Your shape in time
Lots of bloggers thinking about body shape, vintage style and sewing realism this week — three themes that are close to my heart. Welsh Pixie ruefully acknowledges that the fashion eras she loves don’t always love her back. [Follow-up here.] As a fellow Rectangle, I sympathize totally. I love the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s silhouettes, but am reluctantly coming to admit that I can only embrace them cautiously, because, like so many of my unrequited loves, they can be carried off only by women with more waist definition than me.
The wardrobe, reimagined asks how women in fashion eras that offered fewer wardrobe options got around the problem of style line/body shape mismatch (corsetry?), and hammers home my dilemma with this simple infographic for dummies on What the Short-Waisted Woman Should Not Wear:
I don’t know about you, but my eyes instantly gravitate to the outfit on the left. Completely scrummy, right? Only it’s completely WRONG. We short-waisted types are supposed to line up to the right, behind Bella Swan there. I have been coveting the high-waisted, figure-hugging, demurely slutty pencil-skirted secretary look for years, but apparently it and I were never meant to be. I blame you for this futile passion, Joan Holloway.
Click the image and prepare to lose hours of your life. Many, oh so many, Mad Men fashion postmortems await.
We are very lucky to be living and sewing at a time when we have a proliferation of styles to choose from, so even though it might be difficult renouncing my Mad Men dreams, I’m not condemned to wearing silhouettes that don’t suit me. Right now I’m shifting focus away from waist/hip-conscious eras (40s, 50s) and experimenting with leg-conscious ones (60s, 70s). Bonus: the UK is still somewhat stuck in the Benny Hill era sexually, so its collective leg fixation is alive and well.
I’m finding this vintage Playboy photo immensely inspiring. Talk about playing up your assets. She could have Starbucks-sized muffin top tucked inside that dress and no one would notice.
Via The Selvedge Yard.
Here’s one vintage pattern I have plans for:
Here’s another:
Still a bit of Betty Draper going on in View C's hat, and isn't that a teenage Joan in the back?
Right! I’d better get cracking before the British summer ends!
What are your thoughts on picking vintage looks or projects to suit your body type? What do you do when your taste doesn’t suit your own shape?
OH, finally someone on my subject, I am new to sewing and I got all into buying vintage patterns, then fear took over about what the heck am I going to look like in them, as in am I sacrificing looking good just to be able to say I’m wearing something vintage? For one I’m not accustomed to long lengths, which will affect me for 30s to 50s mostly. My approach is to pour thru the patterns and try to pick only ones I think have some potential to flatter, often vintage has high necklines esp blouses, which doesn’t flatter me all that much, but I managed find many vintage blouse patterns with lower necklines or with buttons so you can open it a bit on top. I do sometimes pick patterns that I think can blend in well with today’s clothing also altho you might say that defeats that purpose a bit in wearing vintage. Or I figure you can modernize the pattern a bit to make the fit more flattering by today’s standards and kind of end up with a sort of vintage inspired look ala Colette. I suggest selecting patterns carefully, maybe only make something vintage if there is something truly special or unique about that pattern that you must have it and is worth making some changes to make it flatter you more as in replacing dolman sleeve with set in, shortening the shoulders and leaving out shoulder pads. Look for patterns with special fun things like tabs, buttons, interesting shaped necklines, collars, bows, classic sheath styles, but with a twist like detachable collars, attached belts, waist sashes, etc. Just find something unique about a vintage pattern to make it worth making a style from a decade that might not be the one that has the most flattering styles for you. I find many of the vintage patterns, esp like day dresses can be really matronly looking, too much like maid/housewife for me or farmer’s daughter look so I really do try to select them carefully.
Hm, well for a start that site is kind of vague on how to measure – if I measure down the side of my body with the tape touching then I am 4″ shorter above the waist, whereas if I measure straight from pit to hip and then grab the tape measure at waist level to see where it falls, it’s pretty much dead centre. I have been told elsewhere that I am fairly much not short- or long-waisted, but because I have a large, lowish bust and am short I look kind of short waisted, but I look awesome in high waisted, fitted pencil skirts! Much better than I would in long loose tops that completely lose my waist. And I definitely look better in dresses with a waist seam, provided it actually hits at the right place.
