The myth!

[Senator Jack]

I believe that the movie industry has a lot to be accountable for the lack of larger sized suits and such...

Geography surely is a key factor. Aside from the Dutch and Germans, it can't be said the majority of settlers in New York City were ethnically tall. Italians, Chinese, Irish, Hispanic - that we got - but there's a reason why we don't have a Little Norway or Finntown. To this day, it's a city of average stature, perhaps even below it, and I've found that most six-and-over caucasians I know moved here from somewhere else. Little surprise there's a paucity of vintage pinstripes.

More curious than the suit question is the one about hats. Why does Cheap Jack's have an eternal pile of 6 5/8 fedoras? I keep thinking I need to write a sociological book: Microcephalic America: 1900 - 1950

 

[jamespowers]

More curious than the suit question is the one about hats. Why does Cheap Jack's have an eternal pile of 6 5/8 fedoras? I keep thinking I need to write a sociological book: Microcephalic America: 1900 - 1950

Don't forget our old friend Zip:

 

[Twitch]

Gotta realize too that the majority of young men were lean. We only bulk up with age. I used to peruse the Military surplus places in the 1950s as a kid and there was very little big stuff. It was like it was just made of us kids we thought.

On Ebay today there is a miniscule amount of WW 2 military clothing above size 38-40 jacket and 36 pants. Absolutely, positively the larger stuff is very rare. So why should we be surprised, I suppose, that we don't find legions of civilian clothing in 46-48 from before and after the war?

 

[Forgotten Man]

Well, there were many young men from the ages of 17-25 or so that enlisted or were drafted to serve in WWII. Now, they fought hard, marched their boots off and made their country proud! It wasn’t possible to gain weight if they were always on the go. The larger items we find were owned by larger older officers most of the time who were career military men.

I have seen some large navy stuff… in fact, I own a pair of sailor enlisted blues that were originally a size 41 or 42 waist! I had to have it taken in! They’re the perfect length but, were just huge… and believe it or not, they were never issued. I have seen photos of sailors and the majority of them were lean and short… but, there were tall ones but, all lean. However, I have seen the random photo of some heavier set sailors… the kind you see in movies sometimes that always sets the little guy straight.

Also, it is important to remember that young men and adult men worked harder then! Any job they had other then an office job had a degree of physical labor more so then today since so much is automated! I believe that more men and women were lean because of their diets and work habits. Also, they didn’t have TV to watch all day… a typical housewife would keep the house in order, do the laundry and prepare meals… with a little break time in between to catch up on the latest soaps on the radio and maybe enjoy a coke or some light snack. Then, back to work.

I believe we were a more industrious people in that we had to do things the harder way since there weren’t as many machines to do it for us. Also, the advent of TV enticed people to stay home instead of going out to dance or go for walks or what have you.

All things play a roll as to the shape people were then to now.

 

[jamespowers]

Well, there were many young men from the ages of 17-25 or so that enlisted or were drafted to serve in WWII. Now, they fought hard, marched their boots off and made their country proud! It wasn’t possible to gain weight if they were always on the go. The larger items we find were owned by larger older officers most of the time who were career military men.

I have seen some large navy stuff… in fact, I own a pair of sailor enlisted blues that were originally a size 41 or 42 waist! I had to have it taken in! They’re the perfect length but, were just huge… and believe it or not, they were never issued. I have seen photos of sailors and the majority of them were lean and short… but, there were tall ones but, all lean. However, I have seen the random photo of some heavier set sailors… the kind you see in movies sometimes that always sets the little guy straight.

Also, it is important to remember that young men and adult men worked harder then! Any job they had other then an office job had a degree of physical labor more so then today since so much is automated! I believe that more men and women were lean because of their diets and work habits. Also, they didn’t have TV to watch all day… a typical housewife would keep the house in order, do the laundry and prepare meals… with a little break time in between to catch up on the latest soaps on the radio and maybe enjoy a coke or some light snack. Then, back to work.

I believe we were a more industrious people in that we had to do things the harder way since there weren’t as many machines to do it for us. Also, the advent of TV enticed people to stay home instead of going out to dance or go for walks or what have you.

All things play a roll as to the shape people were then to now.

I can think of only one anecdotal story that might explain smaller uniforms.
My uncle was 210 when he was drafted to go into the military at the beginning of WWII. With three months he was down to 160. I think that reduced him a few suit sizes to say the least. I bet that story is not a singular one either.
The military has a way of shaping up people pretty darned fast. Thus smaller uniforms were the rule not the exception. Maybe there were larger uniforms at the start of the conflict but not years into the war.

