Looking through vintage dresses and I've noticee something

[justamouse]

Do women now have less curves? I'm NOT talking about weight. I'm talking about an hourglass.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It's my understanding that they wore corsets and other undergarments that exxagerated their hourglass figures.

 

I bought a dress to wear for my Lucy Ricardo costume and if I don't wear a petticoat under it my figure won't look as 'hourglass' as Lucy's b/c I don't wear such strong and powerful undergarments. The petticoats also served to exxagerate the waistline.

[BarbaraL in OK]

My first thought: women wear fewer, and MUCH less restrictive, underpinnings!

[NicAnn]

I read on a fashion blog that because women don't stand all day and are less busy with housework, we don't develop the hip muscles we once did.

[Brigitte]

I read on a fashion blog that because women don't stand all day and are less busy with housework, we don't develop the hip muscles we once did.

 

And have more belly fat, as a result, I would bet.

[justamouse]

It's my understanding that they wore corsets and other undergarments that exxagerated their hourglass figures.

 

I bought a dress to wear for my Lucy Ricardo costume and if I don't wear a petticoat under it my figure won't look as 'hourglass' as Lucy's b/c I don't wear such strong and powerful undergarments. The petticoats also served to exxagerate the waistline.

 

My first thought: women wear fewer, and MUCH less restrictive, underpinnings!

 

Ok this makes sense. So, if I were to pull off the silhouette, I'd have to get the right underpinnings? Torpedo booKs included? :D

[Whereneverever]

Ok this makes sense. So, if I were to pull off the silhouette, I'd have to get the right underpinnings? Torpedo booKs included? :D

 

Well, if that's what rocks your world....:tongue_smilie:

[KarenNC]

Ok this makes sense. So, if I were to pull off the silhouette, I'd have to get the right underpinnings? Torpedo booKs included? :D

 

Yes. That's true for any period of fashion. The silhouette starts from the skin out. Without the right undergarments, you can approximate, but it will always be a bit "off." Think trying an Elizabethan look without a farthingale, an 1890s look without the bustle, wearing a pushup bra with a 1920's flapper dress....

 

You can choose options that call for something less than the torpedos a la Madonna in the day, but yes, finding a bra that gives a more "cone-shape" will help. It also depends on just when in the 50s you want as styles changed over the decade.

 

Check out http://www.ehow.co.uk/video_4409057_1950s-silhouette-dress.html

http://www.bradfordcollege.ac.uk/culture-and-arts/fabulous-fifties/fabulous-fifties-highlights/ff_11.jpg/view shows the underwear

http://www.ehow.com/how_8455463_create-1950s-look.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-in-the-American-1950s-Fashion

Edited October 23, 2011 by KarenNC

[Word Nerd]

Not sure, but I love the word underpinnings. It makes me giggle. :D

[mcconnellboys]

We also have more internal fat, which pushes out our rib cages and makes our entire trunk thicker.... When I did a low carb diet, I lost inches through my trunk in terms of its thickness and even was more narrow through my shoulders....

[Bluegoat]

It's my understanding that they wore corsets and other undergarments that exxagerated their hourglass figures.

 

I bought a dress to wear for my Lucy Ricardo costume and if I don't wear a petticoat under it my figure won't look as 'hourglass' as Lucy's b/c I don't wear such strong and powerful undergarments. The petticoats also served to exxagerate the waistline.

 

I would love to own some strong and powerful undergarments.

[TravelingChris]

I think so. I have a hard time finding clothes for both myself and my older daughter. She is skinny but with an hourglass figure and I am fat but also with one. I hate it that so many clothes are now made for rectangular figures. They don't fit either one of us. Then my youngest has problems because she has a wide rib cage (courtesy of swimming and trumpet playing) but not big breasts. She is less curvy than us.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Without reading the other responses....

 

I don't think so. I think that the undergarments they wore made a difference. I also think we, as a group, are "fluffier." I think that underneath, our core shape is similar. Of course, each individual is still an individual :)

[Carpe]

We are fat in a different way than people used to be.

 

But underpinnings definitely make a difference. There are some companies that sell old fashioned girdles. Typically modern "extra firm" girdles are slightly less strong than 50s girdles.