Ah! I just found this. Definitely bookmarking so I can follow all your lovely ventures! Thanks for the link and starting this wonderful discussion. I think body shape is definitely a controversial subject, but one worth having! I echo Christina’s comment, “Long story short: rules and uniforms make you life easier, everything else is possible but hard work.” More than anything, these so-called rules give me an excuse to move on from something I didn’t feel good in, as Casey says. They also entice me out of my comfort zone (read: unexciting wardrobe) to try new things.
But most of all, I love that sewing has forced me to look more honestly at my bodies. I have never been more in touch with the shape of my body and how I feel in something that flatters me (rules or no!). Love your A-line dress btw! Brilliant. I’ve got a 60s dress on the agenda, too
Since I started sewing for myself I have been amazed at how many styles you can pull off as long as everything fits right. I can wear styles now that I would never attempt in ready-to-wear.
I’ve always thought it must have been difficult when one particular body shape was “it” and all the fashions of the time were aimed towards that body type. My mother said she had a hard time in the 60s, when the Twiggy look was in, because although she was slim, she didn’t have those stick thin arms and boyish body that was fashionable at the time. Clothes from Biba (one of the most fashionable shops in London for young women) had such skinny arms that a lot of the the time you couldn’t bend your elbows when wearing them!
I’m short waisted too! And I love my high waisted skirt on me, I think it is flattering whatever anyone else says!
I think this graphic was made in the days where low-waisted styles were in fashion and high-waisted style were not, and they are trying to depict high waists as ‘wrong’, but nowadays it looks ‘right’! Like some other commenters I prefer the high-waisted graphic too.
‘Short waisted’ sounds so negative – but it actually gives the illusion of longer legs, which is a great thing – so play it up I say!
I looked at the Dummies site. Not only do I prefer the short waisted girl in the “wrong” outfit, I think the long waisted gal looks far better in her “wrong” outfit than the “correct” one. Maybe it’s just that I’d rather celebrate what a woman has than spend time trying to false advertise, or cover faults that don’t exist. De-emphasizing features you don’t like, I get. Covering up because ‘They’ tell you to, I don’t. Of course, I don’t wear make-up either so clearly I’m just deranged
I feel all the pain of those with little/no waist definition drawn to narrow waist designs. Greener grass, indeed!
What an interesting post and discussion. I too am short-waisted, and I too am drawn to the high-waisted look on the left, perhaps because as a petite lady, I like things that optically lengthen my bottom half. What is branded as ‘wrong’ for particular figures definitely changes over time, and seems to be based around hiding ‘imperfections’, or deviations from some mythical norm invented by pattern-makers. I think the best advice is simply to wear what makes you feel happiest, and shows off what you want to show off. I love that Playboy photo!
Great post!
I am like Stephanie: short waist and big boobs. Verrry big boobs in my case. So actually I am out of proportion for any given era (male fantasies don’t count). I try not to emphasize them any further and tend to wear fitted tops in dark colours. On the lower part it’s morstly flared skirts (slim over the rounded tummy) to balance my broad shoulders (my hips are a bit unimpressive against all the upper body action) or well fitting pants to show of my long legs.
This is just what I found works most times(erawise 40s to 50s inspired silhouettes). It’s what I usually go to. But I even made a costume work for a 20s themed party last year. I kind of had to, because it was my party, you see? The dress was black, straight fitting, black lace skirt attached just below the crotch. It had started life as a very unfitted late 80s/early 90s dress I found at a thrift store. I cut of the arms, shortened the skirt to “just above the knee” length and added an ivory satin ribbon and bow at hip line. Add long gloves, high heels and a boa – kadsching! I never thought I would rock it, but I didn’t look like a big dowager!
Long story short: rules and uniforms make you life easier, everything else is possible but hard work.
