Dear Abby: Something Borrowed

[cereta]

DEAR ABBY: Can you please help me understand the rule of etiquette when borrowing a wedding dress? The owner was fully aware that the bride intended to alter it. It was obvious that it would need to be made several sizes smaller and shortened. Also, the bride stated clearly that she intended to lower the neckline and remove the sleeves. Everyone seemed happy the gown was being used again after 25 years of being in a box.

After the wedding, the dress was professionally cleaned, boxed and returned to the owner. She is now livid and contends that the dress should have been returned in its original state -- just like it was loaned.

I'd appreciate your help settling this family dispute. How should this work? -- BORROWING TROUBLE IN THE MIDWEST

DEAR BORROWING TROUBLE: It is a fact of life that when cloth is excised so a garment can be made "several sizes smaller," it cannot be put back in its original condition. If that was the expectation of the owner, it was unrealistic. The bride did the right thing by having the wedding gown professionally cleaned and boxed, and it shouldn't be necessary for her to make any apologies.

Comments

[cereta]

Hmn. Personally, I would not loan something, especially something that the borrower made clear would have to be altered at all, let alone that much, if having it back in the original state meant anything at all to me. I'm curious as to what others think.

[kittydesade]

The same, and particularly in the case of the wedding dress I think I would either say no, you can't have it, or yes please don't worry about giving it back. You can hem and you can remove the sleeves and restore it afterwards, in most cases, if you're careful. But there's no way you can size it down other ways and lower the damn neckline, of all things, and be able to put it back. I have no idea what the dress owner was thinking.

[kaberett]

Yep. (And if it's been sitting in storage for twenty-five years then WHY DO YOU CARE, urgh.)

[kittydesade]

I mean, I used to do professional costuming! We worked miracles on some things, particularly the 90 year old linen jacket that someone wore, on stage, two performances a night, for maybe 8 nights. I'm still amazed that thing held together, but what the LW describes? No. Not going to happen. Ever.

[recessional]

>.> To be fair, as someone who can get incredibly attached to inanimate objects, sometimes it's just . . . . important to know it's there, it exists, it's not ruined.

I recognize that to people who don't, this doesn't necessarily make sense, because it's very hard to explain why if you don't experience it (as so many things are), but it is a thing. Something being neatly tucked away safely doesn't mean it's not thought of, or that its existence isn't an emotional positive.

[kaberett]

Absolutely, but under those circumstances WHY LOAN IT IT AND AGREE TO THIS STUFF, is where I'm at.

[recessional]

Oh definitely. Like I said otherwhere, if the LW is correct/honest and the loaner really did KNOW it was going to be altered in the first place, the loaner is now utterly out of her tree and needs to get a grip.

[recessional]

Basically. If LW is correct/honest and the owner WAS fully aware, the owner is now being utterly ridiculous.

[madripoor_rose]

It sounds like the dress owner either didn't understand they'd be altering it, or had some regrets after the fact. I agree with other commenters, this is why you don't loan out something that has intense sentimental value.

[amadi]

I appreciate the sentimentality, but it was gathering dust for 25 years. It's a dress. If it had been destroyed by mold thanks to an undiscovered leak, you'd be sad but you'd suck it up and deal. The dress instead had a second life in making someone else's day special. That should be reason to be joyous, not jealous and angry.

[minoanmiss]

"The owner was fully aware that the bride intended to alter it. It was obvious that it would need to be made several sizes smaller and shortened."

So often what is obvious to one person isn't to another. I find myself wondering if the extent of the alteration really was made clear beforehand. Because, as everyone else said...

[torachan]

It also says "the bride stated clearly that she intended to lower the neckline and remove the sleeves", so even if the other stuff wasn't "obvious" to the dress owner, if the LW is telling the truth, the dress owner was still aware there would be major changes made to the dress.

It sounds like they just regretted it after the fact. Maybe when they lent it out they didn't realise how affected they would be by it being altered. If that's the case, it's too bad for them, but really they just need to suck it up and deal.

[minoanmiss]

*nods* True. Yeah, if the LW is correct the lender has no leg to stand on whatsoever.