The myth!

[jamespowers]

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

B
T

But a hunch will ring a bell.

 

[Flivver]

My inclination is to think a lot of the thing with modern cars -- which I can't stand, by the way, I sorely miss nice wide bench seats -- is that it's a stylistic choice on the part of the designers in trying to make the car seem like the interior of a high performance sports car or a jet fighter or something like that, the whole "cockpit" thing. Older cars tended to be designed in a more practical way -- you didn't have the bucket seats or the floor consoles or the gizmo-encrusted dashboards or anything like that. Instead you had a place to put three people on each seat and any baggage they might be carrying.

I prefer that myself. I like to ride in a car, not wear it.

This is a very accurate assessment, I think.

Bucket seats returned to vogue in the late 1950s when the U.S was in the midst of a sports car craze. They were frequently offered as an option on the big wide cars of the day that offered a bench seat for three as standard.

But as compact cars became more popular in the 60s and 70s, so did bucket seats because the compacts often weren't wide enough to accomodate three people across. So the bench seats made little sense to designers.

Also, bucket seats and the popularity of imported cars led to the shift lever moving from the column back to the floor. This too, made the bench seat more difficult to accomplish.

By the 1980s, as fuel economy regulations were tightened, auto manufacturers made vehicles narrower to reduce weight and fuel consumption. So today, bench front seats and column mounted shifters can only be found in a handfull of "fullsize" cars (like the Ford Crown Victoria) and on "fullsize" pickups.

Another interesting issue regarding the size of people and car interiors has to do with the space between the seat bottom and the leading edge of the front door. Modern vehicles have so much room here that there's never an issue. But on cars built prior to 1935, this dimension is usually pretty tight making it difficult to get ones feet out of the car! (particularly true with my hulking size 11 1/2s!

I had always assumed that people had smaller feet back in the Golden Era. Does anyone know if that's true?

 

[Ecuador Jim]

Forgotten Man,

I've always had the same exact theory about vintage clothing.

And tall/large people did exist.

Here is a picture of my great grandfather (middle row, 4th from the left). He was very tall, over 6 feet. He always towers over people in pictures and look at how big his hands are. My grandfather, his son, had the same body type/height and my mother, his grand daughter, is 6 foot tall and wears a sz 11 women's shoe. At 5' 6", I am the shrimp of the family and I am still taller than the average woman.

Who's that sloucing in the lower right hand corner??? lol

 

[Nick D]

A man said to me the other day that there weren’t any fat men back then! I DID A DOUBLE TAKE! I said, I beg to differ; there were men who were larger back then! Obesity is nothing new! There may have not been as many as there seems to be today, but, there were men and women that had larger bodies then as we do today.

"I want to give the Bird to Sydney Greenstreet..." -Tom Smith, 'I Want to Be Peter Lorre'

 

[The Outlaw Kyle]

I have an additional data point to add. I work in the seating industry. The company I work for has been around for 120 years. Looking at the older theater, stadium, bus and office seating, you can most assuredly see a steady increase in seat width, and height. When I started 7 years ago, the industry standard width was 17". Now, it is moving to 18". Some of our really old designs are 16". So, either we have a larger personal space zone, or we are bigger and require more space. Also, our strength requirements for our seats are higher due to the increased load they are expected to see.

Ah...seating...

 

[Twitch]

Flivver- The ease of entry and exit in an auto is important to me at least- 6' 225 lbs. For anyone bigger you must realize that a 2-door has wider doors than a 4-door. Most 4 door cars make me scrunch my knee, foot and leg in before I can close the door and schooch around to get comfy.

Another problem is that doors don't all open to the same degree. Some 4-door doors open nearly 90 degrees to the body and others don't hence less space to get in/out

I dont have this problem with 2-doors and that's why I bought the Eldorado over the Seville. Besides, I ain't driving lots of folks around so that I need the convenience of 4 doors.

Only my 50 Packard 4- door has huge space to get in/out of in the front or rear seats.

 

[Big Man]

I'm 6'-6" and about 360 lbs. I can get in and out of my '65 Ford a lot easier than ANY new car. I "wear" a new car - I can ride in an old car. So much for people being "bigger" today. [huh]

 

[Bill Taylor]

