Ripley’s Museum claims Kim Kardashian didn’t damage Marilyn Monroe’s dress

Earlier this week, the Marilyn Monroe collection posted before-and-after photos of Marilyn’s famous Jean Louis dress, the one she wore to sing “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” to JFK. Kim Kardashian borrowed the dress from the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Museum in Florida. Ripley’s purchased the dress at auction in 2016, and the dress had already been bought and sold a few times before then. Ripley’s lent out the dress to Kim Kardashian for the Met Gala, despite the fact that she couldn’t fit her ass, thighs or boobs in it. Kim reportedly left the dress unzipped for the red carpet, then changed into a replica for the actual gala (once the red carpet was done).

I wondered how the MM Collection even got their hands on the dress to monitor it for damage, considering one would think that Ripley’s has their own in-house restorers/costume-repairers. But the MM Collection did seem to get a look at the dress after Kim wore it and they were beyond pissed at the damage Kim did to it. Several of the crystals were lost/popped off. The fabric was stretched and frayed. The zipper was f–ked. But now Ripley’s claims that actually, it’s fine? Ripley’s posted this press release “debunking” the MM Collection’s claims:

Kim Kardashian’s walk up the Metropolitan Museum’s stairs at this year’s Met Gala caused quite the stir, but one thing Ripley’s Believe It or Not! can say with confidence is that it did not cause damage to Marilyn Monroe’s famed “Happy Birthday” dress from 1962.

Ripley’s Believe It or Not! is not the first owner of this dress. It was acquired at a Julien’s Auctions event in 2016 for $4.8 million. A report written on the dress’s condition in early 2017 states, “a number of the seams are pulled and worn. This is not surprising given how delicate the material is. There is puckering at the back by the hooks and eyes,” among other instances of damage.

Kim Kardashian wearing the “Happy Birthday” dress has been hotly contested, but the fact remains that she did not, in any way, damage the garment in the short amount of time it was worn at the Met Gala.

“From the bottom of the Met steps, where Kim got into the dress, to the top where it was returned, the dress was in the same condition it started in,” noted Ripley’s VP of Publishing and Licensing, Amanda Joiner, who was continuously with the dress the day of the Gala and during transport from Orlando to New York.

A recent social media post asked, “Was it worth it?” Kim Kardashian did not pay Ripley’s Believe It or Not! to wear the dress, nor did the company pay her. Rather, Kardashian made a charitable donation to two charities in the greater Orlando area on behalf of the company. Ripley’s Believe It or Not! will continue to exhibit the dress — in as-is condition — at Ripley’s Believe It or Not! Hollywood through Fall 2022.

[From Ripley’s]

Yeah… what?? “Ripley’s VP of Publishing and Licensing, Amanda Joiner”? Is Ms. Joiner a costuming expert or professional fashion archivist? Does she have a professional background in seamstressing, fabric preservation or clothing repair? When you’ve got your VP of Publishing swearing up and down that the dress wasn’t compromised in the least, you’re panicking.

The MM Collection responded with a lengthy IG statement and the before-and-after photos, which they say were taken 52 days apart, before and after the gala. Kim damaged the gown.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instar and Avalon Red.

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

85 Responses to “Ripley’s Museum claims Kim Kardashian didn’t damage Marilyn Monroe’s dress”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. C says:

    That is the best caption ever. Stating Ripley’s is to blame and then proceeding to detail the damage and call both Kim and Anna Wintour into question. Love to see it.

    • Sandra says:

      Watching the clip it sees as though the staff trying to get it over her butt may have weakened or damaged it.

      I am not a professional but they are essentially trying to roll it up her body even though having to do that should have been a clear indication she did NOT fit.

      • zinjazin says:

        The women handling it doesnt seem careful at all!! It looks like they are trying to stuff and squeeze a sausage with pure brute force wtf??😳

  2. Ariel says:

    I do not care about this dress. It is a dress worn by an actress before we were born.
    The dress is old as dirt, and every time it is held, moved, put in a garment bag, it is going to disintegrate a little. So the trip to Kim probably damaged it, and her wearing it for 3 minutes damaged it. If the Marylin people are so upset, they shouldn’t have let Ripley’s buy it. Ripley’s is a for profit company with “museum” tickets to sell at multiple locations. They are getting publicity they could not have paid for out of this *scandal*.

