Baggy.  Shapeless.  Sleeveless.  Wow, it really takes quite the woman to pull off this look, at yet some women did, even if it wasn’t quite the potato sack that comes to mind when you think about the “sack dress.”  Though the actual dress wouldn’t catch on in its original form, the dress revolutionized the way women thought about the way the dressed.

Flappers kind of had the idea going back in the Roaring 20s, but once that scene got wiped out by the Great Depression and the nation started on the road to economic recovery, women were wanting as much vogue and frivolity as they could possibly get, and let’s face it, loose just wasn’t going to cut it.  So, it’s pretty easy to see that when Hubert de Givenchy and Cristobal Balenciaga introduced the sack dress in 1955, the style didn’t exactly take off.  In fact, the Paris press had a field day, hurling insults at Givenchy over the whole matter.  Though perhaps an overly dramatic response, many just found the look “ugly.”  It was a complete 180 from the cinched waistlines and girdles that were popular at the time. 

Though women would reject the look at the time, Givenchy and Balenciaga would be later seen as revolutionaries, as women took to the stores in search of the shift dress, a modified version of their sack dress.  It followed feminine lines more closely than the sack dress, yet gave ample room to maneuver in.  Women like Audrey Hepburn (a Givenchy muse) and Jackie Kennedy would further persuade women that the look was quite beautiful on its own.  Suddenly sleek and sophisticated, the look was picked up around the globe, catching the attention of mod favorite, Mary Quant, who would bring the clean and neat look into her line of clothing. 

The look became one of girlhood; less sex, more charm.  It was innocent, even when skin was being shown.  Paired with the perfect pair of gloves or the right handbag or pillbox hat, there were few looks that could be quite as polished.  Hey, at least it wasn’t a gunny sack!