Kim Kardashian irreparably harmed the Marilyn Monroe dress at the Met Gala

I’m confused about something involving Marilyn Monroe’s iconic Jean Louis dress. Marilyn wore the dress for one of her last public appearances, and after she passed away, the dress likely traded hands a few times. Then in 2016, the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Museum purchased the dress at auction for a historic price: $4.8 million. The museum obviously keeps the dress in one of their permanent exhibitions, and they only lent it out for the first time for the Met Gala, for Kim Kardashian to wear (she only wore it briefly on the carpet, then changed into a replica for the dinner). Following the gala, I assumed the dress was returned to the museum.

That was all the long-winded backstory, so here’s my question: the Ripley’s museum is in charge of the dress, correct? They have their own museum people looking after the dress, right? It does not appear so. It appears that while Ripley’s OWNS the dress, they allow the Marilyn Monroe Collection to look after the dress or make repairs as needed. And the MM Collection is NOT happy. The MM Collection’s social media posted several Instagrams about the damage done to the fragile dress by Kim and her team. Several crystals are missing/popped off, the zipper is f–ked and the fabric around the zipper is ripped and frayed.

The MM Collection notes that Ripley’s did try to ensure that the dress was not damaged and that Kim was not alone with the dress, and that the museum could pull the plug on it at any time. But that doesn’t change the fact that the fragile dress never should have been lent out for the Met Gala, especially not for Kim. I’m not criticizing Kim’s figure, but her figure is NOTHING like Marilyn’s. Of course Kim couldn’t fit her giant ass in the dress. Though Marilyn wasn’t as assy as Kim, even Marilyn had to be sewn into the dress! Anyway, a whole mess.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar and Instagram.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

171 Responses to “Kim Kardashian irreparably harmed the Marilyn Monroe dress at the Met Gala”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. C says:

    We all called it.

    And this is how it’s clear Kim doesn’t actually care about Marilyn – just wearing her skin.

    • Andrew's_Nemesis says:

      Bloody awful woman. She puts the K in ‘knarcissist’.

      • North of Boston says:

        Hah!

      • SugarHere says:

        How did these geniuses think Kardashian’s plasticky-siliconey rear end would fit in Marilyn’s dainty dress ? Methinks the Egyptians did a better job conserving mummy bandage. What a terrible idea in the first place.

      • Elizabeth Phillips says:

        Have to clean raspberry sorbet off my phone now.

    • SpankFD says:

      Are we certain KK actually wore MM’s original dress? It doesn’t look like the same dress to me — the neckline, straps, and beading — all look subtly different.

      I think the publicity stunt was to claim she ruined an iconic dress when in reality she never wore the real thing.

    • J says:

      Kim is an ass and the whole family is why couldn’t she wear a replica and not risk a priceless dress?

  2. Izzy says:

    All that for a stupid stunt and they ruined the dress.

    • Emme says:

      I just fail to understand why, with all her millions, Kim just couldn’t have a replica made. That way it would have fitted her very much bigger arse. She could have still bragged that it was a homage to MM and the famous dress.

      • JustMe says:

        she did have a replica that she changed into right after the red carpet walk…which would have sufficed but nooo her ego had to have the real thing

      • Seraphina says:

        So sad and it would have been much classier if she said that she will instead wear the replica so she doesn’t damage the original but as you all said – her EGO won’t allow it.

    • NotSoSocialB says:

      And tried to hide it with an ermine capelet hanging off her arms and over her ass of lies.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      A dress that was fragile since the day it was made.
      Ripleys shouldn’t have lent it, but it’s easier and more fun for some to blame Kim like she intentionally did this. It never fit her. It shouldn’t have been given out. This is on the private owners. Ripleys.

      Kim wearing this dress made a forgotten dress remembered. No one talked about this dress in ages like this before.

      • C says:

        What? She *did* intentionally do this. She knew it didn’t fit. We’ve all tried on things in dressing rooms that didn’t fit, we know what it feels like. She did it anyway.
        The dress was hardly a forgotten dress.

      • BeanieBean says:

        You know immediately when something isn’t going to come up over your hips & you abandon the effort accordingly; not Kim.

      • JesMa says:

        Not for most Latinas I know. Very common for us to have small waists and big butts. So if it doesn’t go over our hips, we put it on overhead and try to shimmy or wiggle it over our hips/butts. That being said, never with such a delicate and iconic dress.

    • AnnaKist says:

      She just had to have the ORIGIN, GENUINE dress. Why? It is just as Izzy said: the STUNT and the brag. That’s all it was. And Kim is always about the stunt.

  3. SarahLee says:

    All for a publicity stunt.

    • Ang says:

      A stunt that completely failed — let’s be honest. All it did was show how non-sexy KK actually is. Marilyn looked NAKED and SHOCKING in that dress (as well as gorgeous), even by today’s standards. KK looked basic, boring, and charmless.

  4. WiththeAmerican says:

    There’s no way to repair frayed silk like that. Of course we all knew this would happen. But it’s still so sad.

    • JerriBlank says:

      The more I think about this, the more deliberate this whole messy stunt seems to me.

      In this day and age of inflation, there are serious questions going around the true value of opulence and extravagance *coughcoughPLATNIUMJUBILEEcoughcough* Some may wonder, why do we need to hold a fancy MET gala every year? Originally, the MET gala was held as an annual fundraiser to help raise funds to restore, rejuvenate and preserve all clothing with either artistic or historical value for future generations. Now, the MET feels more like an overhyped stunt-event for TickTockers and YouTube influencers instead so relevance to historical preservation seems distant, at best.