    • C says:

      You don’t have to care about it, but it is a piece of history.
      Handling requirements in curatorial and archive spaces are there for a reason. There are absolutely ways to transport and care for items without further damage. That doesn’t include trying to fit a larger frame into it.
      Ripley’s is exactly as you said, a for profit company. The MM Collection is affiliated with a private collector who probably couldn’t match the almost $5 million Ripley’s paid for it at auction. It’s a fortunate thing that the collection itself seems to be run more like an actual archive than most private collections given that the owner has worked with auction houses and other archivists.

      • Wiglet Watcher, says:

        Everything is a piece of history. That doesn’t mean everything is priceless or means we as a society cannot advance without preserving it.

        This was a dress a mistress was sewn into to perform in front of her lover’s wife. MM should be remembered, but never for this! This was not a highlight of her life and shouldn’t be revered as such

    • Arizona says:

      I agree. it’s also not like it’s iconic because it was in one of her films – I could understand being upset about the seven year itch white dress, for instance. that’s important to film and costume history.

      this is a dress she wore to sing happy birthday sexily at a president she was supposedly having an affair with. it’s not actually that important, and while I’ve seen the footage many times, I couldn’t have told you what she was wearing. I can now though, so thanks Kim and Ripley lmao.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        Next time people saw her in public, she was dead. So if you don’t care about the historical nature of the event with the President, and there is no debate as to whether it is historical or not, then maybe you might consider the fact that due to her relationship with the President and AG, she did mot make it past 36.

      • Arizona says:

        @thatsnotokay so now the dress is important because you think the president had her murdered? lord.

      • Seraphina says:

        There has been speculation and conspiracy theories out there that MM was done in due to her relationships with the Kennedy men. I put nothing past those who want to keep power – hell, Joe lobotomized his own daughter. There is a book about Rosemary Kennedy. It was a great read and I could not put it down. Rosemary the hidden Kennedy – I think is the title but it’s been years since I read it.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        @Arizona If you knew the history you would know. She either overdosed because she was despondent over RK ending it with her (and when he found out, the cleaners cleaned up the “mess”) or something else happened. I didn’t say they murder her, you did. Lordt.

      • Kari says:

        @Arizona Uh, this dress is very much iconic, whether or not it was in a film or not. I have known about this dress and seen it in popular culture since as long as I can remember. Not sure why we need to debate it’s iconic status….

    • Eurydice says:

      You’d care about it if you’d paid $5 million for it.

      • Arizona says:

        sure, but literally none of us did that. 🙄

      • Eurydice says:

        My point is that just because you don’t care doesn’t mean the dress isn’t important to others.

      • XOXO says:

        The people who paid $5mil don’t care, or rather, aren’t accusing Kim of damaging the gown.
        The MM collection need to let it go, they don’t own the dress. I understand the first complaint, but they’re doing too much now, IMO.

      • C says:

        I don’t agree they’re doing too much. People are flippant about historical objects, as we can see here. That person isn’t taking out billboards or anything but making some decent points.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I see that some people don’t care about things like the Costume Institute, or historic preservation, but they exist because many people do love museums and find value in preserving, not destroying, beautiful and interesting historical artwork and other items for future generations to view in public settings. This dress is not the Mona Lisa, obviously, but it’s beautiful and interesting to many people.

      It honestly sounds like some of you don’t think museums should exist. Like that “burn the dress” comment from yesterday.

      • molly says:

        I don’t care about a lot of things that don’t impact me, but I also recognize that plenty of people DO care. And is the dress more important than war? No, but people can care about more than one thing at once.