I’m also very short waisted and I have big boobs, which means I should not be wearing anything high-waisted at all according to the rule books and nothing to emphasize my waist. But if I wear waistless tunics (as suggested in the pic) I look like a sack of potatoes coz of the boobs problem again…so I kind of don’t really care about all these different fruit-named shapes and go with what I like to wear and feel comfortable in. I adore high-waisted skirts and pants and I’m going to continue to wear them. I don’t care if I apparently look out of proportion. I think we all have the right to look out of proportion as much as we want. So, I’m all the way with Zoe here, don’t let the rule books tell you what to wear and what not to wear. It just spoils everything. Getting dressed in the morning should be fun.
I agree with Casey and Rachel, the grass is always greener on the other side =)
I have the opposite situation to you, Susannah; I’m quite hourglass-shaped, with emphasis on the bottom. I definitley consider the shape of an era before I go for it, some costruction-solutions just doesn’t work for me. I will never, in my life, rock an A-line dress (unless I’m pregnant), and most of the fashion from the 60s and 70s are just too loose on some part of me. So of course I love how easy and carefree those styles look! =)
Some styles are not really meant for my body-type, but can be tweaked while sewing. However, I should never consider wearing a vintage dress from that era (like the later half of the 30s, my hips are too wide for the vintage dresses, but the style in itself works on me).
I hadn’t really thought about the importance of short or long waist until I started sewing with my sister, who have the same shape as me but a higher waist (and legs for days!). For example, we discovered that her skirt hems should end at least 10 cm (approx 4 inches) higher than mine.
I think that as long as one is aware of what shape-lines, waist placement and hem lenghts works, then most (but maybe not all) styles can be gently altered to look good.
Interesting and thought-worthy post!
What makes me throw up my hands in frustration is that the advice will change constantly, depending on what’s in style this season. I have been told over and over to wear straight-line dresses or trapeze tops, since the “waist” as measured for retail purposes in the 90s (low, very low) reported I was a rectangle with no hips at all. Since I am only a “rectangle” insofar as the measurements are the same down my body and I actually protrude in various directions quite a bit, this was useless advice that landed me with the usual lots-of-woman-in-lots-of-shapeless-dress problem. Now that the waist in fashion has gone way way way up to where mine is (pretty much on the underbust, with a long long rise below it) I’m apparently an average figure just a little short of an hourglass. So now I wear high-waisted skirts with tops tucked in, but honestly I’m a little leggy for those and it’s just a whole lotta skirt.
I was also advised to take advantage of my (by 90s measurements) complete lack of hips and wear straight skirts for the longest time, and I have very broad shoulders, so the straight skirts create the silhouette of a golf tee. I have had so much more luck finding clothes that I like since I realized that while I need skirts to fit smoothly over my abdomen, I’m actually better suited by skirts that flare enough around the knee to balance my silhouette. I can’t believe I spent so many years sucking in my stomach and feeling unhappy in black straight shifts that did nothing for me because it was the “right” advice at the time.
Okay, having read it, I think that that Waistline for Dummies advice is ridiculous. The Bella Swan look is a good one if you are short and have slim hips and want to look taller, but for a lot of high-waisted women who might also have convex abdomens or wide hips, deliberately hiding your waist because you’re afraid it’s too high is going to be the same old swimming-in-a-big-rectangular-outfit thing. Which is nice if you want a big rectangular outfit and I swear I will not judge, it’s just trapeze tops all over again. If you have a cute high waist and want to emphasize it, emphasize it because it’s your waist and it’s cute. Harumph. I will be over here bookmarking all the patterns on McCall’s with high midriff bands.
p.s. (sorry for spamming) – this does apply to how vintage clothing is seen to suit or not suit, since back when I considered myself a rectangle it was all dropped waists and 60s shifts for me, but now that the waistline is higher and I’m measuring it higher (yes, good sewing measurements would have helped to start with) I’m realizing that the 1940s would look great on me, as do 70s high-waisted patterns.