      I’m willing to bet that Ripley’s couldn’t afford the major costs needed to display as well as protect, uphold/maintain the MM gown. To cut their losses while keeping face, Ripley’s either sold/donated/surrendered the gown to the MET but all parties wanted to make a big stunt to promote not only their brand, but help promote the fundraising aspect as well– and who else would you employ to over-hype any down-low stunt with maximum social media exposure and with zero accountability to the public? Hmmm… I wonder.

      I’m willing to bet that the MM gown will be surrendered to the MET soon and after YEARS of preservation and rehabilitation, it will finally resurface in the MET gala as its proper and final home while the CEO of Ripley’s smiles into their champagne glass thinking, ‘a sucker is born every minute.’

      • BeanieBean says:

        So they deliberately destroyed the dress in order to save others, is that what I’m hearing? And there’s no way to rehab that shredded fabric. It’s gone. Kaput.

      • Desdemona says:

        JerriBlank, as the daughter of a seamstress I can assure you can’t repair that dress…

  5. Louise177 says:

    I know a lot of people are blaming Kim but the fact of the matter is it shouldn’t have been lent out. New dresses get damaged so this isn’t shocking.

    • C-Shell says:

      Exactly. NO ONE should have been wearing that fragile gown — that’s not vintage, it’s a work of art, an antique at this point. It was a one of a kind, customized specifically for MM. It should be in the Smithsonian FFS.

    • michyk says:

      i agree. ripley’s owns the dress, and this is their responsibility. they could have said no or shut it down at any time, and they didn’t. they decided to loan the dress to someone it obviously did not fit. they have no one to blame but themselves. people are coming after kim for the publicity stunt (which it was), but what kind of publicity was ripley’s looking for? cause none of this has been positive.

      • Matilda says:

        Ripleys is just the latest organization that sells their soul to get a piece of the Kardashian publicity machine ala Vogue, SNL, Balenciaga I can go on. Marilyn’s dress is collateral damage. Why didn’t her replica suffice to be worn on the red carpet the entire time? Because she thinks she is above it all with everyone cow towing down to her to get a piece of her action.

      • tealily says:

        Ripley’s (and Ripley) has always been sensational. That’s what they do. They aren’t the same thing as an actual museum.

    • MeganC says:

      I think this issue needs some perspective. The dress is famous because it was worn to flout Marilyn’s affair with JFK. It holds a certain fasciation in pop culture, but it isn’t an historical artifact which is why it is in the possession of an unaccredited entertainment venue.

      • ChewieNYC says:

        Exactly. It’s a dress worn by an actor to a birthday party. It’s not a historical artifact. It’s owned by a private company to do with as they wish. Their decision was to loan it out knowing the possibility it could be damaged. This is on them but for goodness sake, it’s just a old dress.

      • C says:

        It is an historic piece with a great deal of cultural and historical value for precisely the reason you stated. As a person with museum background I can tell you there are plenty of artifacts that aren’t where they should be. It comes down to who has the money to purchase it and keep it. Ripley’s had the money at auction, and it was an amount very few museums would have the resources to offer. The dress had an advantage in that an actual collector was allowed to care for it in the form of the MM Collection. But Ripley’s chose to sidestep that issue.

      • Eurydice says:

        It’s an iconic and one-of-a-kind dress worn by an iconic and one-of-a-kind actress. The costumes preserved in museums could also be called “old dresses” that were worn at a birthday party – and almost all of history is made up of pop culture of the times. Ripley’s paid $4.8 million for the dress, so they obviously didn’t think it was just any old birthday outfit. With that kind of investment, they should have taken better care. It’s like when Steve Wynn punched a hole with his elbow in his $70 million Picasso – some people are just philistines.

      • tealily says:

        Just wondering what you all think history is exactly? I’m speaking as a professional archivist.

      • Another Anna says:

        MeganC, I wholly disagree with your conclusion. Marilyn Monroe was the mistress of one of the most powerful men on Earth. She helped to shape Camelot. And dismissing something as “pop culture”completely ignores the soft power role that media plays. Marilyn was so important not because she was sexy but because she helped define what sexy was for that era. Marilyn was a character, don’t forget. And I mean that literally. This dress isn’t just a dress some woman wore. This is a costume worn by a character who helped define what American culture in the 1960s looked like.

        I don’t know if any of y’all follow Abby Cox on YouTube (she’s a dress historian) but she has an excellent video breaking down why this situation should have never happened. It’s not that the dress wasn’t important and that’s why it’s at Ripley’s. It’s at Ripley’s because the dress is, to date, the most expensive garment sold, meaning proper museums could not afford it. It’s not at all about importance; it’s about money.

        That being said, I doubt Kim gives a [redacted] about Marilyn’s actual story. She sees herself as a modern pinup who is defining sexy for the culture, which is why she picked a dress so closely tied to Marilyn’s sex appeal. She is participating in the minimization of a woman who people constantly tried to minimize throughout her life and frankly I think that’s disrespectful to Marilyn Monroe, an actual person who had thoughts and dreams and emotions.

