|
|
Post by deep on Nov 11, 2016 19:32:28 GMT
This is probably a dumb question. (Does it make it less dumb if I acknowledge that ahead of time?) When someone measures a waist size on a dress and it is 12 inches across the front lying flat, does that mean the wearer must have a 24 inch waist or less?
I've been looking on ebay for prom dresses for DD. She is the thrift store queen and has an offbeat style, so I thought she might like a vintage one. There was a beautiful 50's/60's era dress we both really liked, but it had the measurement above. DD measured her waist with a t shirt on and it was about 25 inches, so I was thinking that probably knocked out that dress option. Is letting out an old dress a small amount too risky?
Why did those 50's gals have such tiny waists? Why is DD being so unreasonable about wanting to breathe at her event?  |
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Nov 11, 2016 19:34:01 GMT
Yes deep I'd take it that the waist measures 24 in total. Hope you can find a great dress for your DD! |
|
Grom Pea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,944 
|
Post by Grom Pea on Nov 11, 2016 19:37:19 GMT
Measure the waist at the narrowest point without a t shirt unless she's planning to wear a t shirt under the dress. But yes people were slim then, and the slim dresses probably have survived since less people have worn them, if they fit their daughters or grand daughters they might have worn out those garments by now. I wouldn't plan on letting something out, but shop around and you'll find something, the thrill of the hunt is half the joy of wearing vintage imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 11, 2016 20:03:58 GMT
hopefully **GypsyGirl** or someone else can come on to give you more insight about vintage clothing and sizing (I think she buys/sells vintage), but a couple thoughts from someone who does a lot of thrift-store shopping, and has bought vintage before- yes, they were smaller. My answer to the WHY is: GIRDLES and other support garments. Not sure if that's the only reason, or if people are just getting 'bigger' nowadays.
And I don't think I'd buy a dress thinking you could let it out without knowing how much seam allowance there was, and whether the fabric might have gotten faded or discolored over the years. You may not even have enough fabric to let out the waist seam, and if you did, the color may not match, since the seam allowance hasn't been exposed to light like the outside of the dress. |
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Nov 11, 2016 20:15:37 GMT
Generally speaking, the measurement most give is taken by measuring just the front of the garment while it is lying flat then doubling it. In real life, there can be some variance to that number based on the design of the garment. As to letting out the seam, I would have to actually see the dress to determine what the seam allowance as well as the condition of the fabric. There are ways to add a bit more fabric along the seamline to increase the size, but again that depends on the actual dress design and fabric condition. I would email the seller and ask if they would be willing to provide a photo of the inside of the seam. That will answer many questions. Would your DD be willing to wear a corset or other slimming undergarment? That, along with letting out the seam a bit, might make it work for you. My answer to the WHY is: GIRDLES and other support garments. Not sure if that's the only reason, or if people are just getting 'bigger' nowadays. It's a combination of both, undergarments and people being heavier overall now. Sizing in ready to wear has changed considerably over the past 50 years as well. This is why you need to look at actual measurements of garments and totally ignore the size tag of vintage garments. I have a gorgeous Pendleton wool skirt from the late 70's that is marked size 6. My housekeeper is a current size 2 at most. It was too small for her in the waist! |
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Nov 11, 2016 20:48:46 GMT
Those girdles made a huge difference! Small waists were part of the New Look aesthetic and women just did not put on a party dress without one.
You could see if she wants to wear spanx or a corset under the dress. If not, I would pass on that particular one. I would not trust older fabric to be strong enough to do alterations on.
|
|
|
|
Post by deep on Nov 11, 2016 21:00:49 GMT
Thank you for confirming what I thought and all of the additional information! It was a really pretty new old stock dress so I was kind of hoping for some miracle measuring magic that would mean it was larger than it actually was. It wasn't inexpensive enough to buy it just to see if it worked out.
I did start early knowing it will be a hunt for size and style...and I admit I love looking! There are such a variety of lovely, classic (80's with their Butt Bows of Unusual Size), and just plain weird (dress with ermine tails hanging off of it! Ewww!) options out there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 11:48:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 2:51:21 GMT
She would have to wear the right girdle. Seams of dress follow the stays of the girdle. And you have to wear the right bra and a slip.
It used to take my mother and aunts at least 2 hours to get dressed. My great aunt never stopped wearing all their elastic.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 12, 2016 3:44:02 GMT
Fun fact: A Size 6 now is equivalent to a Size 16 in the 1930s.
~AmeliaBloomer
(Theatrical costumer who has actually cut size tags out of 1970s clothes so actresses won't refuse to wear them)
|
|
