The myth!

[Sefton]

The slouch proof suit?

The 1930s and 1940s men's suits having the famous (around here,anyway)high cut/ small arm holes,high waisted trousers,and fitted jackets might make slouching less comfortable to begin with. Not to mention the possibility of a different standard of public posture. Anyone here find it easy to slouch in your vintage duds? Volunteers..?

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Anyone here find it easy to slouch in your vintage duds?

You mean slouch while wearing one, or slouch around inside one?

 

[Sefton]

You mean slouch while wearing one, or slouch around inside one?

both!

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

My fur coat may date back to the 1920s and it fits me fine, and I also have a suit jacket from 1951 that fits great, as well.

I think that like most things in this world, it's a cyclical thing. In WWII, there was a huge problem with young draftees who were 4F because they were underweight. The Depression had a lot to do with that, and the school lunch programs after WWII were begun as a result of that.

My Dad was 5'-2" and Mom was 5'-6" and I'm right at six feet, and it was a standard joke of the 1960s how much taller the kids were than their parents. That was probably entirely due to diet, as protein was limited in the Depression but was plentiful in the U.S. after WWII.

Also, the Charles Atlas ads in comic books back then were aimed at the "Skinny" "98 pound weakling" rather than the overweight and out-of-shape.

My 1982 Mercedes has gobs of leg room, but it's a little limited in headroom and it sits so low that it can be a pain to climb out of. Hondas of that vintage are worse, a friend of mine had an Accord from about 1992 that was roomy enough, but the seat height was so low to the ground that it was really a problem to get into and out of.

As to posture and sitting up straight, I've noticed that too. When I see the cars of my younger friends, I notice that the seat backs are reclined to a point that I would find very uncomfortable. I like to sit up straight in a car, mainly because my neck hurts if I have to bend my head forward too much.

Forgotten Man's car has a boatload of headroom, but it's a tad limited in leg room. On the other hand, the seats are very high off the floor, which makes it more comfortable to sit up straight, and much easier to get in and out.

The dreaded minivans of today are like that, too, with high roofs and low floors and chair-high seats. I hate the dratted things but must admit that they're comfortable in that respect.

I'd love a '46-'48 Plymouth just like his, but I may lean toward a Chrysler or deSoto if they have a bit more legroom. I haven't sat in one, it's on my to-do list.

Anybody with a '40s (pre or postwar) Chrysler or deSoto in the Los Angeles area who could give me a test drive?

My dream is to find a secret stash of Oliver Hardy's or Roscoe Arbuckle's or Jackie Gleason's old clothes. "Babe" Hardy was my height, and probably weighed as much or more than I do.

 

[Forgotten Man]

I'd love a '46-'48 Plymouth just like his, but I may lean toward a Chrysler or deSoto if they have a bit more legroom. I haven't sat in one, it's on my to-do list.

Well Tony, I've sat in a post war ('46-'48) Chrysler before... it's about the same as my Plymouth. They were a little wider I believe but, length wise the same. De Soto's are roughly the same size as well. All Chrysler autos of that period were very close together in size. That's why they sold so many Plymouths because they were much the same in the room department as the Chrysler or De Soto's were! And of course the Dodge's weren't any different. ;-)

It is very important to remember when buying vintage clothing that these items were made for different people... that if a coat fits great but, the pants are too short, well, it just goes to show that there were people of all sizes! Some not so tall, with long arms and those who are tall with short arms... we have come in all different sizes! And it's really quite amazing to find a piece of clothing made for someone else 60 or more years ago and have it fit someone today!

 

[jamespowers]

Automobile sizes may ebb and flow do to creative intentions and not necessarily a reflection of the population.

The trend today in SUVs do not reflect an increase of the physical individual nor growing families. I guess it can be argued that Americans are more obese than in the past.

Actually, the SUV reflects the public's rebellion to the small cars that will not adequately fit a family of four in with groceries or baggage for a trip. So the small car loses once again.
I won't even mention the death of the station wagon, CAFE standards or the re-emergence of the wagon just recently.
FM, I really think you have something there. Now find me more 7 5/8 hats.

 

[Senator Jack]

Is an in-depth Survey not better than one photo..

B
T

How dare you present us with concrete evidence, BellyTank.

Seriously, go to any preserved colonial to mid-century house and you can see for how small the beds are. Pretty good indication of the size of the occupants.

 

[A.R. McVintage]

How dare you present us with concrete evidence, BellyTank.

Seriously, go to any preserved colonial to mid-century house and you can see for how small the beds are. Pretty good indication of the size of the occupants.