 

[Forgotten Man]

I can think of only one anecdotal story that might explain smaller uniforms.
My uncle was 210 when he was drafted to go into the military at the beginning of WWII. With three months he was down to 160. I think that reduced him a few suit sizes to say the least. I bet that story is not a singular one either.
The military has a way of shaping up people pretty darned fast. Thus smaller uniforms were the rule not the exception. Maybe there were larger uniforms at the start of the conflict but not years into the war.

Yes and no.

They made uniforms to fit most sizes... and those who had cash would go off base and have a tailor make them special uniforms... mostly the officer types did this. I have seen some large sized stuff having been around this stuff for a wile and having WWII collector friends. They mostly made smaller sizes because that's what was in demand. But, they had some larger sizes to offer to the new enlisted men who weren't the typical size.

 

[dakotanorth]

Wrong sizes of history?

The more I think about it, I'm starting to buy Forgotten Man's theory, at least in part.
Obviously clothing NOT worn will be in better shape than clothing that's worn. Stuff that is never touched tends to be either A. Unusual sizes, B. A horrible color/pattern/style that no one dug, or C. something that was produced in such incredible volume, the consumer's couldn't buy it all up even if they tried! (Think of the "Wash N Wear" shirts from the 50's)
I have deadstock clothing that falls under all of these categories; not that this is empirical data mind you....
HOWEVER, I do believe the percentages have changed. Abraham Lincoln was what, 6'4"?? Yet he was exceptionally RARE. Goliath (of "David and Goliath" fame) was over 6'. He was considered almost a national treasure of some sorts-- something people travelled to see. I have a vendor's catalog from 1950 that promotes a suit maker specializing in "Big and Tall". One business only.
However, I am talller than my dad, who was taller than his. Not much, but still. Most people believe it's because of the onset of antibiotics; our bodies aren't "Stunted" as much. You also have to keep in mind the dynamics of it; our national average today includes the large group of elderly and the LARGE group of Baby Boomers who are closing in on retirement; these people are shrinking in size who's numbers offset the taller kids of today.

 

[Ben]

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.

"Adult men and women are roughly an inch taller than they were in 1960, but are nearly 25 pounds heavier on average as well, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/americans.htm

 

[Ben]

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

That doesn't explain things like door height.

 

[jamespowers]

That doesn't explain things like door height.

It does for hunchbacks.

 

[Mid-fogey]

There are...

...a large number of issues at play here. Average height is only one aspect. The distribution of heights is a factor too. I'm also rather suspect of the data sources for averages before 1900.

During the history of the US, waves of immigrants has an effect on heights. People coming from parts of the world where heights are less and nutrition is poor would tend to skew averages over time.

Within the fairly short history of the US the change in nutrition has had a dramatic effect on height. But events like the Great Depression and the massive pre- post-WWII immigration surges need to be taken into account.

I'll close by saying that George Washington at 6'2" or 6'3" was considered very large and powerful for his time. Today he wouldn't stand out.

 

[reetpleat]

I don't buy any of it. I find that kids today, early twenties and younger are much bigger than ten or twenty years ago. I don't use atape measure, but it seems obvious. The statistics posted only go to the seventies. I postulate that since the seventies is when the big change took place.

I do agree that different waves of immigrants affect the average. And it is not just nutrition. Asians and Latinos are naturally smaller than average europeans. Don't know bout arabs. Africans tend to be taller some of them.

But as for the idea that smaller sizes wre not worn and put in a trunk, balony. While big guys can be harder on a suit, if a smaller suit belonged to a kid who outgrew it, what makes you think it would not be passed on to another kid?

It isn't like small people are so rare that a suit would never find a new owner.

I will agree as far as particularly small shoes or something like that. But in general, there is always someone to fit a used article of clothing, so why would it not be worn?

Just does not hold water.

 

[A.R. McVintage]

That doesn't explain things like door height.

Got it from the History Channel, so ask them. Though I'd ask what doors of which you speak? The White House, or Monticello, for example, are conlonial buildings with large doors.

Also, the logic doesn't make sense. We don't build doors at 6 1/2 feet because people are that big on average, so deducing that people only built smaller doors because they were tiny is just as silly.

 

[Forgotten Man]

George Washington at 6'2" or 6'3" was considered very large and powerful for his time. Today he wouldn't stand out.

6'2" or 6'3" is still tall today... maybe not in the NBA mind you however, I STILL tower over most people I meet!!! And whatever job I have had I always was asked to grab the out of reach items for my coworkers! And when I wear vintage clothes, I'm the one people notice first... because I'm tall!