I wouldn’t look at it so scientifically (and I don’t). If I don’t like what I see in the mirror I don’t wear it. If I like it, I will, even if someone decides this isn’t for my body type. Case in point: I’ve worn my share of skinny jeans in my life (twice, actually; the first s.j. era of the 80s was my teens, and there was no way around s.j.). Not the best look for short-legged pears. But I was quite slim, wore a lot of longer tops or tops with more volume. And the result was fine by me. Never got arrested by the fashion police. (These days I don’t wear them a lot, but still have s.j.) This reminds me of a female colleague telling me once to stop wearing slim tops and go for butt-covering tops only, “because the skinny tops emphasize my hips”. I remember thinking, yes, and so… what?
It’s true that some silhouettes are not so great for some shapes. But, isn’t the beauty of sewing, and living at a time in history when we can choose any neckline or hemline we desire, that we can alter most designs a bit to look pretty darn good on our bodies? I’m a bit of a small-busted pear, but I have found that by altering bodices to fit really well and choosing a flattering neckline, most shapes look fine. Anyway, much of “looking good” happens when we feel that an outfit fits our mood and personality.
I am finding all this discussion really interesting, too. I’m a short-waisted rectangle… I find the rectangle bothers me more than the short waist! (After all, a short waist means you’ve got long legs, and who doesn’t want long legs?) I’ve been avoiding high-rise pants for years because they never fit both waist and hip. While I love looking at those fifties hourglass dresses, I prefer empire or dropped waists on myself. And anything that shows off my legs.
I don’t think we should feel *bound* by the rules, so much as we should focus on whether our clothes (bought or made) are flattering US. The “rules” suggest looks that highlight the good points while minimizing the bad, but that doesn’t mean they’re ironclad. You may love something that doesn’t flatter you because it’s stylish or trendy—and if you feel good wearing it that’s fine (though it may be a problem if, say, part of your job is impressing people with your looks). And what bugs me (pants or sleeves that are too short, for example) may not be an issue to you at all, and vice versa. So I guess I think it’s a balance—between what we actually look like, what we want to look like, and what we feel comfortable with.
And a large dose of “the grass is always greener”… twenties and seventies styles suit my figure, but not my taste at all.
Oh, it’s such a relief to know I wasn’t the only one immediately drawn to the ‘wrong’ picture in the short waisted examples! You’re right, it’s totally scrummy, there must be a way we can pull off that look, there must be!
Hmmm, lots of discussion indeed abounds. The more I think about it though, the more angry I’m getting with these so called ‘rules’. I hate the thought that someone is not allowing themselves to wear a style simply because some stern fashion-dictator once wrote that it was wrong for them. I’m pretty sure, that unless you are a really extreme shape, that most ladies can rock any style they want with a little tweaking. Perhaps I’m kidding myself? I don’t think so. I’m hourglass and short-waisted (aparantly) and know what I’m meant to aim for (1950s styles) and what I’m meant to avoid, like late ’60′s shifts, but I reckon with an eye to not allowing the hem to be too short, I don’t think they should be out of bounds.
I honestly don’t think the infographic on the left looks all that bad. I think it looks fine. It is a drawing though and not a real person. I am apparently short waisted as well. i am not as tall as you though. I am a mere 5′ and while I am small my body has a bit of athetic build to it and that makes me a bit curvy and round. Wearing clothes without shape is a straight shot to muumuu-ville. The styles of the 1920′s would fail me as do some of the 60′s shifts and the fairly recent, thought it has died down some, trend of resurrecting the tent shifts. I need a belt. I need well fitting and close fitting or I look like a blob.
Actually come to think of it those infographics are not helpful because one is more casual and one is more dressed up. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
I think women of the past did the same things we do now. Wear something that looks bad because it is the style. Not feel ourselves in it and search for answers via style guru’s in magazines or books. Then figure out how to make it look better for us. Through changing the belt color or adding accents in different places or avoiding wide or skinny legs or other certain shapes or styles. There may not have been as much choice but I think that may have made it less confusing.
just a thought,when making the patterns up,put a quarter of an inch on the side seam at the waist line and when stitching the waist darts,only take up about half the width,this will give waist definition without curving in too much,the dart will give an optical illusion
just my opinion
jane
I think Rachel put it well about the “grass is always greener” temptation! lol. I know that I have always admired some of the styles from eras that require a bit more of a straight shape (1920s and the hippie 70s), but being a bit more of a weird cross between a pear and hourglass, it just makes me look dowdy. I envy you gals who can pull those styles off with aplomb!