      • Jane Wilson says:

        The man, the woman, and the dress carried quite a bit more significance to people at the time (and for many still.) For one thing, there wasn’t much flouting of affairs back in 1962; flirtation and speculation maybe, but to insult the First Lady in such a public way wouldn’t have been a scandal, it would have been an unforgivable disgrace for both JFK and MM. Monroe was flouting HER image, her movie star status, her beauty and her place on the international stage. She and JFK were viewed as two of the most gorgeous talked-about humans on the planet at that time, and it was through the Kennedys that politics and Hollywood began to come together in the minds of voters and viewers.
        According to those closest, the “affair” was exaggerated from a possible one night stand, into a passionate relationship it wasn’t.
        Less than three months after his birthday, she was dead (likely by suicide or overdose) and a little over a year after MM died, Kennedy was assassinated.
        It was all end of an era stuff, two much admired, hugely famous and beautiful people dying shockingly and tragically, and much too young.
        The proof is that people still remember them and find them fascinating to this day.
        In its way, for the time, and for what it represented back in the early 60’s, it was more than just a dress.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Museums spend far more than four to five million dollars on valuable or important acquisitions. I guess, the museums that could have afforded to buy and maintain this dress just did not want this dress.

      • C says:

        Most US museums have their contents because of millionaires gifting them the items from their private collections or they are on long-term loan. Outside endowments may provide funds for purchasing other works, but that is highly contingent on a number of factors. Really expensive purchases are not as common as you’d think which is why so much art disappears into private collections of millionaires/billionaires.
        There’s a lot of art and artifacts in this world and not enough artistic institutions to do them justice.

      • The Recluse says:

        This dress was iconic AND HISTORIC. You can see it every time they run that footage of her at JFK’s birthday party. It was rather infamous at the time because of how she looked in it. It’s basically the last time the world got to see her before her extremely untimely (tragic and suspicious) death.

    • lucy2 says:

      I agree Ripley’s is responsible and never should have lent it out, and the minute Kim realized it wouldn’t zip on her, she should have stopped.
      It may not be a historic artifact, but it’s a piece of pop culture history, and should have been preserved as such.

      • BeanieBean says:

        It wasn’t just a matter of not being able to zip it up, it was a matter of barely getting it up & over her hips. It was immediately obvious to all concerned that it wouldn’t go over the hips, but they kept working on it. That did the damage.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      yeah, this. she’s not my fave but this ain’t her fault.

      • Sofia says:

        I really don’t agree. I think it is Ripleys fault for letting her wear it but her fault for forcing herself into it. Honestly if I borrow even a friend‘s dress or at a rental place and I see that I can only get the zipper go further up by force, I stop. That is common decency, you don’t risk to damage something that is not yours. She must have realized that she was stretching the material to the limit. Really for shame. Especially as with the replica she had a Plan B available. And Ripleys yes they should not have given it out, but we’re they to assume Kim would just force herself into that dress no matter what? Maybe they should have.

    • aggie says:

      This is on Ripley’s leadership. Rich people make crazy asks of institutions holding historical collections all the time, it’s what they do. Responsible management would not compromise the preservation conditions of a historical artifact for a dumb stunt.
      Signed, an archives director.

    • manda says:

      yeah, I don’t really blame kim at all. I mean, she should have been more thoughtful and not requested it, but the owners also should have said no. I’m assuming that she thought they would say no and asked just to see; I mean, the worse they could say is no!

    • stagaroni says:

      @Louise177,
      As a society we rent cars, hotel rooms, tools, and even clothing. We are contractually bound to return those items in the condition they were received. Kim is no different. She accepted responsibility for the welfare of the dress when she took it into her possession. Yes, the dress was very fragile, but she would have been made aware of this fact and wore it just the same. She damaged it, she is responsible. She just doesn’t care.

      • C says:

        Yeah. Renting it out doesn’t automatically mean damage. That’s still on Kim’s shoulders even if Ripley’s is at fault for lending it (and they are).

      • BeanieBean says:

        I’m curious as to what kind of agreement document they had in order to let Kim try that dress on, let alone leave with it. Or was there so much bad judgment all the way around that there was no legal agreement? Because yes, she ought to be liable for the damage to this priceless artifact. (OK, 4.8 million last time it sold, so not so priceless.)

      • aggie says:

        Artifact loans are done at the discretion of an institution according to the conditions of a request. It’s one thing to loan out a fragile historic dress for exhibit and expect to get it back unscathed. It’s a massive lapse in judgment to loan out a fragile historic dress for WEAR knowing that the wearer does not fit in it. They knew there was potential damage and did it anyway for the publicity and probably some money. End of the day, it is Ripley’s responsibility to preserve the artifact and they dropped the ball.

    • Megs283 says:

      Agreed. Kim jumped through the hoops and this isn’t on her.

    • C says:

      The idea that because Ripley’s shouldn’t have lent it that means it’s not her fault is sort of weird. I’m sorry, is she a toddler? She doesn’t realize what she’s doing? I feel like many are applying some sort of legal liability lens to this which, yes, would put the blame on Ripley’s, but that’s not the only part of this discussion.

      • aggie says:

        Yes, I have much lower expectations of Kim or any other wealthy egocentric stunt-puller than I do the owning institution and preservation professionals.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      In reality, aren’t both parties at fault? Yes, Ripley’s shouldn’t have lent it out, but Kim actually saw up close how fragile it was and SHE KNEW it couldn’t fit her body, and she still chose to wear it.

      • Mrs. CP says:

        @Tiffany I agree! I even read she couldn’t zip it up in the back, that’s why she wore the white stola.