      • Eloise says:

        If a private collection destroyed a Van Gogh would you care? What makes a historical dress less important to you than a painting? Just because it wasn’t donated or able to be afforded by a museum and instead went to a collector doesn’t mean it should not be taken care of as a part of history and as a part of the art world, which fashion and costume design (whether you appreciate them or not) are a part of

    • Seraphina says:

      This dress is iconic regardless if we were born when worn or not. I was not. BUT for fashion enthusiasts (me) and history lovers (also me), this dress is vastly important due to who wore it and the waves it caused when she wore it. Supposedly it was quite scandalous. Let’s not forget the alleged affairs.
      This dress is old. Yes it will fall apart with time and handling Hell, years ago brides in the US would pay good money to have their wedding dress cleaned and preserved – and we are talking about MM and her happy birthday dress.
      I found this entire story very interesting. I am not passionate about it, but I also understand why many are pissed.

  3. Seaflower says:

    If she didn’t damage it, them more shame on Ripley’s for lending it out in such a delicate condition.

  4. Merricat says:

    Good for MMC. I’d love to hear what Wintour has to say.

    • Nem says:

      She will do as she did for weinstein, Mario testino, etc., the ostrich position until that story goes.
      She doesn’t care for anything but herself, so no action unless she has to do it.
      The ones with love for fashion at vogue usa were grace coddington and André Léon talley.
      on Twitter, a person has shown it wasn’t the only mess at the met gala, a stolen during colonization Indian maradjah Diamond necklace was worn by an influencer.

      • C says:

        Yeah, Emma Chamberlain in the Maharaja of Patiala’s diamond choker. Why Cartier thought that was a good look I have no idea. I don’t understand her appeal, either.

  5. JD says:

    Who (or what) is the MM Collection? Are they affiliated with the estate of Marilyn Monroe? I thought it was a private collector.

  6. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Or not.

  7. Colby says:

    Just here to say: can we not with the “who cares it’s just a dress!!!” comments?

    Fashion is an art form. If it’s not one you care about that’s fine, but please don’t trivialize it. Also, it’s not “just a dress.” It was part of a moment in our cultural history.

    • C says:

      Seriously. If people don’t care about it then that’s fine, but to claim it’s not important is just not true. It was worn in front of the world in front of one of the most iconic presidents as part of a major scandal and days before her death, and this incident might even have ties to her death.

    • Driver8 says:

      This^^^ I’m gobsmacked by some of the flippant remarks I’m reading. This dress IS iconic. It’s a part of a moment in American history!

      • BothSidesNow says:

        I am as well. MM singing to JFK was a moment in history that was extremely controversial at that time. MM is a icon and was well educated as well as being an icon then as she is now.

        As for Ripley’s response, I don’t give a rats a$$ about their statement, though I fully support the MMC statement. As they are trained professionals to maintain the historic gown that has transcended decades. It widely apparent that KK could NOT fit into the dress!! They should have pulled the plug as soon as they realized it wouldn’t go over his hips yet alone cover her arse. KK ruined the dress!! The mere simple act of sitting in the dress would have caused drastic damages.

        Ripley’s and KK are it are guilty for destroying this dress.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      But how will people cape for KK without dismissing the importance of the damage her narcissism wrought once again?/s

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        This!! That’s what this is all about. Kim can’t be blamed for destroying that dress because it wasn’t important to begin with.

    • Seraphina says:

      @C and @Colby – thank you. I did not see your comments before I posted.

      • Kit says:

        I worked in fashion for years, if Kim was genuinely interested on Art/Fashion she would never have worn this dress. Anyone would tell you de minute she wore this iconic historic dress de value would have dropped as this dress was tailored to only fit Marilyn. Makeup, perfume, her body Shape would have altered it weather it was damaged or not. The fault here lies with de owner for renting it out for money , never should of happened, appalling really.

    • Ange says:

      Exactly! A lot of ordinary fashion becomes iconic just by existing well beyond when it was made. This dress has a lot more popular cultural reference, it deserves a bit more respect than ‘it’s just a dress’. Fashion is part of history whether you like it or not.