Actually, colonial folks sat partially upright when they slept, thus the smaller beds.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Now, I believe that there is a difference in the general size of people from the 1700’s to now but, my focus is on the early 20th Century generation to now… since it’s not really that long ago I have always found it hard to believe that over the course of 70 years people could have changed in sizes or shapes that drastically.

My Grandfather on my Mother’s side was tall… about 6’1” or so… he’s still tall but has shrunk a tad since his youth. I received the altitude from him I believe.

 

[Story]

I thought this thread was about a Stephen King movie

 

[Viola]

Besides, its not as though short people went away. I'm five-one and about the same height as my grandmothers, even an inch shorter than one.

We're just not a leggy bunch of people. lol

 

[Fletch]

True, short people didn't go away. They didn't even get all that much taller:

- Joe Haymes, a noted 1930s bandleader, was occasionally billed as "The Little Giant of Jam." According to his Army discharge papers he was 5'6".
- Alan Ladd, 5'5", was considered unusually small for a leading man in 1940s Hollywood. As a kid of eighteen in 1932 he was called Tiny, and ran his own burger stand, Tiny's Patio.
- My dad, 5'6", was on the short side amongst his college and Navy ROTC contemporaries in the late 50s, enough so that his sister had trouble fixing him up with blind dates.

 

[BeBopBaby]

Seriously, go to any preserved colonial to mid-century house and you can see for how small the beds are. Pretty good indication of the size of the occupants.

Not really, people in colonial times had much less personal space and no real privacy then. They also owned fewer pieces of furniture that often had to do double duty as something else because of limited space. When large families share small spaces, furniture is going to be much smaller.

 

[Senator Jack]

Actually, colonial folks sat partially upright when they slept, thus the smaller beds.

Not really, people in colonial times had much less personal space and no real privacy then. They also owned fewer pieces of furniture that often had to do double duty as something else because of limited space.

Facts well-taken, but I still have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. I have six-foot and above friends who have been collecting since the early eighties and they report that it's always been impossible to find large size vintage. Remember, back then, 30s and 40s vintage was routinely found in Goodwill, and being that we were as far in years from that era then, as we are from the 60s now, there similarly was a lot of it to be had. I can't believe that 90% of the suits size 44 and up somehow disintegrated in the forty year span. It just doesn't add up.

 

[BeBopBaby]

Facts well-taken, but I still have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. I have six-foot and above friends who have been collecting since the early eighties and they report that it's always been impossible to find large size vintage. Remember, back then, 30s and 40s vintage was routinely found in Goodwill, and being that we were as far in years from that era then, as we are from the 60s now, there similarly was a lot of it to be had. I can't believe that 90% of the suits size 44 and up somehow disintegrated in the forty year span. It just doesn't add up.

Something to keep in mind...

I think that vintage men's clothing is harder to find in general because men tend to buy a suit and keep it until it's worn out. Also mens' fashion never changed as drastically from decade to decade as womens fashion did (and continues to do so). I think less clothing was purchased by men as a result and men hung on to their clothing much longer.

I am a very non-petite woman, even when I was stick thin I still had a large frame and wide shoulders. Having said that, I am still able to have two large closets crammed full of vintage (and I've sold off a lot of what I used to own - I used to have a spare bedroom that I had converted into a walk-in closet). Most of those items were found in the late 80s/early 90s in thrift stores and vintage stores (pre-eBay) when these things were still plentiful. Of course, these items are much harder to find now a days, but I am still able to find larger women's vintage. I think that's because much more womens vintage survives today because women bought more clothing in general because their fashions changed much more rapidly.

 

[Feraud]

We know taller/larger people existed in the past but in what numbers is a good question. I would like to see a department store record of clothing purchases.
Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that there were less (not none) XL sizes than we see today. I see no reason to believe small sized suits are better at surviving the decades. The selection of suit sizes at a vintage shop might(but probably not) give a fair representation of the general sizes from the past.

Could the fact that specialized stores such as the "big & tall" men's shops existed support the idea that big and tall men were around but not represented in mainstream clothing retail shops? I think it does. A speciality venue makes sense if there is a demand and no representation.