I'm not all that convinced that men or women have increased in height that much, if any, since 1900, although it does seem that women were smaller (shorter and much thinner) in the 30's and 40's than now. My Father was born in 1898 (yes, in the 19th century) and passed away at age 92 in 1989. He was 6' 3" and weighed about 180-190 pounds(probably less in the 20's and 30's. My older Brother, born in 1929 was also 6'3" but usually weighed about 170 pounds until he was 23, at which time he was killed in action in the Korean War. My younger Brother, born in 1939, is 6'2" and weighs about 195 pounds. I was born in 1932 and I am 6'1" and weigh 150 pounds and have been that size since I was about 16. My size difference from my Dad and Brothers may be because I had polio in the summer of 1943. And the polio (sometimes wrongly called Infantile Paralysis then) epidemic of the late 30's through the 40's may have affected the ulitimate size of a lot of people, which would skew the averages. The epidemic was rampant and not curable. Many of the millions affected recovered as I did with little or no recognizable effects, but in all cases there were varying degrees of muscle damage. My Mother, born in 1902 and passed away in 2004 at age 101 and 11 months was 5'4" and always weighed about 100 pounds (106 when she passed away). My Sisters, born in 1926 and 1928 were both about 5'5" or so and also weighed about 100 to 110 pounds. My wife was born in 1931 and is also 5'4" and as of right now weighs 107 pounds. (I should probably fib and cut that down a little to stay out of trouble). I think all of those sizes of my family are more or less comparable with what one sees today, except perhaps for the weight issue and maybe women are a little taller. We hear enough from the news that current over weight issues are an escalating health problem for males and females of all ages, but especially for the younger ones.

From my memories of the 30's and 40's, there were definitely fewer overweight men and women. The depression may have been involved. Even if you had plenty of money and a lot did, it still would have been tacky to look like a fat cat. One must remember that even though the unemployment rate was about 15% (19% in about 33 or 34), that meant that 85% of the people did have a job and were working. Women of 50 or so didn't try to pretend they were young chick grandmothers, so many tended to be somewhat "plump". The thought of not looking their part would have been distasteful to them. So they dressed and acted accordingly as the period dictated. That may be why ladies shopping for vintage clothing can find larger sizes, because older middle age women dressed well and elegantly in many cases, but in clothing purchased for their body shape. By the way, Ladies of the Fedora Lounge, it would be interesting if any of you who might collect goldern era womens' patterns have run across any information about converting mens' suits to womens'. It was definitely out there (see below).

And guys, I can tell you where many, many of mens' suits and trousers of the 30's and 40's went. Upon the advent of WWII, material, especially wool, became very scarce and dear. The pattern companies (Butterick, etc) came out with directions for how women could take their absent husbands suits and convert them to a suit for themselves. Also, suits as a womens style was very fashionable at that time and the two may have gone hand in hand. My Mother was really good at sewing, so for sure I know where 4 or 5 of my Dad's suits went, since he was overseas and had no need of suits. I remember she couldn't quite decide what to do with the vests, so finally, she just converted them to a women's vest as well. My Dad was a lawyer, and I never saw him when working without a suit and vest (other than his Army uniforms, which I think he had tailored). He was a Colonel when he went into the Army in December of 1941.

I also noticed in one of the other posts someone mentioned that "all the men between 17 and 25" were in the service. That's not quite accurate. The draft applied to "all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 50" unless they were farmers or involved in specific defense work. Seems I remember there was a height and weight spec too of 5'6" and 143 pounds, but that may not be a correct memory. But actually, most men did want to volunteer for the military as WWII was a very popular war. Hell, my Grandfather, who was over 65 in 1941 tried to volunteer, even though he was beyond the draft age of 50. Needless to say, he lost that battle.

Bill

 

[BellyTank]

Maybe if you folks read some of the statistics, you may be convinced-
at least a little...

The truth is right under your nose/s.


B
T

 

[Twitch]

I thought the point simply was RELATIVE size when compared to a majority. Are there more XL guys today or are there more simply due to a much greater population in total numbers?

If size matters, in paleoarcheology many skeletal remains of people of tall stature have been excavated from pre-historic times. In fact the Neanderthal ranged from 5"6" to 5"9" from some 500,000 years ago to 28,000 years ago while Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens which appeared about 35,000 years ago stood 5'11" to 6"4"

Dimorphism of height has ebbed and flowed as Sapiens have evolved. Homo Sapien Archaic that roamed eastern Europe were shorter than their Cro-mag brothers in the west. There have been dietary, regional and ethnic considerations affecting height alone.

I think one thing we can certainly agree on is the fact that there are more totally and relatively heavier people on the planet. And much of this is due to the multitude of junky foods not available to our ancestors. Also we do not need to burn calories as we hunt and gather each day and move in nomadic harmony with game, seasons of the year or climate changes.

As more and more physical labor is taken away from our societies we retain extra weight by non-physical existances. In previous times there was no consideration to be physically fit. Gyms were stinky places where boxers trained. There were no excerscise clothes. Few ever wore sweatshirts. Who the hell jogged?

So is it height that makes you an XL or weight or combination of the 2?

 

[Chas]

There was an archaelogical dig in a Roman era battlefield; not sure where, exactly. They found the remains of ancient Romans and Gauls. Many of the Gauls were 6' or more, the Romans tended to be shorter on average. The Romans ate primarily grain, the Gauls had meat-heavy diets. And drank alot of beer. so I think that diet played a part.

Our contemporaries have very unhealthy diets; even when you compare smoking rates, and fatty meat-heavy diets of yesteryear. I would hazard to guess that obesity is far worse now than it was "then".