  8. ΝΞΞΝΔ ΖΞΞ says:

    I usually don’t follow or post about the Kardashians… but I don’t understand why Kim is getting slammed for this. All she did was make a request. Both Ripley’s and the MMC could have denied the request and she would’ve found something else to wear to the Met Gala. I hope the donations were worth it… everyone knows the K’s do things for the media effect.

    • Colby says:

      Just Ripleys. MMC doesn’t own it or have any control of it

    • Swack says:

      Once she knew she wouldn’t fit in it she should have not worn it. That is on her. She also had a duplicate made to wear after her red carpet appearance. Should have worn that one as it fit her.

      • Mel says:

        Exactly, once she realized it wasn’t going to fit, she should have left it alone. Frankly, all she should have done is maybe borrow it to copy but not to wear. Every vintage item isn’t suitable for wear.

    • Josephine says:

      I somehow doubt that “all” she did was make a request, and even if she did, it was not an appropriate request. She’s not a 2-year old child who could not understand the consequences of her actions. There is plenty of blame to be shared here, so let’s not pretend that she didn’t use her social media status to get what she wanted.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      So you’re comfortable with people asking for things (waving a lot of money around) because they feel entitled to take anything they want? I’d love to hear more about this. At what point is a 40 year old human with tons of money who (supposedly) runs a company responsible for her own requests?

      • Colbyj says:

        I don’t think anyone is dismissing Kim’s complete narcissism here. We’re all annoyed that she could buy her way to damaging this cultural artifact and that she was willing to do so to satisfy her ego. That’s really infuriating.

        However, the dress was in the complete and total control of Ripleys. They could and should have said no. The buck stops with them and this is on their head, period.

      • michyk says:

        i mean, people can ask for whatever they want. i ask for extras all the time (usually at restaurants), and sometimes i get it, and sometimes i don’t, and sometimes i pay extra for it all (which is fine with me, too).

        as colby says, ripley’s has total control of the dress, and at the end of the day, they’re the ones who deserve 100% total blame for this. sure, kim is a narcissist, all for publicity, etc etc. it’s not like she popped into ripleys and no one knew who she was or why she was doing this. ripleys thought the payoff would be worth it in terms of publicity.

        again, they could have said no at ANY time. and the didn’t.
        people might be upset that kim even had the audacity to ask, but all of this happened because the owner of the dress lent it out to someone it didn’t fit.

    • susan says:

      Lemme start by saying I am not a fan of that trashy fam…BUT…

      if this dress is SO valuable, SO special, SO important, why then does it belong to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! rather than being in the Smithsonian?

      I think it IS an important piece of history, but honestly, I’m glad she wore it. I thought she looked fabulous, and the alleged wear and tear was probably worth it. Better than it crumbling to dust in some archival locker.

      • C says:

        People have asked why it’s not in a place like the Smithsonian but I don’t think that’s really fair. Acquisitions of this kind are dependent on so many things, like funding, curatorial vision, etc. A lot of decisions are made in the archival world to focus on on artifact or another but it doesn’t detract from their historic value just because a certain institution didn’t pick it up.
        It doesn’t belong in Ripley’s, but they had the money to outbid everyone because they’re not a nonprofit. It’s really that simple. Archival lockers wouldn’t allow it to crumble, that’s not how they work. This damage is irreparable and not worth it. The fact that she only wore it for a brief time (but probably the most damaging given the lights and photography etc) shows that she knew it was delicate.

      • Colby says:

        @C so much this.

        Unless someone’s family or estate has the forethought to donate items like this, museums will be outbid by individuals or places like Ripleys. And often pieces in museums are on loan from individuals.

        I’m sure there are a lot of pieces of art in private collections that the LACMA or the Met wish they had.

      • stagaroni says:

        The dress was sold at auction for $4.8 Million. It was a record at the time. Most museums do not have the funding to buy items at such a cost. The dress was made by academy award winning designer Jean Louis. MM appeared almost nude when she not only sang to the President, but to the 15,000 members of the Democratic Party who was there for a fundraiser. Yes, this dress is hold significance; not only in fashion history, but in political history.

