3.51 avg rating — 31,613 ratings

"A bustle on the Titanic? I think not."

3.63 avg rating — 1,233 ratings

"Not even pseudo-Tudor; if anything, it's pseudo-Medieval."

3.82 avg rating — 305,255 ratings

"Definitely not a dress from the 1920s. 1950s, maybe."

3.92 avg rating — 2,445 ratings

"Blurb suggests Elizabethan, cover says "Regency.""

3.65 avg rating — 74,266 ratings

"1860 I might believe; 1899? No."

3.87 avg rating — 3,344 ratings

"Clearly not Medieval; an attempt at Victorian I would believe."

3.74 avg rating — 739 ratings

"I don't buy mid-1500s for this one. "

3.71 avg rating — 3,240 ratings

"Blub says "16th century," cover says "18th century.""

4.15 avg rating — 1,783 ratings

"Blurb suggests Medieval, dress in the top half suggests either 17th Century or Victorian."

3.55 avg rating — 76 ratings

"Viking-Era anything this is not. Looks more Tudor than Anglo-Saxon!"

3.74 avg rating — 8,195 ratings

"It's a "Flapper" dress with a high Empire waist! Whut?"

3.83 avg rating — 2,856 ratings

"Blurb says 1820, dress is closer to 1770? (Well, closer to that than 1820, anyway.)"

3.91 avg rating — 1,728 ratings

"Setting is c. 1060, dress is c. 1360."

4.05 avg rating — 93,442 ratings

"Can't see the dress itself very well, but the hair is just wrong."

3.69 avg rating — 23,605 ratings

"That dress is not 1803. I don't know what it is, but it's not that."

3.86 avg rating — 366 ratings

"Blurb says 1901, cover says 1951."

3.79 avg rating — 3,282 ratings

"That's a very 1970s shade of orange, dear, on your supposedly 19th century dress."

3.68 avg rating — 745 ratings

"It's Tudor meets Burlesque!"

3.91 avg rating — 1,387 ratings

"Not even pseudo-Tudor, but pseudo-18th century. With a seam in the middle of the bodice???"

3.78 avg rating — 3,151 ratings

"Blurb says "Regency," cover says "New Look." Only 150 years off!"

3.76 avg rating — 1,142 ratings

"Book: 1555. Neckline: 1805? Not even getting into the hair."

3.91 avg rating — 1,298 ratings

"Book: 1497. Dress: bizarre cross between 1597 and 1797."

3.82 avg rating — 1,785 ratings

"Setting: c. 1780. Dress: c. 1915."

3.81 avg rating — 1,320 ratings

"Not anywhere near "Elizabethan"! High-waisted with white eyelet lace and a v-neck and caplet sleeves? Whut?"

3.63 avg rating — 5,978 ratings

"Blurb: 1860. Cover: 1760. "

3.91 avg rating — 2,119 ratings

"Blurb: 15th century. Dress: either Regency or (idealized) ancient Greek."

3.56 avg rating — 560 ratings

"The 18th century did not do plunging v-necked backs."

3.99 avg rating — 511 ratings

"Blurb: 12th century. Cover: 16th century. Actually, I think this is an attested portrait of Elizabeth I, with its head chopped off."

4.13 avg rating — 6,347 ratings

"Supposedly this book is set in 1829? Where are her gigot sleeves? Skirt not full enough (should be almost bell-shaped), either. Back just wrong. For that matter, where's her huge feathered hat?"

4.05 avg rating — 985,536 ratings

"That is not a Regency silhouette."

really liked it 4.00 avg rating — 48 ratings

"Blurb says "Regency," dress on cover says "18th century.""

3.81 avg rating — 133,244 ratings

"This dress is neither 1815, or 1830. Possibly 1315."

3.93 avg rating — 7,890 ratings

"Setting: 1835 London. Cover looks more like 1955. Victorians did not do plunging V backlines."

3.49 avg rating — 391 ratings

"Setting: 1837. Cover: front-lacing Regency shift (out for 20 years by that point), in red satin, so clearly not an undergarment. Her skirt should be bell-shaped and the bodice have enormous sleeves. And no front-lacing."

3.40 avg rating — 98 ratings

"In 1855 women's dresses looked nothing like this. The skirt was twice as full and wide, for one thing - think hoop skirts a la Gone with the Wind."

3.67 avg rating — 9 ratings

""Disco Queen" I would believe."

3.80 avg rating — 2,371 ratings

"This is not a regency ball gown; this is a 1980s prom dress. "

4.06 avg rating — 80,979 ratings

"Blurb says "1848," cover says "1948." What's a century between friends?"