  6. Aang says:

    The entitlement of that entire family makes me sick. Of course she ruined it. And why shouldn’t she? The public keeps rewarding them for their disgusting selfishness. I wish these ostentatious idiots would fade from view forever but we are stuck with them.

    • Formerly Lithe says:

      “The public keeps rewarding them for their disgusting selfishness.” THIS.

      Sadly, even the attention ruining MM’s dress brings rewards them. Because in their world, the opposite of positive attention is not negative attention. It is *no* attention.

      The KJs only worry when the public seems to have lost interest. At which point they would even pretend to eat their own young so we come running, picking sides between them, thereby restoring their rightful place in our collective consciousness.

      • beepboop says:

        Spot on. So so spot on. This family does not care how vapid, vainglorious, villainous, stupid, racist, classist or just plain disgusting they are exposed to be. As long as people keep tuning in, buying their trash merch, and engaging with their over-airbrushed over-filtered socials, they can keep buying more and bigger garish yet generic modern farmhouse compounds to live next to each other in. These folk are like exasperating pests, even when you try to keep them on your periphery.

      • SIde Eye says:

        You are 100% correct. I see the irony of commenting on a Kardashian post while pointing out I don’t care about this family (I clicked on this because I care about the dress not Kim), but I am so proud that I have never watched a single episode of their show. Not one. Ever! And the same goes for that racist, 50 year old Karens engaging in ridiculous middle school bullying franchise called The Real Housewives. This trash culture started with Maury, Jerry Springer, and these garbage you are not the father talk shows, and we need to purge ourselves from it as a culture. I am moving in a few months to a beautiful place. I decided to not have a TV in my living room. We are going to live near water, let’s get outside, meet the people and play with dogs. Let’s talk when we are in the kitchen/living room area. I could write a thesis on how these electronics, especially eye phones have given us attachment disorder. We should start with trash TV.

  7. IForget says:

    Kim never had any respect for what she was doing. There are plenty of ways to homage a cultural icon without ruining their intimate art. Just, disrespectful. Also sad that Ripley’s owned it in the first place. Just sad all around. Maybe Kim could take a class in art history or donate to a restoration project or something. 🙁

  8. Rapunzel says:

    This is especially infuriating knowing Kim had a replica ready to go. She should have just worn the replica the entire time.

    • Colby says:

      This!!!! It’s all *so stupid* and I have no idea what on earth Ripleys was thinking.

  9. girl_ninja says:

    Of course she damaged it. The dress is older than she is and should not have been worn by anyone. And for Ripley’s to share about how she damaged the dress is laughable since they LET her is laughable. She’s gross. At this point in her life all she cares about is staying in the news cycle, being talked about and being the number 1 Kardashian. She has no substance or style and is just a giant ego monster needing attention. I just want her to go away.

    • ThatsNoyOkay says:

      Ripley’s didn’t share the news, the Marilyn Monroe foundation did. They control everything Marilyn related in terms of her belongings and, most importantly, her image. You cannot say her name three times on this earth without them stampeding into your living room and asking for payment. I’m not sure how this dress fell out from under their control, but the point is, they still get a say as to how it’s maintained and probably want their control back as to how it’s treated and who owns it.

  10. LightPurple says:

    The second she felt the slightest bit of resistance as she pulled it over her thighs, she should have stepped out of it. But no. She pulled it all the way up and THEN tried to zip it. There were probably beads flying everywhere and the sound of fabric ripping. This is inexcusable.

    • Yup, Me says:

      Did you look at the pictures? Your imagery is striking but unnecessarily dramatic. There didn’t need to be beads popping everywhere or the sounds of fabric ripping. The material is delicate and should have been handled with care. Fraying and distortion are just as destructive and irreversible (even if they don’t come with an audible sound track).

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Remember her video with people on white gloves shoving the fabric over her thighs and butt? How were they not tearing those crystals off then, long before she “wore it” at the met?! It was obvious it would be damaged. You can’t shove or even tug hand sewn crystals.

      And those seams which were hand sewn for MM. they were never going to hold for someone with bigger proportions.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I saw that video. Shoot, as soon as they got it up to the knees everyone knew that wasn’t going to work. They forced it up past her hips. That’s the start of the damage to the fabric itself, not just the seams & not just the crystals. Even unzipped, Kim sat in the car on the way, she didn’t stand up a la the Pope, so of course it lost crystals, which would have been obvious to everyone that that was going to happen. I think Marilyn put that dress on at the event venue & they sewed her into it somehow–there’s something about the fabric at the back; you can see the fabric with the crystals overlies the under fabric & it seems to be tacked across the zipper at regular intervals. They didn’t do this for Kim & you can see where those original tacks failed.

    • jenn says:

      Because of where the crystals fell off — lower back — it seems like they probably caught on the fur wrap when Pete put his hand on her to pose for red-carpet photos. That would have happened no matter who wore it, because the threads holding the crystals are ancient. The fact is, the dress belongs behind glass.

  11. Merricat says:

    I am so sick of the self-obsessed. All for vanity.

    • buenavissta says:

      I came to say the same thing. Imagine being that vain. It makes me grateful for my humble little life.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Agreed. KK ruined a historical item which can never be returned to its formal glory.

      This was incredibly irresponsible on Ripley’s part which they must face that the 4.5 million paid is gone, by their own stupidity. All to fulfill a woman’s self-obsessed vanity with a massive ass.

