Updated / Sunday, 20 Sep 2026
07:00
For some people, simply reading the words ‘revenge dress’ will be enough to invoke the image of the item of clothing Sotheby’s is about to put to auction.
Worn by Diana Spencer to a Vanity Fair dinner in late June 1994 – on the same day ITV aired a programme that included an admission of adultery by the then Prince Charles – it immediately became a symbol of defiance and power by the princess.
And now it could be yours – if you have a couple of hundred thousand euro to spare.
That’s because auction house Sotheby’s is set to put the dress on the market – with an estimate of $150,000-300,000.
The dress was last on the market in 1997 when Diana Spencer herself sold it at a charity auction for a little over £39,000. Adjusting for inflation, that works out at around £80,000 in today’s money.
That means that, if it sells at the lower end of the estimate, it wouldn’t represent a particularly dramatic increase in value over the past three decades ($150,000 is around £110,000).
But really there aren’t many that would bet on it selling for so little.
After all, the dress is part of an iconic moment in British pop culture. The fact that it has a royal connection also adds a degree of interest. More importantly, though, the memorabilia market is stronger than it’s ever been.
Just last month, for example, the ball involved in Diego Maradona’s infamous ‘Hand of God’ goal sold at auction for $3.3m (though that was less than some people had predicted it would fetch).
That came after Christie’s held a massive, music-related auction in March.
Among the items sold was the blue Fender Kurt Cobain played in the video for Smells Like Teen Spirit – it changed hands for $6.9m.
A guitar once belonging to The Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia sold in the same auction for a little over $11.5m.
But even that wasn’t the biggest item sold in that particular auction – that honour went to a black Fender Stratocaster once owned by Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour, which sold for an incredible $14.55m.
The Christie’s auction also helps to given an indication of how much memorabilia prices have risen by in a short space of time.
Because the March auction came about due to the death of American businessman Jim Irsay, who had built a massive collection of music, movie and pop culture memorabilia during his lifetime.
He bought the Cobain guitar in 2022 for $4.5m, meaning that the price had risen by <a href="https://comicvibe.com/more-than-just-a-high-score-a-memoir-of-my-favorite-virtual-worlds/" title="More Than Just A High Score : A Memoir Of My Favorite Virtual Worlds”>more than 50% just four years later.
Meanwhile Isray bought David Gilmore’s guitar from the man himself as part of a 2019 charity auction. He acquired it for $4m – meaning its value had nearly quadrupled seven years later.
There are many reasons that help to explain this jump in interest in memorabilia.
Technology is a significant one.
In the past most people wouldn’t have known about a piece of music or movie memorabilia going on the market – even if they were a big fan of the artist or film it was connected to.
Even if they did know it was going up for sale, their ability to bid on it would have gone beyond the price-tags involved – there would have been some very real-world, physical barriers to entry.
Nowadays, though, it’s very easy to find out what’s being sold – and it’s very easy for someone to place a bid – even if they’re based thousands of miles away from the auction house.
That means you have a much bigger pool of people who can, in theory, get involved in a sale. And of course, when it comes to an auction, all you need are two interested parties to push the price higher.
This also comes at a time when you have an increase in the number of ultra-wealthy people – and just plain rich people – who have plenty of money to spare. The kind that are most likely to be spending tens of millions of dollars on guitars.
But at the same time, further down the market, there’s also a growing glut of middle-class, middle-aged people who have a relatively significant amount of disposable income, and they’re also looking for places to spend that.
Often how they do that is by investing in whatever fandom they’re part of.
That might take the form of them paying the odds to go and see a heritage music act, or it might mean buying the ten-disc ultimate edition of their favourite movie. But it might also mean spending hundreds, or even thousands of euro, on a piece of memorabilia connected to their favourite artist or movie.
And, alongside the big auction houses, there are lots of smaller memorabilia retailers that are selling pieces of pop culture that might be more attainable to the average mega-fan.
For example, the Gotham Flakes Heavy Duty Detergent and Gotham Bleach props from the Batman Forever movie recently went to auction with an estimate of under $1,000.
So, if you’re a huge fan of terrible superhero movies, that could represent a bargain.
If you’re spending $1,000 on a minor prop from a generally disliked movie, you’re probably doing it purely to satisfy – or even show off – your commitment to a fandom. You’re probably not doing it with a view to making a big profit.
But, for some, memorabilia is now an attractive investment option.
That’s in part because of the dramatic price increases that have bene seen on some items – that is making memorabilia a bit of a self-perpetuating market.
And while betting on the rising value of a hard-to-define item may seem strange – but arguably it’s not that much different from investing in fine art.
After all, you are generally talking about something that’s unique – or one of just a handful of examples – with a connection to a well-known figure, like a musician or an artist. Perhaps it’s connected to an iconic moment in pop cultural history.
And just like with art, the value of a piece of memorabilia is in the eye of the beholder.
The item is not likely to have a function or practical use – so it might be hard to work out a “fair” value for it. And while the majority of people may think it’s an absurd idea to pay millions of dollars for a guitar, there just needs to be a handful of people willing and able to spend at that level to make that absurd price a reality.