[justamouse]

My first thought: women wear fewer, and MUCH less restrictive, underpinnings!

 

So true.

 

 

Yes. That's true for any period of fashion. The silhouette starts from the skin out. Without the right undergarments, you can approximate, but it will always be a bit "off." Think trying an Elizabethan look without a farthingale, an 1890s look without the bustle, wearing a pushup bra with a 1920's flapper dress....

 

You can choose options that call for something less than the torpedos a la Madonna in the day, but yes, finding a bra that gives a more "cone-shape" will help. It also depends on just when in the 50s you want as styles changed over the decade.

 

Check out http://www.ehow.co.uk/video_4409057_1950s-silhouette-dress.html

http://www.bradfordcollege.ac.uk/culture-and-arts/fabulous-fifties/fabulous-fifties-highlights/ff_11.jpg/view shows the underwear

http://www.ehow.com/how_8455463_create-1950s-look.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-in-the-American-1950s-Fashion

Thank you.

 

I'm wanting to buy some vintage dresses, but without the right undergarments, it seems that they'll just look like modern clothes, which is NOT what I want. There's a certain elegance to that silhouette that I want to keep. I draw the line at farthingales, though. I need to be able to walk through the door straight, ya know?

 

Carpe, what do you mean, you think we're fat in a different way?

Edited October 24, 2011 by justamouse

[justamouse]

I would love to own some strong and powerful undergarments.

 

Lol, I know, right? Sometimes I think a corset would be preferable to a darn bra. Or a pinchy spanx. Once I was so peeved at the nether regions of the pinchy spanks I swore I was going to bedazzle the ****ed thing.

 

 

I think so. I have a hard time finding clothes for both myself and my older daughter. She is skinny but with an hourglass figure and I am fat but also with one. I hate it that so many clothes are now made for rectangular figures. They don't fit either one of us. Then my youngest has problems because she has a wide rib cage (courtesy of swimming and trumpet playing) but not big breasts. She is less curvy than us.

 

Dd16 and I are totally curvy. I totally understand. I actually got some hand me down shorts that were amazing and when I asked why they were so awesome, she said she had sewed darts in the waist.

[LibraryLover]

I am skimming posts tonight, but perhaps some have mentioned this. Undergarments have changed tremendously! I really don't want to wear one, but sometimes....my kingdom for a corset put on with a woman with a foot on my arse, and their back braced against a wall...my butt/tummy would appreciate that. lol Of course, how does a man get through all that without a maid on staff? lol

 

I also remember my beautiful and petite mom stuffing herself into a girdle-- one that was a whole piece, shoulder straps tthrough waits to thigh, where she hooked her stokings. :)

 

 

It all seemed so painful --and naturally, my mother has never been--kids or no kids--young or old,-- anymore than barely 6, 8 or 10. In current times, where a 10 is really a 10 (without girdles and corsets), my mother is a 6/maybe an 8. When she shops at real stores and puts on nice fitting 8s and 10's, she weeps and I try hard not to slap her silly. :)

 

If you try on clothes without your foundation garments, and people sticking are not stucking their butt up your arse as they tie you into an undergarment where breathing is difficut, so you can try on clothing. Maybe compared to the past, maybe most of us are just the size we are supposed to be.

Edited October 24, 2011 by LibraryLover

[justamouse]

I am skimming posts tonight, but perhaps some have mentioned this. Undergarments have changed tremendously! I really don't want to wear one, but sometimes....my kingdom for a corsette put on with women with a foot on my arse, and their backs braced against a wall...my butt/tummy would appreciate that. lol Of course, how does a man get through all that without a maid on staff? lol

 

 

My back would have loved that, too. We say we don't have core strength anymore, but how much of it was corset? As for the hard to get to--Didn't the bloomers split? :D

 

I also remember my beautiful and petite mom stuffing herself into a girdle-- one that was a whole piece, shoulder straps through the waits/tummy, to thigh high nylons, where she hooked her stokings. :)

 

Hooked nylons are just sexy. I would totally wear nylons that were hooked.

