Met Gala might have ended months ago, but the controversy surrounding Kim Kardashian’s iconic Marilyn Monroe moment continues to create the buzz. Recently, the fashion mogul landed in troubled waters for having caused alleged damage to Marilyn’s 60-year-old iconic Jean
Louis gown that she wore in 1962 to sing ‘Happy Birthday Mr. President’ to John. F. Kennedy.
Not just Kim, Ripley’s Believe It or Not Museum, the rightful owner of this bedazzling gown, also faced flak for lending such an iconic piece of fashion history for a costume gala. With the before and after photos of one of the world’s most expensive dresses circulating online like a wildfire, Ripley’s has finally decided to address the issue. The Museum denied the claims of alleged damage caused to the dress ever since Kim wore to climb the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the first Monday of May 2022.
Sharing a FAQ-inspired post, Ripley’s tried to answer all the questions they have received about the issue so far. Speaking about the ‘damaged’ dress in question they stated that “a report written on the dress’s condition in 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," amongst the other instances of damage. Kim Kardashian wearing the dress has been hotly contested, but she did not personally 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," said Ripley's VP of Publishing and Licensing, Amanda Joiner, who was with the dress during its journey from Orlando to New York as well as throughout the day of the Met Gala, reported People.
Along with this, Ripley’s also addressed other issues pertaining to Monroe’s statement piece such as why it was lent in the first place or did either of the party paid the other for this Met Gala stunt. However, netizens did not seem to be quite satisfied with the explanation provided and said that it shouldn’t have been sourced out in the first place. “Ohh geez excuses after excuses the dress shouldn’t have been loaned in the first place period,” wrote one, “A little too late for damage control. It was an idiotic decision and you know it. You're catching hell and heat for this. That dress dropped value no matter what you say,” commented another.
Seems like this is a never-ending controversy with much more to unfold. What are your thoughts on this?
(Source- People, Ripley’s Believe It Or Not)