Cool (But Sold) eBay Stuff

[Marc Chevalier]

From the 1940s, not the '70s.

61 bids!!!


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250403899445

.

 

[feltfan]

From the 1940s, not the '70s.

61 bids!!!


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250403899445

.

Makes me want to take my new seersucker suit and
stomp on it. What a beauty. 70s indeed.

 

[cookie]

And such a small size to boot...maybe the quality and condition dictated the price.[huh]

 

[jamespowers]

And such a small size to boot...maybe the quality and condition dictated the price.[huh]

Or it could be for a very young child of a very rich set of parents.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Good Christ. 5' 11" (conservative guess based on the inseam and arm length), and 33" waist is not small. This suit was made for a taller than average man. Tall does not always mean fat. In fact it usually doesn't, in my experience, and if you're to believe some commentators even less back in the day. next you'll be using the terminology of sellers of clothes for females: "wearable size", "real size" etc. When the average is much much smaller than oneself, i guess it's hard to have a reasonable opinion of what "small" means. Or so the evidence from this forum would suggest [huh]



And anyhow, that price for a 1940s Palm Beach suit in that length of jacket and inseam, with that waist measurement, is a total steal.

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=270371208533

Another lovely Chimayo MC jacket:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=260390733824

What a beauty:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=140312000282

bk

 

[PSK123]

Good Christ. 5' 11" (conservative guess based on the inseam and arm length), and 33" waist is not small. This suit was made for a taller than average man. Tall does not always mean fat. In fact it usually doesn't, in my experience, and if you're to believe some commentators even less back in the day. next you'll be using the terminology of sellers of clothes for females: "wearable size", "real size" etc. When the average is much much smaller than oneself, i guess it's hard to have a reasonable opinion of what "small" means. Or so the evidence from this forum would suggest [huh]



And anyhow, that price for a 1940s Palm Beach suit in that length of jacket and inseam, with that waist measurement, is a total steal.

bk

Couldn't agree more! Certainly not small! I'm 6'1! and that would have fitted me rather bloody nicely!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

When the average is much much smaller than oneself, i guess it's hard to have a reasonable opinion of what "small" means. Or so the evidence from this forum would suggest

True dat.

.

 

[Macheath]

Good Christ. 5' 11" (conservative guess based on the inseam and arm length)...
And anyhow, that price for a 1940s Palm Beach suit in that length of jacket and inseam, with that waist measurement, is a total steal.

Could be as much as 7', if he was this guy:

lol

Quite true, though. There's so much good stuff to be had, if you're on the short side.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'll bet he has the luck with vintage hats …

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I'll bet he has the luck with vintage hats …

And you can bet that some bloke will seethe about it. lol


.

 

[Chad Sanborn]

I'm right at 6 feet tall. That Palm Beach was made for me!
Sorry I missed it.

 

[cookie]

Good Christ. 5' 11" (conservative guess based on the inseam and arm length), and 33" waist is not small. This suit was made for a taller than average man. Tall does not always mean fat. In fact it usually doesn't, in my experience, and if you're to believe some commentators even less back in the day. next you'll be using the terminology of sellers of clothes for females: "wearable size", "real size" etc. When the average is much much smaller than oneself, i guess it's hard to have a reasonable opinion of what "small" means. Or so the evidence from this forum would suggest [huh]



And anyhow, that price for a 1940s Palm Beach suit in that length of jacket and inseam, with that waist measurement, is a total steal.

bk

Yes you are right of course ...I need to stop channeling my 1950s born self onto vintage sizes...[huh] [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

Good Christ. 5' 11" (conservative guess based on the inseam and arm length), and 33" waist is not small. This suit was made for a taller than average man. Tall does not always mean fat. In fact it usually doesn't, in my experience, and if you're to believe some commentators even less back in the day. next you'll be using the terminology of sellers of clothes for females: "wearable size", "real size" etc. When the average is much much smaller than oneself, i guess it's hard to have a reasonable opinion of what "small" means. Or so the evidence from this forum would suggest [huh]



And anyhow, that price for a 1940s Palm Beach suit in that length of jacket and inseam, with that waist measurement, is a total steal.

bk

Do I have to break out the stats again? Your average size and weight in this country---I can't speak for others----makes that a small size especially for a man 5'11".
As for women, figure the average size woman today is 5'4", weights 140 lbs and wears a size 14 dress. One third of all American women wear a size 16 or larger. The "ideal" woman--portrayed by models, Miss America, Barbie dolls, and screen actresses--is 5'7", weighs 100 lbs, and wears a size 8. Good luck in finding that in your average. The same is true for men.
We've been through this before. That suit would not fit your average 5'11 man who averages 195lbs here. He would need at least a size 42--more like a 44.

 

[Lincsong]

Do I have to break out the stats again? Your average size and weight in this country---I can't speak for others----makes that a small size especially for a man 5'11".
As for women, figure the average size woman today is 5'4", weights 140 lbs and wears a size 14 dress. One third of all American women wear a size 16 or larger. The "ideal" woman--portrayed by models, Miss America, Barbie dolls, and screen actresses--is 5'7", weighs 100 lbs, and wears a size 8. Good luck in finding that in your average. The same is true for men.
We've been through this before. That suit would not fit your average 5'11 man who averages 195lbs here. He would need at least a size 42--more like a 44.

Where do you get your stats from????? 140 pounds for a 5'4" woman?????? 120 pounds more like it.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

That suit would not fit your average 5'11" man who averages 195 lbs. ...

... of solid muscle, no doubt.

.

 

[jamespowers]

Where do you get your stats from????? 140 pounds for a 5'4" woman?????? 120 pounds more like it.

CIA World Book of Facts. You might try looking at it once in a while. 120? Good luck. That is not your average.

 

[jamespowers]

... of solid muscle, no doubt.

.

Based on BMI that should be about right. If the frame is extremely grassile then you have a problem. The frame a picture hangs in makes quite a bit of difference.

 

[lazydaisyltd]

Where do you get your stats from????? 140 pounds for a 5'4" woman?????? 120 pounds more like it.

A quick Google search showed that according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the average U.S. woman is 5' 3.7 (162 centimeters) tall and weighs 152 pounds (69 kilograms). This corresponds to a Body Mass Index of 26.3 kilograms/meters², which is slightly less than the average man's.

 

[jamespowers]

A quick Google search showed that according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the average U.S. woman is 5' 3.7 (162 centimeters) tall and weighs 152 pounds (69 kilograms). This corresponds to a Body Mass Index of 26.3 kilograms/meters², which is slightly less than the average man's.

Sounds right within the ballpark.