        It is unfortunate that people give so little thought to this piece. How is it worth the few minutes of self-aggrandizement that KK felt in comparison to the ruination of a culturally significant gown? It is selfish and ignorant.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Colby, that is the problem at present. It’s a shame that people or companies purchase artifacts or paintings to which they loan to museums, only wanting it for selfish reasons.

  9. Lemons says:

    I don’t really care about this dress, but I do understand it as a historical artifact and as such, should be handled with care by those charged with it. And that wasn’t done. Kim’s vanity is just mind-blowing. She literally wore a dress that did not fit her. She could not show the dress because it did not close on her. We would have seen her Spanx or SKIMs instead of the dress. She wasn’t even tall enough to wear it.

    Rihanna did it better. I wish we could also stop talking about it because it just feeds Kim’s ego.

  10. Jessica says:

    Textile and fashion history is just as important as any other form of cultural history. So much textile history has been lost to time because we didn’t have proper methods of preservation. Now we do. Saying “it’s just a dress” or “it’s just a piece of fabric” makes no sense unless you think fashion history is trivial because of its feminine connotations. Sculptures are *just* pieces of rock. Paintings are *just* decorated canvasses. See how absurd and trivialising it sounds when applied to something that isn’t primarily associated with women? Textile history and fashion preservation are important and worthy cultural endeavours. They’re the entire reason the Met Gala exists. This particular dress is a piece of history because MM singing Happy Birthday to JFK is an iconic moment. It doesn’t have to personally resonate with you for that to be true.

  11. DCGal says:

    This never should have been allowed to happen. It starts and ends with KK’s huge ego. I have no respect for her anymore on any level. Sure the various institutions could have said no, but she never should have asked. Of course she damaged the dress in some way. She’s a totally different body type. Ridiculous

    • Jessica says:

      Yep, it starts with her ego. She’s always tried to associate herself with MM. Kanye used to call her the modern Marilyn. They are delusional. Kim is a major pop culture figure, I’ll give her that whether I like it or not, but she has next to nothing in common with MM apart from both being “sex symbols”. Kim wanted to wear Marilyn’s skin no matter the cost. There have been times when I’ve been on Kim’s side (her divorce from Kanye), but there’s just so much about her that’s problematic and messy. This incident is the epitome of her self-centeredness. All along the way, this could have been stopped: by Kim, Anna and Ripley’s. No one gets off the hook here. I see some people trying to absolve Kim and put it all on Ripley’s. Sorry, everyone is to blame.

      • windyriver says:

        And the irony is, wearing that dress showed how much KK was NOT like Marilyn. On Marilyn, that dress was iconic. On Kim, though it was a pretty enough dress, it actually looked sort of boring, and totally nothing special.

    • Southern Fried says:

      KK trashes up any and everything she touches imo. She and her crass azz family are a blight on American culture.

  12. Laura says:

    That dress was devalued the moment they placed it on Kim_they should just give it to her at this point.

    The purpose of the dress is to remind us of Marilyn’s iconic beauty, however profit defeated the purpose. Ripley’s sold out for clout and profit so Kim could live out some twisted fantasy.

    The structural integrity of a sixty year old dress was never going to hold out on Kim or anyone’s body. The damage was bound to happen.

  13. Lightpurple says:

    There was so much of her butt, a good 6 inches, sticking out. And is that a ribbon tying the top of it closed? Whatever happened before about loaning the dress is one problem but her decision to keep it on when she saw that much of her bottom sticking out and stretching the fabric is another. She should have taken it off the second she realized multiple people were needed to shove it over her thighs, not after they pulled it over that fake butt and she walked around in it.

    • Kitten says:

      I’m sure she was well-aware of the fact that it was originally tailored to Marilyn’s body–not Kim’s– but just didn’t give a shit because Kim wants what Kim wants.

      • Who what why says:

        I will never understand why people care about her wearing some old dress.

      • stagaroni says:

        @who what
        “I will never understand why people care about her wearing some old dress.”