  12. Case says:

    Honestly, I don’t blame Kim for this, I blame Ripley’s for lending out such a delicate dress. She asked, and they could’ve said no.

    • Merricat says:

      That doesn’t absolve Kim.

      • Case says:

        It doesn’t absolve Kim, and she had a responsibility to care for the dress while she was wearing it/not ask for it to begin with. However, I feel the responsibility ultimately falls on the dress’s keepers, and they failed to protect it.

    • C says:

      She threw her name and social cache around to get access. At this point I wonder if she promised them donations or something that didn’t come through given that the MM Collection are publicizing the damage and Ripley’s who they are in affiliation with is silent. Of the two entities, the museum has less power even though they should have said no.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      She asked. She literally asked. How is she not to blame? Of course they should have said no, but we are not babysitters meant to assist KK into making better choices. She’s a grown woman.

      She knew why it was wrong and she asked/demanded/tossed a ton of money anyway.

      • Jan90067 says:

        She could ask. Hell, we could ALL ask. Ripley’s should’ve said no. As for that walking trash heap, the SECOND there was the SLIGHTEST TUG showing it wouldn’t go up her ass of lies, she should’ve stopped and just gone with the copy. She is FULLY responsible for that damage.

    • Formerly Lithe says:

      I blame her and her privileged entitlement. I wouldn’t put it past her to have considered that this might happen and therefore reward the show even further. In terms of garnering attention by any means necessary, she and her family are without equals. They play us every time.

    • Colby says:

      It’s a bit on Kim in that she should have realized it didn’t fit and called it a day, just wearing the replica. But she would rather destroy it for her own ego.

      However, overall, I put the blame squarely with Ripleys. They own it the dress and control access it. It’s not like she stole it. They handed it over. They didn’t have to let her wear it, especially after it was clear it didn’t fit. That’s 100% on them.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      They both played a part. But she absolutely knew that it did not fit her body (she was aware it couldn’t be zipped), and she CHOSE to strain the fabric anyway.

  13. snappyfish says:

    As I have said before I work with museums and everyone was horrified and saw this coming. Ripley’s (not a museum) accepted a big check and a piece of fashion history was destroyed. It was all such waste. The only good was that it showed the dress wasn’t what made Marilyn a star, it was Marilyn. On Kim the dress looked basic and boring. I don’t understand why people haven’t had enough of this trash family circus

    • mia girl says:

      “The only good was that it showed the dress wasn’t what made Marilyn a star, it was Marilyn. On Kim the dress looked basic and boring.”

      @snappyfish- Such a great point. It was almost shocking how boring the dress was on Kim. After all the hype, it ended up being a moment of realization that you might be able to manufacture all the fame in the world, but you can’t fake having innate charm and appeal.

    • Christine says:

      I suspect, at the time, the name Marilyn was exactly what the name Kim Kardashian is today, for many people.

      This isn’t on Kim, and I’m not remotely a fan. It’s a dress Marilyn wore. And?

  14. Dogmom says:

    Knowing that they couldn’t zip it up and that it wasn’t going to move on her body as it was so tight, wasn’t the point of the fake fur thingy to hide the mechanics of how it was held together?

    • Sinead says:

      Yeah, iirc they didn’t / couldn’t zip it up so I’ve no idea how the zip is so damaged – it was never zipped up… In the insta clip her ass was about 4-5 inches too wide for the dress there’s no way they could even attempt to zip it up so shouldn’t the zip be undamaged because it was the one part of the drress untouched?

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        No, because the zip part was stretched across her butt even though it wasn’t zipped. She wasn’t able to even walk easily let alone take those stairs.

      • Tiffany:) says:

        Even if you don’t zip something fully closed, you can still strain the zipper and surrounding fabric by TRYING to zip it.

    • Fiona Fang says:

      There are some pictures where the coat didn’t cover her butt and you can see that the dress isn’t zipped at all and there’s a whole open-hand-stretched-out span’s worth width of spanx (or whatever her brand is) showing.

  15. Driver8 says:

    Even looking at her hands on the dress drives me crazy. God, she is such trash. Ripley’s should be ashamed.

  16. Elizabeth says:

    I don’t really think anyone ought to be surprised by this. The museum or the collection – whoever had final say-so in allowing this to happen – shouldn’t have allowed it to be “lent out.”

  17. OriginalLaLa says:

    I worked as a textile curator at a huge museum for years, and this was so unethical and wrong from the get go. Historical textiles are fragile and there was no way it wasn’t going to get damaged by Kim wearing it.

  18. mellie says:

    What a damn shame, and yes, I know there are other real world problems going on (people on Twitter keep referring to the fact that everyone is overreacting to the damage to this dress while the world is falling apart), but it’s just sad to me that some dumbass can come in and be allowed to simply destroy something so easily. Just because she’s a Kardashian, they seem to waltz in and do anything they want, it’s getting old.

    • HufflepuffLizLemon says:

      I think this is actually a great representation of the issues in the world-crazy rich billionaires and multi-millionaires hogging resources through the power of their money. The NRA, Putin, climate change, Bezos, Elon Musk… and Kim K. I’ve defended her on some issues, but this dress thing is gross.

      • mellie says:

        That’s a good way to look at it for sure, yes, all the selfish rich assholes who believe they deserve all the things!

  19. samipup says:

    All for vanity……….

  20. mia girl says:

    So symbolic, because Kim and the entire Kardashian circus have irreparably harmed culture. Simply put, they are a pack of soulless, selfish and tacky grifters who have sold their fake, vacuous life-style and aesthetic to a generation.