It all seemed so painful --and my mother has never been--kids or no kids--young or old,-- anymore than barely a 10. In current times, where a 10 is really a 10 (without girdles and corsettes), my mother is a 6/maybe an 8. When she shops at real stores and puts on nice fitting 8s and 10's, she weeps and I try hard not to slap her silly. :)

 

If you try on clothes without your foundation garments, and your people sticking their butt up your arse as they tie you into an undergarment where preathing is difficut, you need to not ask me about this. lol

:D

[Carpe]

So true.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

I'm wanting to buy some vintage dresses, but without the right undergarments, it seems that they'll just look like modern clothes, which is NOT what I want. There's a certain elegance to that silhouette that I want to keep. I draw the line at farthingales, though. I need to be able to walk through the door straight, ya know?

 

Carpe, what do you mean, you think we're fat in a different way?

 

My family has always been pleasantly plump, but there is a vast difference between my body shape and my grandmother's at my age. Yes we both have 4+ foot hips, but she had bigger thighs, bigger arms, less back fat, more bOOks, and a significantly smaller waist. The fat distribution is completely different. Even in smaller people like my SIL's family (she is literally half my size, and comes from a long line of skinny women) her grandmother also had larger thighs and arms, a more muscular back, bigger bOOks, and a smaller waist.

[FairProspects]

Actually, when I wear my corset I can tell just how weak my core muscles actually are. Modern posture is terrible and my corset is actually much better for my back than wearing nothing. My back muscles are frequently sore after a day in the corset because they are held properly in position and I don't sit up straight :blush: normally. It is harder to move though, especially bending at the waist.

 

For vintage dresses, you can still order the same model 1950s girdles/corsets now. They are called Ragos. These are less restrictive, but will still offer some shaping. It is hard to get many of those dresses to fit otherwise since they are designed to go over some waist shaping.

 

And yeah, drawers are split so access is not really an issue either for toilet or otherwise ;).

[justamouse]

My family has always been pleasantly plump, but there is a vast difference between my body shape and my grandmother's at my age. Yes we both have 4+ foot hips, but she had bigger thighs, bigger arms, less back fat, more bOOks, and a significantly smaller waist. The fat distribution is completely different. Even in smaller people like my SIL's family (she is literally half my size, and comes from a long line of skinny women) her grandmother also had larger thighs and arms, a more muscular back, bigger bOOks, and a smaller waist.

 

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

 

Actually, when I wear my corset I can tell just how weak my core muscles actually are. Modern posture is terrible and my corset is actually much better for my back than wearing nothing. My back muscles are frequently sore after a day in the corset because they are held properly in position and I don't sit up straight :blush: normally. It is harder to move though, especially bending at the waist.

 

For vintage dresses, you can still order the same model 1950s girdles/corsets now. They are called Ragos. These are less restrictive, but will still offer some shaping. It is hard to get many of those dresses to fit otherwise since they are designed to go over some waist shaping.

 

And yeah, drawers are split so access is not really an issue either for toilet or otherwise ;).

 

Thank you!!

[LibraryLover]

:D

 

LOL OH god, do I hate my iPhone sometimes. None of that makes sense. lol And what did I not press/press to let corsette pass? lol LOL I love tecknolowgee.

 

I did go back to try and make sense.

Edited October 24, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Melissa in Australia]

I made an 1890's corset. and boy it was uncomfortable, not on the chest stomach or back but, it chaffed me under my arms. Plus the boning kept working its way up and jabbing me. apart from that, I loved the firmness of it. one funny thing was it seemed to make my lower abdomen look larger.

I think it would have helped if someone else laced it up. It is very hard to lace up your back and get it adjusted correctly.

 

I also have a modern corcet , with lots of elastic and hooks up the back. it helps with shaping as well. though not nearly to the same extent.

[WishboneDawn]

Keep in find that what was fashionable is almost never a reflection of what women's bodies really looked like. Not all 50's women had hourglass figures. Not all 20's women were flat and rectangular. Not all turn of the century women had huge breasts and butts.

 

The silhouettes generally reflected men's tastes, expectations of women and even the politics of being a woman.

