Comments on: History of women’s sizing pt.1

By: trsih

trsih — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:41:42 +0000

When I ponder fit, I find myself thinking of Charles Frederick Worth. The princess seam is so useful and delightful when it fits properly.

When I ponder separates, I think of Charles Dana Gibson and how he influenced the acceptance of the shirtwaist.

I am a fit freak and the current cover of Vogue (with the ladder, poorly posed) is making me crazy. The model on the ladder is wearing such an ill-fitting, poorly cut garment. The armhole if hideous and the fit is … well, not!!! LOL

Please Vogue, teach the models the history of the ladder in pictures of couture collections, teach the models how to pose properly to imply the history that is (trying to be) told, and please talk to that famous designer and suggest a new patternmaker!!

By: Fashion-Incubator

Fashion-Incubator — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:23:16 +0000

Push manufacturing; subverting the fit feedback loop

“Push” manufacturing can be described as producing an entire line of products without pre-selling and taking orders for it. This means making up a bunch of stuff without knowing if anybody wants it beforehand. In my opinion, push manufacturing is…

By: jinjer

jinjer — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:42:03 +0000

Is this a record of a change in the pornographic esthetic or a change in the physique of a population?

Alison, I’ve noticed/wondered the same thing. I wonder if part of it is that, before the advent of bras, larger breasts usually meant lower breasts–perky seems pretty universally erotic. Also, what age used to be considered ideal in women–14? 16? Is it rather new to think of women over 20 as other than Matronly?

By: Alison Cummins

Alison Cummins — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:37:49 +0000

I’ve been looking through a copy of Taschen’s “1000 Nudes, A History of Erotic Photography from 1839-1939″ and have been struck by the relative absence of large breasts. (I’m still in the 19th century – haven’t made my way into the 20th century yet.) Most women appear to be a B with some Cs; As are more common than Ds. Is it just that I’m used to the naked, photographed woman being exceptionally well-endowed? Is this a record of a change in the pornographic esthetic or a change in the physique of a population?

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/sex/all/facts/01878.htm

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:47:58 +0000

I think it is amazing that retail clothing fits as well as it does. Think about the fact that every single one of us has our own unique shape, size, measurements, lumps, bumps, etc. and, for the most part, we are all able to go into a store and buy clothing to cover our nakedeness.
Considering the range of possibilities (which I’ll continue to explain/explore here), I totally agree!

I love that book, Cut my cote and listed it in my bibliography. Sherry’s comment on european styled clothes is right on the mark too and goes way back to chitons and togas to say nothing of “oriental” dressing. In some off-shoot way, I can’t help but think that the increasing popularity of babyslings is somehow related to all that.

Another question to ponder. Do you think the death of the dress market is related at all to sizing? Separates are definitely easier to be able to fit.
Christy says this started in the nineties and I’d meant to respond saying the eighties (the first company I worked for in 1980 did dressy separates) but I didn’t because I suspected that that’s just when I happened to *notice* the advent of separates. I think separates are good, easier; one of the problems with women’s wear *is* having to fit both areas of the body most likely to have disparate measures and men have never had to deal with that issue beyond coveralls.

Christy, I’ve often wondered about the bigger boob thing but have nothing solid on that. Honestly, I think boob size is incrementally increasing along with height -even among the more slender of women. I think it’s also related to women who are (through education) starting to wear the correct bra size. I have a friend -an accomplished seamstress, got a degree in design and everything- who said she wore a B cup and honestly, I just couldn’t see it, she was bigger than that. She wrote me a couple of months ago saying she’d been refitted and now wears a D which I can totally agree with. There’s been some debate on increasing breast size owing to the increase of hormones in milk -that can’t be discounted either- which can’t be separated from the discussion of the continually decreasing age at menarche.

By: christy fisher

christy fisher — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:41:11 +0000

re: “the death of the dress industry” comment:
It seems separates began to take over around the same time that breast implants were hitting their stride (mid nineties to especially millenium till now)
I noticed a dramatic body shape shifting with small waist/hip (small sized) women getting implants that were/are not proportiate to their body type.(lots of Cs and D’s on “0’s and 2’s”) Most of these women were/are affluent and style concious shoppers. I honestly think there is comething to the parallel as far as styles.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:53:42 +0000

Thanks, Julie. I’ll look it up.

Hmmm . . . less waste, accessible styling . . . maybe there is a way to combine the best of both elements — and still be profitable . . . hmmm . . .

By: Julie L.

Julie L. — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:05:41 +0000

Cross-culturally, most traditional clothing was also designed to minimize cloth wastage. There’s a fascinating little booklet on the subject called “Cut My Cote” by Dorothy Burnham; it was printed by the Royal Ontario Museum, I suppose to go with an exhibit at some point, but I got my copy through Amazon.

By: Sherry

Sherry — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:21:39 +0000

Jane’s comment reminds me of something I’ve been mulling over for a while. I think about how many people around the world, excluding the social elites (i.e. royalty, the warrior class), traditionally dress themselves and how they use fabric. In many parts of the world, the clothes seem to have less seaming, looser cuts (unless the fabric is 1 piece wrapped around the body). There are definitely practical elements involved regarding climate, available materials, and the work a person might do, yet many people still find a way not to look frumpy. Note the case of women’s Hawaiian dress, sarongs, saris, for example, which work well on women of all shapes.

I think European-style dressing tends to use stiffer fabrics, padding, and much more seaming to create silhouettes. It may be obvious, but I tinker with the idea that perhaps that is why fit becomes so important, because of the WAY clothing is made to fit. Styling almost seems to be in competition — nay, defiance — of the human body. Maybe that is also why sizing (especially for fleshier people) is such a challenge for mass production.

I think I need to take a trip to a costume museum or find a traditional clothing exhibit somewhere to explore this idea some more. (If anyone knows of any good ones, I’m all ears.)

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:26:40 +0000

The standards were developed in the ’40’s because the standardization study was part of FDR’s New Deal to put people to work during the depression.

Looking at this topic from the ‘half glass full perspective’…..I think it is amazing that retail clothing fits as well as it does. Think about the fact that every single one of us has our own unique shape, size, measurements, lumps, bumps, etc. and, for the most part, we are all able to go into a store and buy clothing to cover our nakedeness….food for thought.

Another question to ponder. Do you think the death of the dress market is related at all to sizing? Separates are definitely easier to be able to fit.