    • Betsy says:

      Sigh. So true.

      I wanted to be clear that I am clicking on this thread only for the Marilyn Monroe connection and not because of those cultural lesions the Kardashians. mia girl is right – they’ve harmed culture. Of course they’re just the figureheads; someone had to green light their shows and give them money and everything else.

      But that this dress was damaged for a stunt? Ick.

    • shanaynay says:

      @mia girl:

      Yesss! Yes, to everything you said.

    • SIde Eye says:

      @mia girl. Yes! A thousand times this!

  21. Plums says:

    All to ruin a historically significant dress she didn’t even look that good in.

  22. KC says:

    See, when they mentioned it wasn’t fully zipped and she covered the back and changed quickly I had assumed it was a strain on the dress for her to slide into. Why did she even need to wear this? What silly person promoted this idea? She could have had something similar made to channel the same look. Seems like an unnecessary and costly stunt to me. That’s on whomever made that ridiculous offer/decision. Play foolish games, win foolish prizes. I wonder if the Kardashians are aware of their reputation for ruining things and misappropriating culture because this happened a while ago, how come we’re just now getting confirmation of this?🤔

    • Eurydice says:

      She did have a copy made. She wore/destroyed the original for a couple of minutes, just to make an entrance, and then changed into the copy.

    • BeanieBean says:

      She didn’t ‘slide into’ that dress, they pushed & pulled for a good long while in order to get that onto her.

  23. Belli says:

    Textile conservation is so underappreciated. The whole point of the Met Gala is to raise funds for the Costume Institute because it’s the only department that needs to fund itself because what they do is so undervalued!

    The dress shouldn’t have been loaned out. At all. To anyone. The fabric and embellishments are so fragile. That kind of souffle silk isn’t even made anymore. It shows Kim’s lack of respect to ask to wear the dress in the first place, but it’s appalling that anyone even considered saying yes.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, this. The mission is to preserve and conserve objects that represent the art and history of fashion – that’s the opposite of what happened here.

  24. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Marilyn exploited in death for publicity just as she was in life. Now by the fame whoriest woman of all.

    • grabbyhands says:

      THIS. I wish this didn’t keep getting lost in this conversation.

      Everyone is the asshole here –

      Ripley’s for even lending the gown in the first place, Kim for being vapid and selfish for a tiny bit more of attention (and for something she didn’t even look good in) and for all the ghouls who will just not let this woman’s soul REST. My god.

      To quote @snappfish above – “The only good was that it showed the dress wasn’t what made Marilyn a star, it was Marilyn.”

    • Mel says:

      I wish there was a like button.

  25. Miranda says:

    Looking at those photos, I could hear in my head the sound of the silk fraying and tiny rhinestones pinging as they scatter all over the floor. And I literally cringed. Why couldn’t she just have worn the damn replica to begin with? NO ONE was impressed by her wearing the actual dress. It was almost universally condemned the moment people heard the rumors. And she selfishly wore it anyway and absolutely ruined it.

  26. s808 says:

    they were idiots for letting her wear it. NO ONE should’ve been able to wear it especially someone with a completely different body type. of course it was gonna be damaged.

  27. Marla Hooch says:

    But wait… if she didn’t do the dress up, the fraying around the hook and eye closures can’t be a result of her wearing it, right? That’s caused by stress on the fabric from the closure pulling…

    • Sinead says:

      Yeah, that’s what I thought too, I replied to a comment above before I saw your comment. The zip couldn’t have been stretched out if it was left open

    • Jan90067 says:

      The fraying could be from the side seams stretching and pulling the fabric from the center as it strains to go up over the hips. I’m SURE they tugged and pulled to TRY and zip it at least once or twice before giving up (and deciding to leave it open and cover her ass, literally). Add to that the rubbing from the fake fur… That fabric was extremely delicate to begin with when made. Add to that time, oxidation, etc, and voila!

    • SAS says:

      There is a video of four people squeezing her into it in a fitting and zipping it up (barely). That is when it would have stretched.

      It was clear she wouldn’t have been able to move a muscle with it zipped hence I believe she wore it unzipped on the carpet.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      Just because she didn’t wear it closed to the event, doesn’t mean they didn’t try to close it during her fittings.

  28. ktate says:

    Their dress, their mess? Ripleys needs to lock up the dress and send the Marilyn foundation packing. Too much attention for the wrong reasons. Realized mistake, still OUR dress. Shove off?

  29. Maddie says:

    I really don’t even blame Kim here. Yes of course she’s entitled and vapid but at the end of the day Ripleys could have said no. But they didn’t because now it’s “Kim Kardashians dress” to millions of her fans and Ripleys will see a lot of dollars. They don’t care at all about the dress

    • BeanieBean says:

      Oh for heaven’s sake! Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Zero moral fiber, that one.

  30. Mary Tosti says:

    Of course she did. Selfish is as selfish does.

  31. Amy Bee says:

    A real museum would not have lent out the dress.

  32. TeeMajor says:

    I read an article that said Kim told Ripley’s or whoever she lost 16lbs to fit the dress, probably lies but it never should have been lent for her to wear.

    it is a famous artifact in my eyes, the last dress that Marilyn wore to a world event.

    That family is shameless. She could have had a replica made but NO, she THOUGHT she deserved to wear the dress. WRONG.