        Some people care about preservation of history, and some people don’t. Thankfully, those who care have left us a treasure trove of historical artifacts so that we can not only learn about the past, but can see with our own eyes items from that time period. I will be forever grateful to them. Maybe someday you will too.

  14. Call Me Mabel says:

    Just curious here. Without looking it up, can anyone tell me where Marilyn’s white dress from The Seven Year Itch or her pink ‘Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend’ outfit are today?

    • C says:

      The white one and one of the pink ones still extant were sold to private collectors. They had belonged to Debbie Reynolds who had hoped more than ever to found a museum to house her collection of Hollywood memorabilia but she had to auction them off for lack of money to care for them which was very painful for her.

  15. ChillinginDC says:

    I can think Kim and Ripley’s both are to blame for this. And Ripley’s lying their butt off because I am sure Mama Kris told them to step in here so her daughter would stop trending for this probably had something to do with their BS statement.

    Also as my friend pointed out, if it was so bad of a condition as Ripley’s said, why TF did they loan it out then? Why did Kim even think of wearing it? She looked terrible in it anyway.

  16. Delphine says:

    Can the people who don’t think the dress is important just STFU? I’m 48 years old and I’ve known about this dress and its significance since I was a child. It was a huge scandal for her to wear a see-through dress with no underwear while singing to the president, and it was the last dress she wore to a public event before her death. It’s also just a beautiful design. A LOT of people care about this dress, just because you don’t get it or think it’s stupid to care doesn’t change that.

  17. Rapunzel says:

    Okay so notice the VP of publishing and licensing says, “From the bottom of the Met steps, where Kim got into the dress, to the top where it was returned, the dress was in the same condition it started in”

    And the article starts, “Kim Kardashian’s walk up the Metropolitan Museum’s stairs at this year’s Met Gala caused quite the stir, but one thing Ripley’s Believe It or Not! can say with confidence is that it did not cause damage to Marilyn Monroe’s famed “Happy Birthday” dress from 1962.”

    This is very very careful language saying it wasn’t damaged by the walk at the Met Gala only. But it does not say that the dress was the same as when they leant it.

    What this says to me is the dress was damaged when she put it on. Not while walking at the gala. And they are using semantics to defend her and hope nobody notices.

    TL;DR: Ripley’s may say she didn’t damage the dress walking at the gala, but they don’t say it came back as it was leant. Kim probably damaged it putting it on.

    • Talia says:

      This. She didn’t show up naked, get dressed at the bottom of the steps, walk up then strip off at the top.

      She put the dress on elsewhere and I assume travelled in a motor vehicle (did she sit down / lean back on the seat – that could cause damage). If she got dressed then walked to the venue or got dressed backstage, that still leaves the ‘getting dressed’ part of the evening to cause the damage.

      She then had to get the dress off again. I think the times most likely to cause damage are getting the dress on and getting it off.

  18. North of Boston says:

    This may be a strange comparison, but this mess is reminding me of the Jeopardy mess – a for-profit company joining up with a self-centered entitled idiot with money/power to trash something many people value for crass short-sighted reasons, including look at me attention.

    Even the lame walk-back / denial attempts fit the mold.

    Just because people *can* doesn’t mean they should.

  19. Aitana says:

    She did damage the dress I’m certain. There’s absolutely no way it would’ve fit her. The dress was made to fit & be worn by Marilyn. It was tailored to her specifically & it was tailored to fit skin tight, so much do that the night Marilyn wore it there was some damage & it had to be hand seen while she was still wearing it before her appearance @ the convention…this was prolly due to alcohol bloat bcz from what I understand she was quite inebriated that night. Marilyn was very late for her appearance there due to her drinking, the alcohol bloat, then add the time the seamstress had to literally see her into a dress that was specifically tailored to fit her skintight. Decades after the fact & Kim K. wants to try to fit into it?!?!! Very selfish of Kim K. & IMHO she deserves all the criticism she’s getting. She cud have EASILY just worn the replica dress the whole time & announced that she was paying tribute to Marilyn, but no, that wouldn’t get her enuf outrage, tweets & discussion. Kim & all the Kardashians R just trash & they have to continually pull stunts like this to stay relevant. So very sad.

