There's a lot of media fuss today about a 'new' lower than ever size: size zero, even size 00 or size -2. But some sources appear to show that a size zero today would have been called a size 8 in the 1950s: the measurements were around the same.
I'd like to hear any memories from women who remember buying clothes in the 1950s or 60s and can compare them with the sizes in today's shops. Were clothes smaller then, or now? Was a size 16 then what we call a size 12 today?
And what about older women, our mothers and grandmothers? Who doesn't have an elderly relative whose slenderness in photos from the 1930s makes us think women were much slimmer then? I asked my great aunt Phillis - still slim in her 80s - if women ate less when she was young and she said it was all thanks to the girdles and undergarments which not only controlled but reduced the bust, waist and hips. I'm interested in hearing from anyone who remembers differences in sizes in the early years of the 20th century, or who remembers how their mother or grandmother felt about dress size.
Please comment if you can!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is something I'm interested in too. When I was a teenager (1970s), magazines such as Jackie used regularly to publish the exact measurements that constituted size 10, 12 etc. (In those days nobody was a size eight or below: 10 was considered very slim).
Luckily, I remember what the measurements were! In inches, they were as follows: a size 10 figure was 32, 22, 34; a size 12 was 34, 24, 36; and so on. I am pretty sure these measurements have now been revised upwards, though it also seems to me there is a fair bit of variety between brands.
It is also, I am fairly sure (don't know if it's still the case) that US sizes were measured differently, ie UK size 10 was a size 8 US.
My maternal grandmother was short and dumpy, but probably no more than a modern size 16. My other grandmother was taller and more athletic, and a size 14.
My mother was cursed by wide hips, and struggled to remain as a size 14; even now, 2 stone lighter and an old lady she still needs that size for the hip measurement.
Corsetry was near-compulsory for adult women, so even large ladies were not bulgy.
Kim is right about the sizings back then; a size 10 was a 32 inch bust, 22 inch waist, 34 inch hip.
Anyone slimmer than that had to make do with girl's clothes or make their own. She is also right about the increases in notional sizings, and in variability; I have seen a "size 8" advertised to fit a 27.5 inch waist!
US sizings are such that a US 4 is equivalent to a UK 8 (now with a 34 inch bust, so a 10 in "old money"!
A US zero is a UK 4, and the 2-inch differential gets replaced by smaller increments between sizes.
But while this may be gratifying for the larger lady, it has left those of us who have always been small and "petite" (which now only means "short") needing to seek out dressmakers, start sewing or borrow the children's clothes!
The newer "petite" ranges cannot cope with the variety of figure *shapes* within the smaller sizes; even small people can be relatively curvy or not curvy, long-limbed or not.
Post a Comment