The Little Flower by Helen Kish and Ruby Ho

I didn't let that Helen Kish Chrysalis review sit at the top of the page for very long, which is unusual for me, but there's a lot that I still want to get done this summer, and time is going fast!  I can't believe it's already the middle of July.  Today's review is essentially a follow-up to that Chrysalis review, though, so check it out if you want some background.

While the last review dealt with older Kish dolls from 2008-2010, today I'm going to jump forward to the present day and look at The Little Flower, who is a brand-new doll that's a collaboration between Helen Kish and Ruby Ho (founder of Ruby Red Galleria).  The Little Flower is inspired by Thérèse of Lisieux, a real-life 19th century saint whose nickname was Little Flower.  This doll is being sold exclusively at the Virtual Doll Convention (VDC) shop, and last time I checked she was still available:

The Little Flower by Helen Kish and Ruby Ho for the Virtual Doll Convention ($325).

At $325, this doll is more expensive than the original retail price of any of Helen Kish's Chrysalis dolls.  But she's in the same price range as what it costs nowadays to get some of those older dolls on the secondary market.  So it's a fair price, I guess, but it's extremely high.

As a price comparison, the new Ellowyne Wilde dolls that are being offered at VDC cost between $195 and $235.  I think something in that range is more reasonable for the Kish doll, but what do I know.

I didn't plunk down $325 for this doll because I fell in love with her promotional pictures.  Quite the contrary.  I bought her primarily because I've been in a Helen Kish phase over the last year so, and was extremely excited to see a new Kish doll with a new face mold.

As a reminder, this is what the promotional photos look like:

It's a nice picture.  Fine.  But as a person who used to drool over the Chrysalis promotional photos every year, this portrait did nothing for me.  Nada.  The face looks strange, and the outfit is nothing like what I'd expect from Helen Kish.  The outfit part actually makes sense, though, because Helen Kish sculpted the doll and Ruby Ho designed the outfit.  It definitely looks like a Ruby Ho outfit.

Anyway, I convinced myself that the doll must look better in real life (which is often the case), and figured that I'd better buy her fast before she sold out (which hasn't happened yet).

She arrived in a lightweight white cardboard box with a crooked sticker on the front:

The box is the exact same size as Tag Along Bethany's box:

Tag Along Bethany doll box (left) and The Little Flower doll box (right).

The sticker on the front of the box has an old picture of a toddler child, and some text:

I assumed that the toddler in the photo was Saint Thérèse of Lisieux herself, which I think is a reasonable assumption given that the doll is named after her.  However, this particular photo is actually of Céline Martin, Thérèse's older sister.  Did anybody know that when they designed the box?  It's very odd.

There are some early photos of Thérèse in the public domain, including this one from 1876:

Cutie.

And this one from 1881, when Thérèse was eight:

Look at that outfit!!

Those photos might have offered some guidance for the design of the doll, but maybe not, because the coloring doesn't seem quite right.  Thérèse was a brunette.

Anyway, there was a card inside the box with the photo of Céline again and a bit more text:

Here's a closer look at the text:

It describes how the doll is a re-interpretation of Thérèse of Lisieux, affectionately known as the Little Flower.  It also confirms that the doll has a new head sculpt by Helen Kish.  Towards the bottom, the clothing design credit is given to Ruby Ho, and Little Flower's edition size (200) is noted.

Little Flower was secured in the box with white ribbons and a hairnet:

She was very easy to de-box, and came with a small stalk of oversized pink roses:

Here she is from the back:

Even in real life, this doll looks odd to me.  Her promotional photos actually capture her quite well, and there was very little shift in my opinion once I saw her in person.

She has an intense gaze, with light blue eyes that are looking upwards.  Her features are a bit spooky to me, actually.  Like an uncanny valley type of situation:

Here are photos of Little Flower's face from different angles:

The eyes are intense at almost every angle.

My reaction to this face is surely influenced by my expectations.  I was expecting to see eyes that are hand-painted in the same style as the Chrysalis dolls.  Here's Lark as a reminder:

The older Chrysalis dolls have eyes that look soft and realistic to me, despite being stylized:

They have the dreamy quality of oil pastels, with nuanced shading and fine detail.