    She is dying to get her hands on some of Elizabeth Taylor’s artifact items too.

  33. Meh says:

    No surprise. Now she will turn this into more publicity.

  34. Nicegirl says:

    A Cher Bob Mackie replica would’ve suited her much better

    • Another Anna says:

      Lol Bob Mackie would hit the roof if she tried. He actually worked for Jean Louis on this dress and he was PISSED about Kardashian wearing it.

    • The Recluse says:

      I’m bracing myself for Kim’s homage to Cher by cramming her body into one Mackie’s creations.

  35. Leskat says:

    This is so depressing. A historical gown, a moment and a feeling is now ruined and tainted with Kim’s ego, and probably Kim and Ripley’s desire for headlines.

    The funny thing is is that if Kim kept her original butt, I bet this would’ve actually fit and she wouldn’t have ripped it! Still wouldn’t be a good idea to let her wear it but I bet the damage would’ve been less with her uninflated ass.

  36. JillieBean says:

    Who gives a sh!t about that stupid dress anyway? Like why do people care about something worn by an actor years ago? Burn the dress

    • BeanieBean says:

      Some of us make a living on the stuff & things of the past–archaeologists, archivists, curators, anthropologists. These old things tell a story about our shared past, our shared culture, and who we are now. Without tangible items such as this old [stupid] dress, we’re at the mercy of whatever conman comes along. Remember when the Taliban blew up the Buddha statues? Remember more recently when Notre Dame burned down? These things are important, the small & seemingly mundane–like a gown; as well as the large & symbolic–like a temple. Important reminders of who we once were, who we’ve become, and what may be. Marilyn Monroe & JFK, Camelot, the end of an era, these are important moments in time. That dress is as symbolic in its way as the Zapruder film is in its way. Or Jackie’s pink mohair suit.

      • Elizabeth says:

        That was a lovely response.

        The world is full of sadness and suffering and yet we try to find moments of beauty and happiness.

  37. Grace says:

    Duh, what did they expect from a (??) 60 + year old dress.

  38. AmelieOriginal says:

    Is anyone surprised? Ripley’s isn’t even a real museum, it’s a franchise capitalizing on the shocking and the surprising. Letting Kim wear an iconic piece of history fits with their brand. I’ve been to the Ripley’s in NYC, it’s not the kind of place that should have any access to that iconic dress. And I totally blame Kim just as much as Ripley’s. They had no business letting her wear it and Kim had no business thinking she could even fit into it and not damage it. She clearly wore the dress unzipped and used that stupid fur shawl to cover the fact she couldn’t fit into it.

  39. Gip says:

    Eh. It’s a dress, an older one at that. It sticks it’s now see additional wear and tear, but it’s still a pretty dress & just a dressy. Who cares. Ripley’s lent it out, let them take the blame. Kim was stunt queening like you’d expect, they didn’t have to loan the dress out knowing the proportions didn’t match🤷🏼‍♀️

  40. Sue E Generis says:

    It will forever astound me how we as a society have come to a moment where people idolize others for copying other people’s ideas. What is the appeal of Kim Kardashian and family? They have never once contributed anything original or interesting to the world.

    Kim was trying to create A MOMENT by being a sad imitation of the original. She and her family are incapable of doing anything original, interesting, creative. Why do people find them worthy of influence?

  41. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I’m here for our history lol. Our past defines us. The last several years are going to take a very long time out of our future for course correction. The dress was purchased by Ripley’s. Ripley’s is… Ripley’s. The dress was doomed when it ended there because it should’ve been in a museum. Collections should be looked at, and they are. They make their city museum tours giving everyone an opportunity for viewership. The stunt pulled with this dress is unfortunate, but it is precisely why museums have such vigorous rules.

  42. Remy says:

    All this for a dress that wasn’t even on theme and she didn’t even look in.

    And I place on both KKW and Ripley’s.

  43. Mel says:

    I’m not going to blame Kim. Anyone who’s been paying the slightest attention to the K-clan has knows that they’re attention seeking narcissists who don’t give a thought to anything or anyone besides themselves. Blame the so called museum who decided to lend her the dress only thinking of the PR and not the damage that would be done to the dress.

  44. VivaAviva says:

    After having read all of the comments, all I can think is that love her or hate her, she’s become a pop culture symbol of the present and 60 years from now someone will probably borrow one of her ugly Balenciaga leather catsuits and phuck it up, too. Let the cycle be unbroken. Sigh.

  45. Lov3zone says:

    THATS why she kept that hideous white fur on…she didnt want photogs capturing all the fubar’ed Back of the dress! Wow! I hope they made their 4 million back

  46. Sue says:

    This is why you don’t play with museum objects like they are toys. Shame on Ripley’s. They knew better.

  47. Melissa says:

    I’m a bit of a Kim apologist, admittedly, but the MM collection and/or Ripley’s really should have anticipated this. It’s honestly silly to think anyone could wear that dress this many years later and it would be okay… stupid

    • kirk says:

      Kim is as Kim does. Surprised that Ripley’s and/or the MM collection people didn’t demand substantial damage waiver with deposit at a minimum. If it’s truly valuable artifact for them, they should never have loaned it at all. Considering Marilyn had to be sewn into it…

  48. HME says:

    Good lord, I cannot believe people are actually trying to let Kim off the hook here! Not her fault…I’m sorry what? It was HER massive ass that ruined the dress how exactly is that not her fault? Obviously Ripley’s shouldn’t have even let her touch it let alone try and force it over her ass in the first place but at the same time the minute Kim realized the dress wasn’t going to fit (which really should have been the minute she looked up pictures of Marilyn in the dress and saw how different their proportions were) she should have scraped the plan to wear the original. But she didn’t. The minute she first tried it on and realized it wasn’t going to fit she should have scraped the plan, but she didn’t. The minute she tired it on again after supposedly losing 16 pounds and it STILL didn’t fit she should have scrapped the plan. But. She. DIDN’T.