  20. TheOriginalMia says:

    The fact they had to wear gloves and roll it over her spanxxed thighs should have been a clear warning sign that she shouldn’t be wearing that dress. Why go through all of that when there was a replica ready and available? Nope, she just had to put on Marilyn’s dress because she’s a sex symbol like her, dontcha know?

  21. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Maybe it’s been a set-up to whip up viewership for Blonde.

  22. Sean says:

    What’s going to come of this, I wonder? Is the MM Collection going to see if it can be restored? Is someone going to pay for restitution? If so, who’s going to ask for compensation and who would be liable for it? Ripley’s because they lent it out? Kim because she actually caused the damage? I wonder it there’s an insurance policy that may cover it?

    The dress is a historical artifact and I understand the outrage over its treatment, but what is the MM Collection hoping to gain out of this? To shame Kim? If so, why bother. She has none.

    Maybe they’re (rightfully) angry and just want to express their outrage and possibly warn others about Kim having no regard for historical items?

    • C says:

      I think this person knows that Kim has no shame and there’s no point in discussing that. But it is worth examining the policies of Ripley’s if they’ll go to these lengths to cater to a celebrity at the expense of their pieces, and also shining a light on whether Wintour has any right to be in affiliation with anything regarding the Costume Institute including its most publicized fundraiser if she can’t even understand garment preservation. There are a lot of wealthy notable people who go to this event – it’s possible there will be other situations like this.

  23. Melissa says:

    I actually care less than even before! The MM collection is not being fair with the lighting of those two photos. And I’m not sure why they’re even bitching if they don’t own/control the dress? Not yours? Get over it! It’s not like the public who wants to go and see the dress in a museum someday is going to care about some fraying at the back – if they even see it.

    • Ange says:

      Believe it or not it doesn’t matter if the public sees the damage, that’s not the issue.

    • kirk says:

      “The MM collection is not being fair with the lighting of those two photos.” If you believe accreditation they posted for the photos, they didn’t even control that process, much less the actual dress:

      1. “Screenshots from Ripley’s May 2 IG reel of JFK dress fitting on April 21 in Orlando” – So, just screenshots of someone else’s posted video.

      2. “The dress on display at Ripley’s Hollywood CA on June 12. Photo copyright ChadMichaelMorisette” – Was the photo taken through a glass barrier, at a distance, or where flash photography was not allowed? Who’s ChadMichaelMorisette and what is his connection, if any, to Scott Fortner and the Marilyn Monroe Collection? Photoshopped?

  24. candy says:

    I thought this was a fun idea until it…did not fit her. Marilyn was so beautiful, iconic, and unique in many ways. I’m not surprised the dress was so lackluster on boring plastic Kim.

  25. Twinkle says:

    So Ripley’s is incompetent. That’s what they’re basically admitting to.

  26. KC says:

    I think it’s fine for the MM to care and it might be strange for them not to because it’s in their personal interests to care. The rest of us regulars can feel however we want about this silly business of Kim’s and how it affects what is considered by many to be an iconic piece of history …..annoyed, appalled, aghast, apathetic, awash.

    I also think, they’re getting a lot of media mileage out of this. Considering all they may have lost over the damaged dress (maybe even they’re wanting to do their part to highlight it and prevent future occurrences) if they’re not violent or inciting violence they get a pass for milking this for what it’s worth. I just really don’t want to hear any tomfoolery a year or so down the road about this being bullying or damaging the careers of AW or KK🙄. That being said, we’re all adults with agency and I can choose to tune in or not.

  27. Houlihan says:

    Their phrasing is awfully suspect. From the bottom of the stairs to the top, it was in the same state? Soooo the damage occurred prior to that, one of the previous times when she tried it on, had it rolled over her hips by hand, and attempted to get the zipper up. That phrasing is just too specific to not be a tell.