3.77 avg rating — 1,973 ratings

"The zipper went on the market in 1913. Yet here it is on the cover of a book set in 1838!"

3.82 avg rating — 764 ratings

"This is not an 1815 dress - plunging back (you can see her ass crack) and what is obviously a billowing, full skirt."

3.37 avg rating — 49 ratings

"Setting: c. 1410. Cover: c. 1810. (Seriously, not only is there an empire waist, I think she's wearing a spenser.)"

3.81 avg rating — 4,844 ratings

"Blurb: 15th century. Dress: 18th century."

3.91 avg rating — 3,911 ratings

"Isabella, the she-wolf of France: c. 1325. Dress on cover: c. 1575."

3.49 avg rating — 3,431 ratings

"This would be a nice cover, if the book were set in the 1700s. Instead, it is set in the 1880s."

4.10 avg rating — 21,796 ratings

"This is a story set in about 1750; the cover is Regency."

3.10 avg rating — 21 ratings

"Setting: 1066. Pop-up collar? Dress looks like an attempt at 1700. Not Saxon or Norman *anything*."

3.86 avg rating — 380,358 ratings

3.54 avg rating — 89 ratings

"This is straight history/bio, and look at the cover! No one was wearing ruffs, let alone big ginormous ones, in the first third of the 1500s. I'd date that look to late in Elizabeth's reign, or early in James I's."

4.05 avg rating — 17,668 ratings

"Book: 1086. Cover: not that! Plunging backless dress with that waistline is just *wrong* for the entire medieval period."

4.02 avg rating — 951 ratings

"Book: 1102. Cover: New from Mattel, the Marie Antoinette Barbie!"

4.09 avg rating — 1,298,532 ratings

"Book: Regency. Should have straight skirt, empire waist. Cover: 1850s. Huge hoop skirts and a shawl, for starters."

4.23 avg rating — 40,753 ratings

"Blurb: 1888. Cover: 1910."

3.90 avg rating — 265 ratings

"Setting: 1811. Cover: mid-20th century. The 19th century in general did not do single shoulder straps. The waist is at the natural waistline, which isn't Regency, either."

3.80 avg rating — 292 ratings

"Setting: 1415 or thereabouts. Cover: 1750 or thereabouts."

3.94 avg rating — 82,915 ratings

"Setting: 1779. Cover: a friend of mine had a prom dress that looked very much like this, back in the early 80s. That's 1980s, not 1780s."

3.88 avg rating — 3,567 ratings

"This is a Regency (1819), while the cover is an attempt at something from 50-75 years earlier, in the mid-1700s."

3.95 avg rating — 5,953 ratings

"Setting: 1885. Cover: 1815."

3.71 avg rating — 159 ratings

"Setting: King John (d. 1216). Cover: Tudor. With bare shoulders? Anyway, certainly not medieval, or even an attempt at it."

4.04 avg rating — 687 ratings

"Setting: American Revolution (1770s). Cover: 1810."

4.08 avg rating — 2,480 ratings

"Setting: 1819. Cover: (an attempt at) 1775."

3.95 avg rating — 3,682 ratings

"Cover: Regency ballgown, c. 1815. Setting: 1860. Should have big crinolines a la Gone with the Wind."

3.96 avg rating — 182,822 ratings

"Plunging backless dresses are not a thing for the entire Medieval era, the entire Tudor era, the Stuarts, the 18th or 19th centuries!!!!"

3.92 avg rating — 119 ratings

"Setting: c. 1560. Cover: My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding."

4.09 avg rating — 373 ratings

"Cover: c. 1775
Setting: c. 1835"

3.89 avg rating — 1,452 ratings

"Setting: 1875. Cover: 1525."

4.51 avg rating — 960 ratings

"Setting: 1234 AD. Cover: modern bridal portrait."

really liked it 4.00 avg rating — 5 ratings

"Setting: 1840s. Cover: 1940s."

4.10 avg rating — 4,012 ratings

"Setting: 1818. Cover: 1930s."

3.86 avg rating — 1,317 ratings

"Setting: 1895. Cover: 1950s."

3.78 avg rating — 172 ratings

"Setting: 1871. The skirt is too full, and is lacking a bustle, which was in the height of fashion in the first half of the 1870s."

3.77 avg rating — 12,785 ratings

"Lovely cover - for a book set in the 1950s. This is a "gilded age" setting, so the later 19th century."

3.65 avg rating — 7,106 ratings

"Setting: 1867. Cover: 1812. The skirt should be the intermediate stage between cage crinoline (think "Gone with the Wind") and the bustle: the front is poofy, the back in a very elongated proto-bustle."