[FairProspects]

I made an 1890's corset. and boy it was uncomfortable, not on the chest stomach or back but, it chaffed me under my arms. Plus the boning kept working its way up and jabbing me.

 

The 1890s is generally considered the worst decade of the corset so it wasn't just you :D. The bad rap of the corset dates back to the tight lacing of this decade.

Edited October 24, 2011 by FairProspects

[Melissa in Australia]

The 1890s is generally considered the worst decade of the corset so it wasn't just you :D. The bad rap of the corset dates back to the tight lacing of this decade.

What decade/ year of corsets would you recomend? :bigear:

I really would love to wear one. I know that they really improve my shape. I don't care about hourglass or anything, just want to firm up everything a little.

[KidsHappen]

I hate to rain on everyone's parade but I have done some extensive searching of vintage clothing and most are size 6 and smaller, with a great deal in the 2-4 range. I don't care what kind of undergarments today's woman wears, most of them are not going to fit vintage sizes. I used to be very thin but even with the proper undergarments, my frame itself is too large to even have the clothes tailored to my size. In many instances, my ribcage alone (not including breasts) was larger than the measurement of the bust of the item. Some of the waists were so tiny that my children were born with larger waists. Do you remember the scene in Gone with the Wind where she was trying to get her waist down to 17" with the corset? So not going to happen for most women in this day and age. Many of the measurements really were 36", 24", 36. My 15 year old is way to thin. she wears a size zero and while her waist and hips fall in that range, her bust is about a 34 D.

[LibraryLover]

Those old patterns are tiny. I can see how teeny my grandmother and her friends were back then. My grandmother was not a child bride, but she looks like one in her wedding dress. The height of women has increased, so a pattern from 1917, for example, isn't going to work for most 'normal' women today.

 

Dieting was very common back then-- fainting girls-- what era was that? And Flappers-- they were supposed to be shaped as boys.

 

It was easier to be thinner in the old days, back when Costco didn't exisist or a car in every garage etc.

 

Of course, I see some very chubby people in some of those old family pictures (any old photos, for that matter). Queen Victoria, anyone?

 

Not everyone was thin, and even while Monroe wasn't chubby, she wasn't skinny. She wasn't Jennifer Anniston etc.

 

 

I hate to rain on everyone's parade but I have done some extensive searching of vintage clothing and most are size 6 and smaller, with a great deal in the 2-4 range. I don't care what kind of undergarments today's woman wears, most of them are not going to fit vintage sizes. I used to be very thin but even with the proper undergarments, my frame itself is too large to even have the clothes tailored to my size. In many instances, my ribcage alone (not including breasts) was larger than the measurement of the bust of the item. Some of the waists were so tiny that my children were born with larger waists. Do you remember the scene in Gone with the Wind where she was trying to get her waist down to 17" with the corset? So not going to happen for most women in this day and age. Many of the measurements really were 36", 24", 36. My 15 year old is way to thin. she wears a size zero and while her waist and hips fall in that range, her bust is about a 34 D.

Edited October 24, 2011 by LibraryLover

[justamouse]

Keep in find that what was fashionable is almost never a reflection of what women's bodies really looked like. Not all 50's women had hourglass figures. Not all 20's women were flat and rectangular. Not all turn of the century women had huge breasts and butts.

 

The silhouettes generally reflected men's tastes, expectations of women and even the politics of being a woman.

 

Very true.

 

There's a picture website of 1920a convicts in Aussie, and one of the most astounding things is how the flapper is NOT forgiving on all frames.

 

 

But, I'm not doing this for anyone but me. :001_smile: Because I like it and think it's pretty.

 

I hate to rain on everyone's parade but I have done some extensive searching of vintage clothing and most are size 6 and smaller, with a great deal in the 2-4 range. I don't care what kind of undergarments today's woman wears, most of them are not going to fit vintage sizes. I used to be very thin but even with the proper undergarments, my frame itself is too large to even have the clothes tailored to my size. In many instances, my ribcage alone (not including breasts) was larger than the measurement of the bust of the item. Some of the waists were so tiny that my children were born with larger waists. Do you remember the scene in Gone with the Wind where she was trying to get her waist down to 17" with the corset? So not going to happen for most women in this day and age. Many of the measurements really were 36", 24", 36. My 15 year old is way to thin. she wears a size zero and while her waist and hips fall in that range, her bust is about a 34 D.

