candis report


and so a tall size 14 woman who had narrow hips would be a size 14T-. In the UK, the first attempt at dress


size standardisation appeared during World War Two, but it took until 1982 for the British Standard size guide to be issued by the Government, which said a size 12 should fit women with hips between 35.8in and 37.4in and a bust size from 33.9in to 35.4in. Size 14 measurements were two inches bigger, size 10 two inches smaller. Waist sizes weren’t included. What is instantly clear is how much smaller these measurements from a mere 29 years ago are compared to current sizes. The reason? Vanity sizing. Fashion journalist Lynette Peck Bateman also runs online vintage fashion boutique lovelys-vintage- emporium.myshopify.com. She says, “Dress sizes have changed considerably from the 1950s as women have changed shape and manufacturers try to flatter us. A 12 will only fit someone classed as a size 8 or even a size 6 today.” The same thing has happened in the US. Alaina Zulli, a designer who has focused on costume history, found that a woman with a 32in bust would have worn a size 14 in Sears’ 1937 catalogue. By 1967, she would have worn an 8 and today she would wear the notorious size zero. Industry insiders freely admit this is happening. Mark


Tarbard says, “In the 1950s a size 12 was a lot smaller than it is today.” The reason for this size inflation is that we are getting bigger, especially around the middle – and we don’t like to admit it. A survey done in 2004 of 11,000 women found the hourglass figure had almost vanished, with the average waist size increasing by nearly seven inches, from 27.5in to 34in. In 2004, the average British woman was 5ft 4.4in and boasted a 38.5in bust,


that the first women’s “It wasn’t until 1958


labels were devised, and going up to 16”


standard size beginning with size 8


34in waist and 40.5in hips. This compares to the more slender 37in, 27.5in and 39in vital statistics of 5ft 3in Ms Average in 1951. Mark Tarbard admits clothes have got bigger to avoid offending women who want to think of themselves as smaller than they really are. “We cannot afford to upset customers,” he says. Body image expert Jayne Cox (jaynecox.co.uk) agrees that the number on the label is very important to many women. “Women tend to define themselves by the label on their dress,” says Cox. “We


often internalise pressure from society, which tells us that we


52 MONTH 2011 | WWW.CANDIS.CO.UK


should be a size 10, or even a size zero. Slimness is seen as success and so fitting a smaller size becomes important and manufacturers alter clothes sizing to make us feel better. I know some women who will reject clothes simply because they are a bigger size than they would like to be, even if they fit perfectly.” The desire to please the customer is the key reason why shops don’t charge more for bigger sizes. When New Look was found to charge £2 more for larger size jeans and Marks and Spencer charged the same amount more for larger bras, both came under attack from enraged customers and were forced to reverse their policies. Fashion expert Eric Musgrave, former editor of the fashion industry magazine Drapers and author of Sharp Suits, a pictorial history of men’s tailoring, explains, “Fabric costs are between 30 and 40 per cent of the cost of making a garment,


and a size 20 dress will use far more fabric than a size 8, so will cost more to make. But the cost is averaged out over the entire range as charging a different price for each size would be too complicated for retailers and very off-putting for customers.” So it may seem obvious that life


would be easier if clothes sizes were standardised so every size 12 dress was the same size and fit. But would it really? Tarbard strongly disagrees. “I think it is good that the woman shopping on the high street can find a fit that suits her. One size can’t fit every proportion, silhouette or age and women are often faithful to a fit that suits them. If every garment had the same cut, far fewer women


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164