Much like art, there is also a degree of showing off that’s fuelling demand in this market. Making a return may be the ultimate goal, in the short-term some will also hope that owning a piece of pop cultural history will act as a symbol of their wealth and influence.
And just as with art, others will claim their amassing of memorabilia is primarily for philanthropic reasons.
Jim Irsay once claimed he was offered more than $1 billion for his guitar collection – the caveat being that it would have resulted in it being shipped in its entirety to Dubai.
That would have represented a significant return for him – and one well above what most of the market would value his items. After he died his total collection sold for a combined $94m.
But Irsay said he declined the Dubai offer because he wanted to have this collection available to the public in some shape or form. To his credit, he did make it available to view in multiple tours and museum loans over the years.
Some in the net generation seem to be taking that philanthropic approach, too.
One item sold from Irsay’s collection was an original, 120-foot scroll of Jack Kerouac’s On The Road, which was bought by the country singer Zach Bryan for $12.1m.
He’s currently in the process of turning a former church in Kerouac’s hometown into a museum for the writer. Presumedly the scroll will end up there when the work is complete.
So that is the market that Diana’s revenge dress is returning to – one theming with philanthropists, investors and uber-wealthy fanatics.
It’s for that reason that few would bet against it hitting the upper end of its estimate – or even going beyond it.
But even if it does, it is unlikely to come anywhere close to being the most expensive dress in the world.
That title is currently held by what most would agree is a far, far more iconic dress – Marylin Monroe’s white cocktail dress from The Seven Year Itch. (If you don’t already know, it’s the one from the ‘windy subway grate’ scene.)
That dress sold at auction for a whopping $5.6m – and that was 15 years ago, so it would probably sell for much more if it hit the market today.
But even if it sells at a significant mark-up, Diana’s dress probably won’t even make it into the top three most expensive dresses of all time.
As things stand another Monroe dress – what’s known as the ‘Happy Birthday Mr President’ dress – is the second most expensive of all time, selling in 2016 for $4.8m.
(That’s the one that Kim Kardashian controversially wore to the Met Gala in 2022.)
Meanwhile the ball gown Eliza Doolittle – or Audrey Hepburn – wore to the Ascot Darby in My Fair Lady, sold for $4.5m in 2011.
Misty, water-coloured memories
That makes it all the more remarkable that, not too long ago, these items would have been seen as little more than junk.
Up until the 1970s – certainly in the movie world – the likes of costumes and props would have been seen as disposable. If anything, they were a nuisance taking up vital space in backlots and warehouses.
The first well-known auction of movie memorabilia was in 1970, when MGM decided to sell off some of its items as a cost-cutting measure.
That included what would now be seen as iconic items, most notably a pair of Dorothy’s ruby shoes from The Wizard of Oz. They sold for $15,000, which was a lot at the time.
One of the few people in the industry that saw the potential of movie memorabilia was actress Debbie Reynolds – from Singing In The Rain. She claimed to spend $180,000 dollars at that MGM auction.
She also went on to own the Marilyn Monroe subway dress and the My Fair Lady Ascot dress which, as mentioned above, she ultimately sold for millions of dollars apiece.
Reynolds also bought a pair of Wizard of Oz ruby shoes for $300, which she ended up selling on for nearly $700,000. Not a bad return by any measure.
But they were not one of the pairs seen in the film – they were an off-screen test pair. The “real” things are worth far, far more.
The pair of ruby shoes held in the Judy Garland Museum in Minnesota were stolen in 2005 and did not re-emerge until 2018 (the thief claimed he took them because he thought they had real rubies on them.)
When they eventually sold at auction, they fetched $28m – making them the single most expensive piece of memorabilia ever.
But there is a dark side to the memorabilia boom.
Because when you have anything that attracts this level of interest and spending, you inevitably have people who try to rip others off.
And the problem goes beyond people trying to steal valuable items – fraud is a major issue in the area too.
The large auction houses will do their due diligence to try to verify the authenticity of the items they’re selling – which is sometimes easier said than done. But at the lower levels, those kinds of checks and balances may not exist at all.
That’s particularly true for items like baseball cards, pieces of historic sport equipment, or items that are allegedly signed by a famous person.
The FBI ran a seven-year investigation up to 2006 in which they claimed to uncover more than $100m worth of fraud relating to fake autographs and sports items.
Just last year authorities in Indiana opened an investigation into Brett Lemieux, who went by the name of Mr ManCave online. He allegedly sold four million forged sports and movie items, worth a combined $350m, over a 20-year period.
After having his home searched, Lemieux posted on Facebook to admit to the fraud – and then he took his own life.
Aside from theft and fraud, another murkier side of the memorabilia boom is the rise of dark memorabilia – or what is sometimes called ‘murderabilia’.
As the name suggests, this is where the items of interest centre around high-profile murders or well-known serial killers rather than sports stars or celebrities or public figures.
As we’ve seen from the boom in true crime podcasts and documentaries, there are a lot of people out there fascinated by some very grim moments in history. And, within that, are some who are willing to spend a bit of money to own a piece of those events.
