seller. It was totally about saving the dress! Isn't that what it always comes down to for us??
Carrie

 

I didnt think you did anything wrong by bringing it up. I personally have strong feelings about this seller's ethics, having dealt with her first hand and KNOWING what she does. I am not convinced that dress was from that film, myself, or certainly it was dramatically altered, and not altered FOR Vera-Ellen because she wouldn't have been able to show that much of her neck and throat area.

The skirt in the pictures from the film looks like lace, I dont see the soutache and beading, and I cannot imagine they would have a layer of lace over sheer chiffon then OVER the soutache detail. You souldnt see all that, so why bother? The top is different. IF its the same dress, its barely the same. And yeah....designed by Edith Head, sold by a vintage seller with no mention of that? Thats just odd.

She was ASQ'd by someone I know if she had a certificate of authenticity from the studio, and she did not. She said the fitted blouse and shoes were "not included", and no certificate. If I was dropping nearly $1200 on memorabilia like that, I'd want some proof.

So if it was her dress, I hope it went to a good home. If its as bad as what she often sells, and isnt the real deal, I feel horrible for the buyer.

Must list, mustn't bash... gotta be good. :D

Ang

 

Well, there are several ways of looking at it. I see enough similarities in the dress and the photos to let myself believe the dress is authentic.

If the alterations were done later by the studio, then $1200 for the dress by a collector seems reasonable, and so good for the seller. Frankly, I think she undersold the dress by selling it as a wearable, but that is just my opinion.

On the other hand, if the alterations were recently done, then she screwed herself out of several thousand $$$, because of how she limited her market. Lots of people collect Hollywood memorabilia, and there are all levels of collectors. Would a collector like Debbie Reynolds (is she still collecting??) be interested in this dress in this condition? I doubt it, but lots of small-timers would.

A year or so ago a local arts council had a fund-raiser where one of these private collectors of Hollywoodania put some of his collection on display. It was massive, and about 25% of it was clothing and accessories.

The day I went to see it, I was the only person there so the guy in charge was very accomadating, even taking items off the mannis, turning stuff inside out so I could see labels and such. And I was shocked at what I saw! Some of the stuff was exactly as it was labeled, and had photos and studio labels to prove it.

But at least 3 major items were absolutely NOT what the collector thought.

A "1960s" dress owned by Liza Minelli turned out to be an 80s "All that Jazz" label. Sure, her closet was all Halston and "All that Jazz".

An orange poly double knit dress worn in a movie by Audrey Hepburn looked like a high school home ec project. I somehow could not see Ms. Hepburn wearing unlined poly next to her used-to-Givenchy skin. And I'm sure I've never seen the dress in a Hepburn movie.

But the worst was a 1980s acrylic fleece bathrobe that was labeled "1940s movie worn gown - Bette Davis. Ms. Davis loved the gown so much that the studio gave it to her after shooting was finished."

Now this was a collector with lots of money (he's a neurosurgeon) and to him I suspect $1200 for a gown, even horribly altered, from an iconic movie like "White Christmas" would seem like a bargain. And since he hasn't taken the time to learn about clothing, he's an easy target. The guy in charge said that the collector gets most of his stuff from eBay. I gritted my teeth and kept my mouth shut!

 

A "1960s" dress owned by Liza Minelli turned out to be an 80s "All that Jazz" label. Sure, her closet was all Halston and "All that Jazz".

 

I agree that the dress is probably authentic. I also think the seller lost lots of money by listing it as a wearable. Still an interesting auction and topic. I've learned a lot about Hollywood clothes through this.

 

So I take it this isn't the most honest seller? It's good to know, as I've wondered about some of her items but wasn't really sure....

"Must list, mustn't bash... gotta be good"

Ang - I don't think it's bashing....it's educating to know.
Thank you

 

Now, if she were a good and honest seller, she would still be in the VFG and could have posted on that dress and we would have told her exactly what is above.
Sometimes being dirty doesn't pay, although she still has a chunk....but not as big a chunk!

bah!

 

I thought about this auction quite a bit last night. First - quite the good lesson is putting all possible information in the description - Provenance, condtion ( even if the photos show it), designer, the works. Leaving out obvious info tends to lead the viewer to be suspicious. And leaving out the chain of ownership really didn't help appearances.

As to this dress in particular. With the drastic alteraion to the bodice, it's not really museum worthy in that it will take a lot of restoration and money to get it to look like the production photos again. Thats' if it is really Vera Ellen's dress. I don't know how Paramount's wardrobe department labeled their garments. But the hand written ink on the label is odd to me. Anyone could have written that name there at anytime. This is where the chain of ownership - "I bought it from so and so, here's an affidavit or receipt of purcahse, and she got it from Paramount, here's her receipt" is all important.

I do know Western Costume had their own labels that had the actor's name and date of construction very neatly typed in. We used to rent suits from them and it was always a treat to look and see the name inside . We got things that were James Coburn's, Richard Crenna's, Robert Redford's.

Hollis