I know for me, I have started to analyze more what shape my figure is, rather than what I think it should be. For instance, I often picked 50s patterns years ago, when I started sewing vintage and becoming interested in dressing that way on a daily basis, because everyone told me I looked good in those curvy dresses. Problem was, I didn’t feel good in them, and always felt my silhouette was slightly off. Turns out, I have the waist/booty to fill out those dresses, but am woefully lacking in the bust department. I also have pretty broad/muscular shoulders. I realized that essentially the 50s silhouette, while I could make it work, always left me feeling bottom heavy. (I still wear a fair amount of silhouettes from that decade though–just realizing that it’s something I’ve got to be careful of proportion with to balance things out!) That’s when I started exploring the 40s and realizing that the small bust and broader shoulders could work in my favor.
Plus the shorter skirt lengths do wonders for elongating my short, round Welsh-German legs. haha. I’ve even started exploring more of the 30s silhouette, though the early to mid 30s tends to emphasize too much of a slender hip, which I definitely don’t have!
I love the patterns you showed in this post! They’re both those easy fit, body-skimming designs I love from the 60s. Plus, I think the thing I like about the 60s is that they can still create the illusion of a womanly figure, even though we tend to think of that era as more Twiggy-esque. It’s all about the fit and darts though!
Can’t wait to see what you come up wit!
♥ Casey
blog | elegantmusings.com
I never noticed where my natural waist was until the latest crop of fashion dresses which seem to place the waistband somewhere half-way between the bust and belly-button. I started to wonder if I were long-waisted when everything I tried on stopped fitting. Looking at photos of me seemed to confirm my suspicion. However, I tried the dummies guide and I come out short-waisted. Am I too dumb for even the dummy guide? Where is the bottom of your bottom anyway?
Anyway, I too love the high-waisted look, but I’ve found that certain attempts at recreating it work better than others. If I leave a thick belt to do the defining it works or if I have a high waist skirt with a thin belt at my natural waist, but not a high waist and a thick belt, or a thick waist-band with no belt. Have you played around with it some, I’m sure you can get it to work in some form.
By the way I always found it curious that Benny Hill seemed to be a bigger hit in France than here. For all their sophisication they like a bit of slapstick and British purient humour; who knew?
I have a sneaking suspicion that there will always be an aspect of “the grass is always greener” for the styles that we want to wear. If you can’t wear it you’ll always wish you could, much like straight vs curly hair etc.
I’m not sure that I agree with that for dummies thing on what short waisted women should wear. I’m short waisted (and hourglass) and I have fallen in love with the high waisted jenny skirt and like to think that it looks good on me… maybe i’m deluding myself, who knows!
I share your pain–in some ways. I’m somewhere between a pear and an hourglass shape–the broad shoulders save me from totally being a pear. I’m also short through the torso. My husband is 3.5″ taller than me and we have the same leg length.
Because of the shape, I need some waist definition in my clothing. Untailored sacks make me look huge and shapeless. OTOH, having an 11″ difference between waist and hip and a short torso means if I nip in the waist too much I overemphasize my bottom half. I look pretty good in A-line, half- or full circle, gored, or flared skirts. I love pencil and trumpet skirts. Supposedly someone with my shape shouldn’t wear them, but I do anyway. I cannot get away with a straight, short skirt because the hem is so wide to go over the hips that it looks odd. Pleated and tulip skirts, which I really like, make my butt look a mile wide.
Being short-waisted, and wide-hipped, I can’t wear high-waisted skirts or pants, as much as I love high, shaped waistbands. My shirts and blouses need some tailoring. Blousing of the shirt/bodice over the waistband makes me look short and wide.
I really like the more geometric designs from the 1920s, 1930s, and the mid- to late-1960s, because I think the designs are so interesting, but can’t wear them. There are also many styles from the 1940s (mostly evening, admittedly) that aren’t best on me because they really suit a silhouette with narrow hips, like yours.
I think you’d really rock a lot of the designs I love.