Not Fat, Just Retro
Angelina of Dustpan Alley searches through her vintage patterns, and finds something interesting—no matter what The Devil Wears Prada would have us believe, a size four isn't necessarily the "ideal" body size. In fact, it was once (and may again be) quite a bit larger.
"Here's something to note: a size eighteen in the nineteen thirties was considered average and medium and today that's a size fourteen. A plus size. But no woman back then would have been ashamed to be a size eighteen. When magazines published patterns they always made it a size eighteen. So if a body measuring 36-30-39 is a size fourteen today, why on earth would any woman consider herself over weight at that size?"
And while we're on the subject, Lisa Fashionista offers a report on her quest to find plus-size vintage clothing. If you have any other tips, feel free to let us know!
"Here's something to note: a size eighteen in the nineteen thirties was considered average and medium and today that's a size fourteen. A plus size. But no woman back then would have been ashamed to be a size eighteen. When magazines published patterns they always made it a size eighteen. So if a body measuring 36-30-39 is a size fourteen today, why on earth would any woman consider herself over weight at that size?"
And while we're on the subject, Lisa Fashionista offers a report on her quest to find plus-size vintage clothing. If you have any other tips, feel free to let us know!
posted by mo pie at 11:29 AM
14 Comments:
The rise of standardized clothing, among other factors, certainly contributed to the decreasing ideals of beauty in America. Before, women made their clothes to fit their bodies. After standardized clothing was introduced, women conformed their bodies to fit the clothes.
Keep in mind though, sizes aren't what they used to be. A size 18 back then might be a size 12 or 14 in today's measurements.
I don't think that's right... at my heaviest I was 38-31-41 and I wore junior size 11 pants so wouldn't that be a 12 in women's?
Hi Mo, Anne and Weetabix! I have been away for a while, and have missed BFD like nobody's business. Hope you are all well.
I think that bit of data about the old-time size 18 (today's 14) being perfectly normal/non-shameful back in the day is probably right on the money. I've always noticed that when I hit modern-era size 14, suddenly I can find vintage dresses from the '40s and '50s that fit me.
I don't know of any surefire way to find plus-size vintage, but http://daddyos.com has really cute retro dresses, and some of them go up to size 3x (though, as seems to be the way with everything these days, not as many as there used to be).
I agree with anonymous. Those measurements seem closer to a 12 or a 10 than a 14, at least the bust size. I'm 42-33-43, and I almost always take a 14 in tops. In pants I usually take a 13 in juniors or a 12/14 in misses. Then again, sizes vary so much from place to place that a 36-30-39 may well be a 14 in many places. I occasionally take a 16. Regardless, a modern 10/12 is still much bigger than what is presented as the ideal body size.
Actually, I have close to those measurements, and I'm usually a size 8. As a vintage clothes shopper, I believe older clothes are definitely smaller than the clothes of today, but not just because people tend to be heavier. I can never get into vintage blouses because my shoulders are too broad. Women probably didn't swim, practice yoga or lift weights as much as they do now, either.
At size 6, I often couldn't fit into many vintage clothes, partly because I was unwilling to wear girdle to make my body conform to the clothes and, like Margaret, my shoulders were too wide and my breasts too large for the tops.
Even before the rise of "standarized clothing" women forced their bodies to conform to fashion, generally through the use of foundation garments like girdles and corsets.
I'm a film costume designer, so I'd like to comment on this because I've often worked with vintage patterns.
If you were an 18 in the 1930's, it would completely depend on your body type as to what modern size you were. If you fitted the 30's ideal, you would have less of an hourglass shape than is considered ideal right now. The bust measurement would be used, because of the high influence of the 20's and the use of belts instead of structured clothes at the time. If we went by bust size, a size 18 in the 30's would be a size 8 or a size 10 if you were buying designer clothes.
Yet, if you were an apple shape, and going by waist measurements alone, a size 18 in the 30's by waist would be a size 10/12 modern size and a size 12/14 designer. But you wouldn't be able to fill out the top on any of the dresses, you would need about 3 more inches in the bust.
In the fifties, there is actually less of an hourglass than in modern times. For example if you were a size 14 in the 50's you would be 32-26-35, but if you had the same waist measurement you would be a size 4 with a 34-26-36 sizing. Your bust could be 2 inches larger without raising your size.
I took some sizing off of patterns and catalogues I have to give everyone an idea about vintage vs. modern. I chose J Crew as modern sizing, but if you buy at Target or another similar store, you should size down another additional size because of heavy vanity sizing in cheaper clothes.
Also, notice that vintage sizes cover a lot more measurements than modern sizing. They tend to go up or down by 2 inches vs. 1 inch. This also greatly influences what a size is.
Sorry for the long comment, but it's misconceptions like these that make defenses using Marilyn Monroe misleading. (She was a size 14 in her time, a size 2/4 in modern sizing.)
Vintage: McCalls 1930's
Size 14: 32-26-35
Size 16: 34-28-37
Size 18: 36-30-39
Size 20: 38-32-41
Vintage: McCalls 1950's
Size 14: 32-26-35
Size 16: 36-28-38
Designer Sizing:
Size 6: 34-25.5-36
Size 8: 34-26.5-37
Size 10: 36-27.5-38
Size 12: 37.5-29-39.5
Size 14: 39-30.5-41
J Crew Sizing:
Size 4: 34-26-36
Size 6: 35-27-37
Size 8: 36-28-38
Size 10: 37-29-39
Size 12: 38.5-31-41
Wow, thanks for all the info, Anon! Really interesting. I knew Marilyn wasn't even close to a "plus size" but she did have curves. She must have been really petite to be a 2/4. Thanks!
No problem.
I hear the Marilyn Monroe/vintage size thing almost everday from women I costume.
Although it's not accurate, I think most women are trying to say this:
"I'm damn attractive and if we didn't live in this crazy body obsessed world everyone would recognize this."
And that's a statement I can get behind.
I think size just a nmuber. We don't mind it. You should keep health not other thing. Maybe you will interested in bbwconnect.com.
Recently, I bought very nice jeans from Nordstrom store at discounted price..
Great information! I like to share Kind coupons for coupon codes to save on clothes and other things.
My body measurement is about 36-30-39 depending on how much I've eaten for the day my belly bloats an inch or so. I wear a size medium in tops or 5/6, but I like my stuff a little tight. In pants its a bit harder because my hips are so wide and my backside is very plump (though I am SO not complaining!) I can wear a 5/6 if they are cut a bit higher or if they are low rise a 7/8. I dont know where these figures come from but I most surely do not wear a size 14! Perhaps I do wear more form fitting outfits but even stretching I would be a size 9/10 which can also be considered large or extra large depending on the store. As for dresses I can never buy anything with zippers simply because I have a wide back and ribs that break them. I go with something that has a bit of give and that too can be in the 5/6 to 7/8 range depending on the cut and weather or not it pulls in at the hips or flows out.
I'm having some problems with my weight and my size too. I'm tempted to undergo some plastic surgery including Pasadena breast augmentation to make my body more curvy. But I think I'll try to workout first and do some diet plans.
Post a Comment
<< Home