You know, this brings up something that kind of bothers me in these Beautiful Celebrity discussions...
I don't get it when people - and I really do not mean to refer to anybody specifically in this thread - say things like "X was gorgeous when she had this hairstyle/costume but ordinary when she had this other hairstyle/costume."
If you're beautiful, you're beautiful. Hairstyle or a particular costume might be more or less flattering, but they are not enough - they definitely ought not be enough - to change someone from ::sigh of yearning:: to ::meh:: . I can see why, say, Vulcan brow ridges or other major changes in appearance would affect a person's appeal, but a really beautiful woman can look good in a burlap sack (and Diana Riggs definitely qualifies, IMO) and a really handsome man looks wonderful in sloppy sweats.
So I say if you consider someone beautiful only under certain specific conditions, you don't truly consider that person beautiful. He or she can be "hot" or "attractive" or "cute" or something, but beauty, surely, goes beyond minor costume changes.