    You don’t have to be an expert in textile conservation to realize that trying to squeeze yourself into a 60 year old dress that is too small for you is going damage it. Someone studying to become a lawyer, who has her own shapewear company and fancies themselves some kind of fashion icon is certainly smart enough to realize that the dress was going to be damaged. She knew and she didn’t care. So no this isn’t just on Ripley’s its on Kim too. BOTH Ripley’s and Kim are equally to blame for this imho.

    And yes this is “just a dress” and there are more important things going on in the world, nobody is going to die and the world isn’t going to end because one of Marilyn Monroe’s dresses is now irreparably damaged. But at the same time this is just one example of the irresponsible and frankly selfish ways in which the extremely rich choose to wield their power. In this case what got damaged was “just a dress” but it’s not always “just a dress” you know?

  49. fani says:

    that poor seam.

  50. Mimi says:

    They never should of loaned it to her in the first place! 🙀 SMH

  51. so says:

    This infuriates me.

    Anyone with a measuring tape could have predicted that her fake ass would not fit in that dress. But she is used to always get her way and she thinks there is nothing her money can’t buy… She probably considers herself the 21st century Marylin, so she felt entitled to the dress.

    And the worst in all that ? That outfit was not even ON THEME !! The theme was the Gilded Age (1870-1900), and that dumbass understood Hollywood Golden Age! What a moron…

    • MEL says:

      HAHAHAHAHA!!! Tell us how you really feel!

    • Jenn says:

      Fake no more!! A lot of people think her weight-loss narrative was to cover up the fact that whatever she’d had done to her butt, has now been undone

  52. JRenee says:

    Will Ripleys get to make an insurance claim on the dress? Hmm…

  53. jferber says:

    Ripley’s and Kim were both at fault, but more of the fault lies with Ripley’s. They should never have had that dress. Crass to the extreme. Ripley’s and Kardashian.

  54. BeanieBean says:

    I’d feel sick if this happened on my watch. It’s irreparably damaged. Shame on all concerned.

  55. JD says:

    The way Ripley’s was promoting this they were never going to tell her she couldn’t wear it. Yes, they tried to set their standard by saying it couldn’t be altered but there was never going to be someone from their team telling her she’s too big to wear it. The way they were trying to push the dress over her hips in the video led me to believe that they really wanted her to wear it. They’re not a museum so for them it’s about publicity and less about the collection. It’s a shame because museums otherwise cannot afford to acquire something like her dress. As long as Ripley’s was keeping up with the charade that the fit might work she was never going to say forget it.

  56. Ihatepeople says:

    I dunno. Like who cares? I’m am not a Kim fan, but this is on Ripley’s 100%. It’s honestly just a dress, it won’t be worn again and it will just be out in a case and looked at from the front.

  57. Sonia says:

    so…did she want this look to be as colorless and drab as possible to get Ye’s attention? That seems to be his preferred color scheme.

    Somehow Marilyn did not look colorless and drab at all.

    • HeatherC says:

      Marilyn had that X factor, that zing. I’ve only seen black and white footage of her wearing that dress and she didn’t look as colorless and drab as Kim did in full color.

      • Jennifer says:

        It did not work for the bubble butt, for her skin tone ,or the terrible dye job. She just looked sad.

  58. jferber says:

    It’s not that the dress looked colorless and drab on her. I don’t think she cared about that or even thought the dress MAY have been gorgeous on Marilyn and awful on her (her ego probably equates Marilyn with herself). It’s that it was Marilyn’s dress and she was wearing it. What other celebrity could say that? It’s Marilyn’s cachet she wanted, a thing she will never and could never get. So ghoulish and macabre. Poor Marilyn is resting in peace, but the world still does her wrong ceaselessly.

  59. Haylie says:

    This is all on Ripley’s, who could’ve shut this down we’re it not for the fact that they were heavily promoting this.

    Also, I’m betting lots of museums had the opportunity to buy the dress, but didn’t (or couldn’t). That, unfortunately, is capitalism.

  60. why says:

    anyone with a functioning brain cell (yes, just 1) can see how kim k body will affect/destroyed/altered that dress. ripley and kim k’s team are too dumb and stubborn about that cheap stunt

  61. Katherine says:

    I had a dress with a silk back and the fabric got like this even though the dress was not tight on me… If they wanted to preserve the dress, they shouldn’t have let anyone wear it – silk is very delicate and this dress looks particularly so. Plus the beads – no way to keep that intact unless you are insanely careful. I’d consider lending this dress to a skinny model who has an A type personality and would not sit down or let anything touch the beads, otherwise, they should’ve known most people would damage this dress by wearing it. I personally would not even want to wear it, too much stress.

  62. IdenticalOskae says:

    The purpose of the Met Gala is to raise money for the costume conservation department of the Met. So in true Kardashian spirit, Kim destroyed an antique iconic dress.

  63. r2d2c2 says:

    So they would NOT lend it to Lizzo next year? that’s not right