But Little Flower's eyes are more cartoonish--almost like Disney Princess eyes.  They're bold, simple, and shiny, with no iris definition whatsoever:

There's also very little shading around the eyes, and those scleras are refrigerator white.

The eyebrows are nicely detailed, with the same type of fine hairlines that are on the Chrysalis girls:

But the mouth, while I'm sure was sculpted nicely, is painted into an overly simplistic shape, with no bow in the upper lip and a stark liner:

Little Flower has a cute profile, though.  I love the shape of her nose, ears, and lips from this angle:

The eyes are still intense.

The dress, designed by Ruby Ho, is a short-sleeved, collared dress made out of crisp cotton with a blue floral print and white accents: 

The white collar and sleeves of the dress have a delicate lace overlay:

And there's lace trim along the bottom, too:

Underneath the blue skirt, there's a shiny white underskirt with a lace ruffle:

The white sash is made out of velvet ribbon, and ties into a neat bow in back:

I untied the bow, knowing full well that I don't have the skill to re-tie it in such a pretty way:

The dress opens in back with metal snaps, and the bodice is fully-lined:

The underskirt that we saw before is essentially an extension of the bodice lining:

The construction on this dress is fantastic.  Everything is neat and tidy and finished to perfection.

Underneath her dress, Little Flower is wearing very elaborate underwear:

I bet you weren't expecting that.

She has a mint blue corset camisole top with lace trim:

And little cream bloomers with bow accents:

The corset top closes in back with metal snaps, and is easy to remove:

This is a beautiful garment:

And, like the dress, it's exceptionally well-made, with a fully-lined interior, and metal grommets for the corset laces:

The bloomers are well-made, too, with an elastic waist and lace trim along the gathered legs:

The undergarments are beautiful and well-made, for sure.  I actually appreciate them more than the dress in some ways, probably because they're so unusual and detailed.  However, I don't really understand why they were included.  They're completely hidden by the blue dress, and would never be noticed in a normal doll display.  You could display Little Flower in just her underwear, I suppose, but for a child doll who's portraying a saint...that doesn't feel right.

Also, how much did those undergarments add to the price of this doll?  At least $50, I would say.  Personally, I'd rather have my $50 back.

Or, I'd feel great about my $50 if Ruby Ho had made something like this:

Give me a modern interpretation of THAT, please.

Little Flower's outfit also includes some white tights and white shoes:

The shoes are made out of leather and have tiny little anchor buttons on the straps:

Here's a closer look:

Overall, Little Flower has a very nice outfit, and the flowers in the dress match the theme nicely.  But I'll reiterate what I said before: it's not a Helen Kish outfit.  The blue dress would look great on a Ruby Red Fashion Friend doll, or a Dianna Effner Little Darling, perhaps.  But for this doll, it doesn't feel right.  I'm missing the uniqueness and artistry of a Kish outfit.  I'm also missing any kind of historical reference that might be relevant to the real Thérèse.

Underneath all of that clothing, Little Flower has the exact same body as Tag Along Bethany:

Tag Along Bethany (left) and Little Flower (right) by Helen Kish.

The only differences I noticed are that Little Flower's ankles are weaker than Bethany's, so she topples forwards more often, and her hands have more pronounced detail in the nails and knuckles:

Bethany's hand (left) and Little Flower's hand (right).

When I can stabilize her ankles, Little Flower poses beautifully, just like Bethany:

For fun, I tried Bethany's outfit on Little Flower:

I think she looks cute like this, and would look even better if I removed the clashing blue bow in her hair.

I also tried Little Flower's dress on Bethany:

This dress brings out the blue in Bethany's eyes, which is nice, but it doesn't really suit her personality:

I can't climb trees in this thing.

I think whoever is wearing the Kish outfit looks the best:

It's interesting to look at these two faces side-by-side:

While I certainly like Bethany's face paint better, for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier, I actually like Little Flower's face mold the best.  Specifically, I like her more delicate mouth, and how her eyes are closer together and more focused.  Her head size is also more in proportion to her body.  I'd give another $50 to see how Little Flower would look if she was painted by Ms. Kish herself!

When I put Little Flower back into her original outfit, I left off the undergarments.  They don't add anything except bulk to the ensemble.

I tried my best to re-tie that sash...and I failed:

Ooh, that's bad.

