Vintage sizing
Sep 19, 2014 | by Ellen Dial
From author’s own collection – image courtesy of Salvato Collection
The scenario: You have a big vintage crush on the perfect Little Black Dress (more on Little Black Dresses here) circa 1964. The tag reads “size 12”, just your size. Before clicking “Add to Cart” think about this, a 1964 and a 2014 size 12 are not equal. Not even close.
This begs to question– were women smaller “back in the day”? Why are sizes all over the map? How do I know what fits? Hang on to your cloche, we’re going to take a trip at 21st century speed through these questions, the maze of vintage sizing and get a bit of a history lesson at the same time.
Size Matters | Context
Standing in the fitting room of your favorite vintage boutique, it’s difficult for a 21st century woman to not get discouraged – what you think is going to work doesn’t work. It’s too tight in the bust, you can’t pull it over your shoulders or over your hips. The arm openings are small and the waist? Surely this dress was on the wrong rack!
The best figures in Hollywood
Which brings us to the question: Were women smaller? According to a study conducted in 1937 by the US Department of Agriculture, the average American woman measured 35-29-38, yet by 2004 the average jumped to 40-34-43. That’s a five inch increase. What does it mean? It means the darling 1960’s sack dress you’ve had your eye on won’t drape as dramatically from the shoulders, that gorgeous 1930’s bias cut dinner gown won’t flow as gracefully as you’d imagined – until you understand how to get your best vintage fit.
It’s tempting to focus only upon the change in the shape and size of our bodies over the past 70 years, don’t overlook this crucial follow up question – are we taller? Not significantly, average women were 5”2’, today’s women average 5”3.8’ – that’s a change of less than two inches. Even more impactful, considering we’ve stayed fairly static in terms of change vertically- our weight has increased significantly over that time. The average weight of women between the 1940’s and 1960’s only increased ten pounds – from 130 to 140. Yet by the turn of the 20th century – from the 1960’s to 2004, we had increased our average weight 24 pounds to 164 pounds.
Bottom line: were women smaller in eras past? Yes, they were.
Size Matters | The Numbers Game
Let’s take a quick journey in the “wayback machine”. It’s funny to think now, but clothing labels are a relatively recent invention. “Off the rack” clothing as we know it wasn’t readily available until the 1920’s, prior to this, women made their own dresses or had them made – utilizing mass produced dress patterns and tailoring them to their specific measurements. Over the next 60 years or so, while standards correlating measurements + numeric size were put into place by the US Department of Commerce, the actual labeling of garments wasn’t necessarily uniform. Sizes have always varied somewhat from brand to brand.
Size comparison chart
Jump forward to the 1980’s, just in time for huge shoulder pads and severely tailored power suits, the US Department of Commerce bowed to pressure from clothing manufacturers and ceased it’s uniform sizing standards. Behold vanity sizing! (More on vanity sizing here) In light of this shift, your 1964 size 12 LBD isn’t going to fit like a modern size 12.
I’ll use my own closet for perspective: in modern clothing, I wear a size 8 to 12. I am below average for waist /hip/weight, but over by an inch for height. As a result, my vintage collection ranges from size 12 to 18. A quick word on labels – don’t get too hung up on the number and let it drag you down! Remember, it’s just a number on a scrap of fabric and in the context of vintage clothes, basically meaningless – the number doesn’t define you. Think how fantastic you will look and feel in your vintage frock!
In no time you’ll be looking as fab as the model: ballerina Desiree Lubovska.
Size Matters | Know What Fits
There is a light at the end of the tunnel, all is not lost. What’s the solution? Measurements. Using the following diagram as your guide and a cloth measuring tape, take your dimensions. Be sure to do it in your everyday lingerie. Keep in mind that a good online merchant will include detailed measurements, so you can buy with confidence. Remember that these measurements are of the garment NOT the body that will go into it. My top tip: a good rule of thumb is to allow at least one inch of wiggle room when shopping for vintage clothes.
If you still have doubts, contact the shop owner. They should be happy to re-measure your areas of concern. During my years of online purchases, I’ve learned some great questions to ask: Does the garment have stretch? Is there a lining (at times the lining is smaller than the actual outer garment)? How fragile is it (a 1920’s silk chiffon, beaded party dress can be be rather fragile-unable to handle pull on almost 100 year old seams or fabric)? Are the shoulders defined or not (defined as in a tailored/set shoulder or a more dropped/open/free shoulder style)? Remember, you’ll be wearing the piece in your normal day to day life so you’ll want to get all the details.
How to measure yourself for vintage, image from Salvato Collection
All the numbers may line up and you’ve gotten answers to your questions, but sometimes a little help is still needed to make the fit work. As vintage fashionistas know – Spanx, a good minimizing brassiere, or similar vintage foundation garment can make all the difference. Using these available tools, along with understanding your own body shape/size, will open up a world of vintage wardrobe options. One last thought, a good tailor can be a great addition to your vintage toolbelt – for a relatively small investment, your vintage crush can be altered to meet your needs, make sure to ask if they have experience working with potentially fragile vintage garments and fabrics.
Cause A Frockus would like to thank our tremendous resources: “Women’s Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction”, US Department of Agriculture Report 1937 – released in 1941. SizeUSA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report “Mean Body Weight, Height and Body Mass Index [BMI] 1960-2002: United States, “Photoplay”, March 1931, Met Life Height/Weight Table 1999, “Body Measurements for the Sizing of Woman’s Patterns and Apparel”, US Dept. of Commerce, 1971, ralphlauren.com, JNY.com, VictoriasSecret.com, and Salvato Collection.
For our dear readers: Do the statistics comparing sizes and measurements surprise you?