I never wanted to imply that short people don't exist today; my intention of this thread is to say that people have come in all different sizes since Adam. Yes, there is always a general height of that most will call average but, I just want to make clear that no matter what time period it is, there has and always will be people in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

We tend to just jump to a conclusion that most men were around a size 38R-42R because that's what we generally find in vintage shops or on ebay. I don't really have an answer for that other then the possibility that is just what generally turns up and has survived or, is left since many have collected this for many years and maybe the normal or larger sizes have been mostly collected or destroyed over the course of time since it was made... Think about it, 60 + 70 years is really quite old for clothing! But, all I know is that I have found some nice things in my 11 years of collecting that wouldn't have been possible had there be a serious lack of taller men in the 20's to the 50's.

 

[Twitch]

Well if 70% of men were 38r-42r all the smaller, taller, wider and heavier would comprise the remaining 30% each being a minority. Tall is one niche big and tall is another while big is different yet. Each is a smaller % when compared to the 38r-42r.

 

[Ben]

Got it from the History Channel, so ask them. Though I'd ask what doors of which you speak? The White House, or Monticello, for example, are conlonial buildings with large doors.

Also, the logic doesn't make sense. We don't build doors at 6 1/2 feet because people are that big on average, so deducing that people only built smaller doors because they were tiny is just as silly.

Cathedral doors are 12 feet or higher. I don't think the white House and Monticello are good proxies for average homes. But in old houses, I find myself ducking quite a bit, and in the older regular homes I have visited (pay a visit to Greenfield Village sometime where some of these things are actually preserved, its is a neat place), I duck even more.

Also, I don't think that anyone is arguing there were no tall people in history. The question is how many and thus how easy would it be to find vintage clothing for larger sized people.

Are people on average taller in the U.S. than they were even a hundred years ago? The statistical evidence seems to indicate yes.

As pointed out, however, the answer depends on distribution and sample size. In addition, what is really at question here is not the mean, or average, but rather, the mode, which is the most often recurring number.

Just because one person has been able to find vintage clothing in his size does not say anything about average or most common height in a particular era. It may say something about the area in which they were found. The survival of these clothes in wearable condition may also indicate the opposite of the original assertion. It may mean that these clothes were not purchased as often or worn as often, meaning that there is more unused, undamaged stock around.

Good by used condition may indicate that the people who were around were victims of genetic abnormalities that led to increased height but early death.

But I think the original assertion that the distribution of body sizes along a curve is close to what it is today doesn't hold up.

All the same, it is enormously fun to think about the question and the ways to answer it. I guess I am just weird that way.

(For more good times, somebody post the link to the study that height and intelligence have a positive correlation.)

 

[reetpleat]

Found an interesting article in The New Yorker online about the study of anthropological study of height. Not very common and only recently taken seriously at all.

To address a few issues and mention a few interesting facts. Claim is that Americans have only gotten slightly taller on average, but Europeans, while previously were smaller, now average three inches or so over Americans.

Their statistics are from many various records such as german army records, American descriptions of lost slaves and indentured servants(black and white) and many other soures. They did adjust for immigration, and while it may have affected American in the past, europan immigrants quicly came up to american height when exposed to an amerian diet back in the day.

Modern american statistics are adjusted for immigration from Latin America and Asia by only tracking white descendants for example.

French people of the eithteenth century were 5 foot tall on average.

The dutch in Van Gough's time were very short, but within a century became some of the talles people in Europe.

Nutrition does affect height and average height tracking is a good way to track a country's economic growth.

When population becomes too high, it can start to negatively affect height averages.

Many other interesting facts.

I guess I will believe statistics about modern height not changing much. But I would also go along with the bigger and heavier.

I have seen plenty of tall skinny suits, but not many big guy suits.

Interesting observation. Most suits I have found and seen from the thirties and forties were about a 38, sometimes 40, rarer still 42 or 44.

Suits from the fifties tend to be size 38-40.

Suits from the sixties tend to be, on average, overwhelmingly size 40. As common and predictable as size 38 in forties suit.

This is based on years of vintage clothing dealing focused mainly on suits.

 

[BellyTank]

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.

From the text:
"...This historical trend is notable for the tall stature during the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century decline, and the surge in heights of the past century." The "past Century", now that would be the 20th Century, which would include your focus. But the text tells us that people were generally taller in Colonial times- then shorter- then taller again...



B
T

 

[BellyTank]

It does for hunchbacks.

Yes but...
...a "hunch" will never stand up in Court.

B
T

 

[Twitch]

I worked for a clothier in the 1970s and assisted the buyer. Look EVERY article of clothing they bought was calculated on their buying a spread of sizes that covered the spectrum of customers.

This went for suits, shirts, slacks, sweaters, jackets- everything.

The vast majority was neither very small or large. It was in the 38-42 size.
Harldly any 36s were on hand- go to the boys department! There were a fair amount of 44s but very few 48s. Pants' waists were similar in numbers per size.

In shirts there was a tiny selection of 17 1/2" and 14 1/2" collars but lots of 15-16".

That's how it was across the entire clothing spectum from jock straps to over coats.