 

[Twitch]

All I know is that I rarely see anything that would be in my size of say 46 from the 30s-40s-50s. I'm 6' @ 225. I just figure the big guys' stuff didn't make it to this century ofr some unknown reason.[huh]

 

[jamespowers]

Coming to the nut of it, according the CDC in a study of heights from 1960 to the present we find:
"Mean heights for children are found in tables 3 and 4.
Mean heights also increased between the 1960s and 2002 with the mean height of boys 6–11 years of age increasing 0.8 inches and the mean height of girls 6–11 years of age increasing 0.6inches.
Among 12–17-year-old teens,the mean height of boys increased 0.7inches while that of girls increased 0.3inches, although these findings were not
statistically significant."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf
What has changed is weight--although not that greatly to me. [huh]
"Tables 1 and 2 show the mean weights for children over time in English and Metric units.Among 6–11-year-old children,mean weight increased from approximately 65 pounds in 1963–5 to almost 74 pounds in 1999–2002. This represents almost a 9-pound increase for both boys and girls 6–11years of age. Among 12–17-year-old teens,the mean weight of boys increased more than 15 pounds from 125 to141 pounds and the mean weight of girls increased approximately 12 pounds from 118 to 130 pounds between the 1960s and 2002.
If you look at this:
http://www.econ.upf.es/docs/seminars/baten.pdf
Chart 2 suggest that Preliminary height trend estimates for all Industrialized Countries went from 5'5" in 1810 to only 5'10" in 2000. So in 190 years, height only increased 5 inches. Less if you look at height between 1903 and 2000---5'7" to 5'10". Not that huge a jump really.
I think perhaps the "used up" theory might be gaining ground over the "wasn't made in large quantities" theory. [huh]
Like everything else though, it depends where you look and genetics to a larger extent.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Forgotten Man]

Facts well-taken, but I still have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. I have six-foot and above friends who have been collecting since the early eighties and they report that it's always been impossible to find large size vintage. Remember, back then, 30s and 40s vintage was routinely found in Goodwill, and being that we were as far in years from that era then, as we are from the 60s now, there similarly was a lot of it to be had. I can't believe that 90% of the suits size 44 and up somehow disintegrated in the forty year span. It just doesn't add up.

Come to my house Jack and take a look at two closets full of stuff! I own roughly about 22-23 complete suits from the 30's to the early 50's! For some reason, I've had good luck! Also, I have been dedicated since I started to find vintage in '96.

I believe that the movie industry has a lot to be accountable for the lack of larger sized suits and such... Western Costume has LOTS of stuff in any size! Also, there have been so much lost in making films and all that... not to mention people who aren't packrats... people throw stuff away if they don't want it or feel it should be passed on to someone else! My Grandfather's mother (My Great Grandmother) was just like that... when my Grandfather came home from the Navy after serving in WWII, he remembers coming home and finding his room all cleaned up... and the uniform GONE! She'd just go in and take out whatever she felt he wasn't using anymore and just get rid of it! BUT she over looked the scarf he wore... I have that now!

I'll say it again, clothing back then was better made then today’s rags on that we agree however, only people such as we realize that today and at one time, no one really thought an "out of date suit" or clothes would have any real value and stuff was tossed out, destroyed in making movies and the typical man didn't have many clothes unless he was wealthy or Mickey Cohen!lol

We can not base what we find in vintage shops or thrift stores to gage accurately how tall the average man was in the early to mid 20th Century. Truth is, I've always had a hard time finding suits that fit right... funny thing is that I've had better luck finding vintage suits that fit right over new ones! lol Now, figure that out!

 

[Forgotten Man]

We know taller/larger people existed in the past but in what numbers is a good question. I would like to see a department store record of clothing purchases.
Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that there were less (not none) XL sizes than we see today. I see no reason to believe small sized suits are better at surviving the decades. The selection of suit sizes at a vintage shop might(but probably not) give a fair representation of the general sizes from the past.

Could the fact that specialized stores such as the "big & tall" men's shops existed support the idea that big and tall men were around but not represented in mainstream clothing retail shops? I think it does. A speciality venue makes sense if there is a demand and no representation.

I have looked in many department store catalogs of the period and have looked at the sizes offered! Young men sizes in those classic oxford styled wide legged pants went up to a waist 36” and an inseam of 35” and when you move to men’s suits, I see suits starting at size 34 to 44 coats and pants going from 29” to 41” with an inseam from 29”- 35”! Also, in Sears as well as Montgomery Wards, they had a page to show you how to measure for sizes… and you’d fill out the size you are and mail it in… the department store would then make the garments to the general measurements supplied. Then, send them to you!

Most men who were over the general sizes that the Department stores offered would more then likely have a suit tailor made.

I think some of use refuse to realize that back then to now whoever owned these clothes no matter what size didn’t have the foresight to hold on to larger sizes… they just saw them as rarity old rags! And they were either donated or sent to the dump. And what we have today is truly special!