 

If you check the vintage pages on Etsy, the sellers put in the measurements. I've found some great dresses, even for my 8/10 size body.

[KarenNC]

There's a picture website of 1920a convicts in Aussie, and one of the most astounding things is how the flapper is NOT forgiving on all frames.

 

Very true, and true for every age of fashion. Remember that the majority of the images we have of any period (paintings, engravings, movies, etc) and that are used to show the stereotypical silhouette of the period are of the "upper class" ideal. Vintage clothing that still exists is much more likely to be from someone on the upper end of society or a special garment such as a wedding dress that was considered important enough to preserve. I know I don't pack up my ratty tshirts for posterity;). People also tend to submit to more restriction for special occasions than for every day (a wedding, prom, having a portrait painted, in the 1800s getting a photo taken). Even though we have a better representation of casual styles since the easy access of the camera, someone in the future looking at a picture from Vogue magazine or having a sample from a designer's line of today is going to have a very skewed idea of what "women" wore in 2011 on an everyday basis or what typical body shapes were.

 

As to the corset---wearing one that is highly restrictive from childhood could indeed change the shapes of the women (sort of like foot-binding), particularly for the elite and fashion-conscious, but it's highly unlikely the majority laced so tightly. I have seen ads from the late 1800s advertising surgical removal of the lower ribs to get the "right" waistline, even with a corset, but this would be very extreme. A working woman (ie who didn't have servants to do for her) was not going to be able to work while so constricted. It's also not surprising that one's lower abdomen looks larger if one laces tightly---if you squish everything in the middle, what's there has to go somewhere;).

 

An interesting article from the Victoria and Albert Museum http://www.fathom.com/course/21701726/session1.html

and http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/reflections/winter2008/index.html from another source.

 

I have a custom made Tudor corset which is actually comfortable enough that I've fallen asleep in it. Now, I am very short-waisted, so the sides of it are only a few inches tall, which looks odd off the body, but it fits my body shape. It ends above the hips. We made it by making a form of my body (duct tape wrapped onto me while wearing a tshirt, then cut it off and stuffed with newspaper), then fitting the pattern to that. To get the stiffening without whalebone or a wood busk, we harvested steel boning from a surgical corset.

 

As to forgiving of various frames, we went to a production of Il Trovatore last week. The costuming was Tudor and the short tunics with wide sleeves (a la Henry VIII) gave the (quite short) tenor an unfortunate resemblance to Lord Farquad in Shrek.......

[livingnlearning]

I think women were often malnourished back in the day, just as the men were. The school lunch program was instituted when the draft revealed that most of the recruits were malnourished!

 

With health care and food advances people are getting bigger, men and women.

 

I'm only 5 feet tall but built stocky-and I can't believe how tiny some of the vintage clothes are that I find in our museum and antique stores here. Our museum has a display of vintage clothes from the 1800's and early 1900's and the men and women's clothes are much smaller than they are now. The gloves, the SHOES? :eek:

 

I also think to some degree the daily lives/activities of people then and now are much different. People walked, danced, worked, didn't sit all day as a general rule.

 

And of course undergarments had their input also!

[Lang Syne Boardie]

:iagree:

 

I love to read about beautiful clothing and the history of fashion. My favorite part of period dramas is the costumes!

 

Still, as a nearly 6ft tall woman of Native American descent, I'll never look right in fashions of the past.

 

I have a photo of my great-grandmother in a Victorian-era dress (corset and all), and she looked ridiculous. She was very, very tall and Native American. I have another photo of her in clothing that she wore at home (calico blouse and ankle-length skirt, bead necklace) and she looked beautiful.

 

My grandmother didn't enjoy being 6ft tall and Native American in the 1950's, either. (And frankly, I don't enjoy it now.) But I think my great-grandmother had it the worst, being tall, dark, and squarely built in an era of curls, lace, corsets, and starvation. She probably felt like a giant.