The dress that can make ANY middle-aged woman look drop-dead gorgeous

Helen Mirren sparkled in it this week. So how DOES it manage to disguise every lump and bump?

FLATTERED by a deep scoop-neck, my bosom looks perter — and more exposed — than it has in years. Sheer, beaded sleeves cover the loose skin on the tops of my arms, while a demure hemline reveals my well-turned ankles but hides my slightly crinkly knees. My waist, tightly encased in heavy- duty beaded chiffon, seems to have reappeared after several decades in the wilderness, while — set against the ruby-red fabric — my skin glows. As I wiggle down the stairs (this dress is so tight it’s impossible to do anything else in it) my husband Olly lets out a long wolf-whistle and a cry of: ‘Hey, good-looking!’

Used to seeing his 69-year-old wife in cardigans and jeans or leggings and T-shirts, he can’t believe his luck.

And, frankly, neither can I. Because the dress I am wearing makes me feel, and look, sexier than I have in years. As I slipped the fabric over my hips and waist, zipped up the back and stepped into my high heels, I felt just a touch of the confidence which actress Helen Mirren must have when she stepped out of her limo for the film premiere of RED 2 on Monday night in her own dazzling red gown.

In her €2,700 dress, by designer Jenny Packham, the 68-year-old outshone far younger actresses, most of whom were revealing far more flesh.

And while Mirren is still a strikingly beautiful woman, it was the dress that did the talking.

In a carefully calibrated mix of discretion and sexiness, it showed off Helen’s figure to its best advantage. The threequarter-length sleeves were elegant without being prim, while the expansive cut of the neckline revealed a sexy but not vulgar décolletage.

It was a dress which said, unmistakably, that Mirren is still a sensual woman, but one who recognises that flashing too much flesh is unappealing after a certain age.

S

OHER dress did not expose the older woman’s bugbears. You did not see a toolow neckline revealing skin which looks like crumpled tissue paper, a mini-skirt offering a view of orange-peel thighs or a sleeveless dress highlighting the fact that arms have a cruel way of assuming the texture of uncooked cake mix as we age.

Looking at photos of Mirren, I had no doubt that it was an incredible gown. But would it look anything like as good on an ordinary woman in her 60s, one without a personal trainer, an army of stylists and seemingly superhuman genes?

For, while I share her age-group, body size and height (5ft 3in) I certainly don’t claim her striking good looks.

Nevertheless, I was desperately keen to find out if the dress could work its magic on me. Unfortunately the Jenny Packham number is a catwalk piece from her Autumn/Winter 2013 collection which is not yet in stores (Mirren borrowed a sample size 10 from the designer), so I couldn’t get my hands on the real thing.

Instead, with some good- quality fabric similar to that used to make Mirren’s dress, I asked a local tailor to run me up a precise copy.

I wasn’t disappointed. The dress was far more glamorous than my usual bohemian style which involves funky dresses with strange hems, waistlines and pockets.

Even my special occasion outfits are not vampish. I normally wear either a simple, floor-length black crepe dress with girlish flowers around the neckline or a floaty printed chiffon dress.

Indeed, when I wiggled out of the house to meet friends for dinner, the red dress prompted a sensational reaction. One close friend whooped with joy when I walked into the restaurant, while a young woman told me I looked ‘hot’.

The only dissenting voice was that of my 33-year old son Cato, who looked faintly horrified and asked if it wasn’t a bit much.

(Which merely reinforced my love for the dress. After all, no son wants to see his mother looking like sex on legs.)

My only criticism was that the skirt was slightly too long for my frame. Although my skirts have been creeping down to just below the knee in recent years, I do still like to flash a little leg. But wearing the dress made me resolve to take a leaf out of Mirren’s book more often when it comes to fashion. For her dashingly elegant style is perfect for women in their 60s.

She gets away with styles that many would deem far too young for her, by making sure they show off her best features: her full bosom and tiny waist.

But how to emulate her style without a tailor?

None of Mirren’s outfits — and certainly not the red dress — resemble the dreary garments frequently designed with the ‘mature’ woman in mind.

Clothes for women in their 60s too often involve uninspiring baggy dresses in mimsy-pimsy prints featuring colour-draining shades of aubergine, bottle-green and reddish-brown.

Worse still, many garments come with a hefty drape across the middle — presumably intended to disguise a too-generous figure, but which actually just make you look like a badlybandaged limb.

A

TTHE other end of the spectrum are outfits covered in gigantic flower prints or stripes in either baby pink or black. With the passing years, women do not cease to be sexual beings or stop delighting in beautiful diaphanous fabrics and a close fit.

So why aren’t there more dresses for older women like this red stunner?

Dresses in vibrant colours, with formfitting cuts which show just enough flesh to be seductive, but not enough to make one feel self-conscious? Dresses which will celebrate the mature woman rather than disguising her? Dresses with both sleeves and sex appeal?

With the help of the Mail’s fashion editor Eliza Scarborough, I tried to see if any online store came close to offering the elegant sex appeal of t hi s show- stopping red number but on a budget . . .