Fortunately, in the age of YouTube, there are lots of videos available that show how to tie a nice bow.  So, I watched a few of those and--lo and behold!  I was able to tie a nice bow, maybe for the first time in my life:

I'm a little proud of myself.

Here are Little Flower and Bethany together again, back in their own outfits:

Little Flower's face paint is so frustrating to me, because otherwise this would be a delightful and cohesive duo:

Because of Little Flower's association with the Ruby Red Fashion Friends, I felt like I should show a size comparison with one of those dolls.

So, here's Little Flower with Sunny, who is a Ruby Red Fashion Friends Siblie:

Ruby Red Fashion Friends Siblie, Sunny (left) and The Little Flower by Helen Kish (right).

I really don't like Sunny's complexion.  She's like a ghost.  So I'm in the process of trying to sell her--otherwise I'd offer a clothing-swap demonstration between these two.  It looks like it might work for some items, despite the different head sizes.

I took a few indoor portraits of Little Flower on her own.  She's very good at running!

Off I go!

And I'll admit that her face is growing on me, which tends to happen after I've spent time with any doll:

Whoa!  She's off and running again...

Whee!

She's a very dramatic little one, isn't she?

Her hair almost has more personality than her face, though, which is a shame.

Little Flower's only accessory is...a little flower:

Or a bundle of two little flowers, to be precise:

Despite the flowers being too large for this doll's scale, they make a nice prop, and offer welcome contrast to all of the blue:

Little Flower was enjoying these fake flowers so much, I figured I should take her into the garden to see some real flowers!

My flowers aren't real?

Little Flower's features are softened by natural light:

It was very hot and sunny when I was photographing her, though, and the direct sun was a bit intense:

It's so hot, Emily!

Maybe we should find some shade?

I agreed, so Little Flower went running off in search of a shadier area:

There she goes again.

She stopped short after a moment, mesmerized by the red roses:

This must be a real flower!

Don't touch those!

Why not?  I touch my pink roses all of the time!

Because these red roses have super-sharp thorns.  I don't want you to get hurt.

Oh, okay.  But I don't see any other pretty flowers here.

She's right: my garden is not in full bloom anymore.  So I handed her the fake flowers again:

Thank you.  I love these.

We made do with some plain green backgrounds, shade, and the fake roses:

All of which came together very nicely.

Bottom line?  I hope I made it very clear in my previous review that I'm a huge Helen Kish fan.  I think her Chrysalis dolls are treasures, with their hand-painted faces, highly-articulated bodies, and creative wardrobes.  So it gives me no pleasure to criticize a Kish doll...but I must.

From my perspective, this doll has two major problems.  The biggest problem is the style of her face paint.  She doesn't have the dreamy, pastel-like paint quality that older Kish dolls have.  Her features look more stamped-on than hand-painted, with bright, shiny colors and no nuance.  This style of paint detracts from the beauty of the sculpture itself, and gives the doll a detached, almost eerie appearance.  I found it very difficult to connect with and photograph her.

The second problem is the outfit.  While I admire Ruby Ho and her work, I don't think the generic blue floral dress adds much to this particular doll's aesthetic.  I feel no historical reference here.  Also, there's no creative "wow" factor for me, except perhaps for the fancy and unexpected undergarments, which offer a bit of a surprise reveal when undressing the doll.  However, the undergarments have little practical use, as they're completely hidden by the dress, and are somewhat inappropriate as a standalone outfit for this young saintly character.

There are other issues, too, like the price point being so high, the loose ankles, and the strange choice of photograph in the packaging and on the collector's card.

But there are some good things to be said about this doll, so I'll end with those.  First of all, her head sculpt is beautiful and new, with all of Ms. Kish's beloved hallmark features.  She also has wonderful articulation: I had as much fun posing and playing with Little Flower as I did with Bethany.  And, the outfit is extremely well-made, with meticulous finishing and gorgeous details.  I also really like the mohair wig, with its cute curls, soft texture, and personality.

But, overall I'm disappointed.  Part of my problem is that I was hoping for another Kish Chrysalis doll.  Instead I got a Kish/Ho collaboration doll who's not meant to be a Chrysalis character at all, but rather a modern interpretation of a saint.  Viewed that way, Little Flower is exactly who she's advertised to be, and for those who meet her with an open mind, she has the potential to delight.  Just not for this particular doll collector.