The Quality of Mercy . . . Details, Details

I’m never comfortable when I post an image of a garment that I’m not completely thrilled with. It’s as if I’m wearing it—the image is supposed to be representative of me and if it isn’t one hundred percent, I squirm and fidget until I either change clothes or take down the post.

This isn’t the case when I think that I have a truly outrageous image—the treadful shoes of a few weeks back, for instance.

Rather, it’s the “almost” attractive garment that tortures me. I love harmony, be it asymmetry, a clash of patterns, a clean line. If it works, I’m content. But—oh—the misery when something isn’t quite right.

So: I hope that this post stays up. We’ll see.

Here’s what I’ve been wrestling with today. A catalogue arrived from Peruvian Connection, which is, as far as I can tell, a collection of handsomely made sweaters and dresses, though they’re usually not my style.

A dress did catch my eye, though, the red one above, because it was embellished with Suzanis, which I adore. A closer look revealed the waist-defining band, which I like, and the deep V, which I also find flattering. I was warming to this silk dress.

But then—I read that the dress had a tie in the back and slapped the catalogue closed with an agonized cry. (Remember when St. John Rivers proposes marriage to Jane Eyre and her response is “Have mercy!”? The two moments aren't completely dissimilar.)

To me, a tie in the back conjures up an expanding waistline, one that grows into full-fledged maternity wear. And after happily having carried three children, and worn dresses with ties in the back for many a month, I do not wish to reenact that stylish phase unless biologically required to do so.

Sorry, Peruvian Connection, no sale today.

Is there a sartorial detail that’s a real deal-breaker for you?