 

[reetpleat]

I thought the point simply was RELATIVE size when compared to a majority. Are there more XL guys today or are there more simply due to a much greater population in total numbers?

If size matters, in paleoarcheology many skeletal remains of people of tall stature have been excavated from pre-historic times. In fact the Neanderthal ranged from 5"6" to 5"9" from some 500,000 years ago to 28,000 years ago while Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens which appeared about 35,000 years ago stood 5'11" to 6"4"

Dimorphism of height has ebbed and flowed as Sapiens have evolved. Homo Sapien Archaic that roamed eastern Europe were shorter than their Cro-mag brothers in the west. There have been dietary, regional and ethnic considerations affecting height alone.

I think one thing we can certainly agree on is the fact that there are more totally and relatively heavier people on the planet. And much of this is due to the multitude of junky foods not available to our ancestors. Also we do not need to burn calories as we hunt and gather each day and move in nomadic harmony with game, seasons of the year or climate changes.

As more and more physical labor is taken away from our societies we retain extra weight by non-physical existances. In previous times there was no consideration to be physically fit. Gyms were stinky places where boxers trained. There were no excerscise clothes. Few ever wore sweatshirts. Who the hell jogged?

So is it height that makes you an XL or weight or combination of the 2?

I agree that we are talking about two different things with height and size as in weight, chest etc.

When I was a dealer, it was not that uncommon to find a size 38 suit that would fit a taller guy, even some that fit a few guys I knew who were about 6'4 but a size 38. I was quite thrilled to put a guy I knew who could never find stuff to fit into a size 36 suit three piece double breasted blue pinstripe for his 6'5" frame.

And bigger waists were not alwasy that hard either, but bigger sizes such as suit 44, 46, 48 were rare. Mind you I also agree that guys that size are harder on their clothes. It is simple physics.

So I would postulate that height has increased less than bulk which may indeed be bigger. Not just weight, although I do think that the lack of exercise and hard work, coupled with the giant food industry that spends a lot of money to come up with food that is addictive and tends to add weight, or at least is not all that healthy.

I still am wondering though, if anyone has found statistics from today compared to back in teh day. I saw someone posted stats from when they wroked in the seventies, but I am wondering if that has changed in the last 30 years. Kids today seem much bigger than when I was in high school.

I thought it would be easier to find those statistics on line but had no luck after getting sidetracked into an interesting New Yorker article. Have I missed it? Does nayone have shirt and chest as well as height size statistics from the last five to ten years?

 

[Luddite]

I agree that we are talking about two different things with height and size as in weight, chest etc.

When I was a dealer, it was not that uncommon to find a size 38 suit that would fit a taller guy, even some that fit a few guys I knew who were about 6'4 but a size 38. I was quite thrilled to put a guy I knew who could never find stuff to fit into a size 36 suit three piece double breasted blue pinstripe for his 6'5" frame.

And bigger waists were not alwasy that hard either, but bigger sizes such as suit 44, 46, 48 were rare. Mind you I also agree that guys that size are harder on their clothes. It is simple physics.

So I would postulate that height has increased less than bulk which may indeed be bigger. Not just weight, although I do think that the lack of exercise and hard work, coupled with the giant food industry that spends a lot of money to come up with food that is addictive and tends to add weight, or at least is not all that healthy.

I still am wondering though, if anyone has found statistics from today compared to back in teh day. I saw someone posted stats from when they wroked in the seventies, but I am wondering if that has changed in the last 30 years. Kids today seem much bigger than when I was in high school.

I thought it would be easier to find those statistics on line but had no luck after getting sidetracked into an interesting New Yorker article. Have I missed it? Does nayone have shirt and chest as well as height size statistics from the last five to ten years?

There are statistics, many of which are from US military sources, which show that since the 1940s, mean height has been increasing. There is a noticeable upward trend in the data gathered with increased frequency from 1950 towards height increase. It's no myth. I should know the details, having (relatively recently) completed anthropometry studies at University of Loughborough, but must confess that without referring to notes, the details elude me! We are genetically preprogrammed to attain a maximal height. We can only attain this with limited exposure to disease and sound nutrition, a situation which has only been present from mid-last-century. Apparently the Dutch have attained their peak, I am told due to their free consumption of milk, but I'm not sure if I was having my leg pulled about that 'fact'!

 

[jamespowers]

There are statistics, many of which are from US military sources, which show that since the 1940s, mean height has been increasing. There is a noticeable upward trend in the data gathered with increased frequency from 1950 towards height increase. It's no myth. I should know the details, having (relatively recently) completed anthropometry studies at University of Loughborough, but must confess that without referring to notes, the details elude me! We are genetically preprogrammed to attain a maximal height. We can only attain this with limited exposure to disease and sound nutrition, a situation which has only been present from mid-last-century. Apparently the Dutch have attained their peak, I am told due to their free consumption of milk, but I'm not sure if I was having my leg pulled about that 'fact'!

Got to be careful with military sources since many draftees might not have attained their full height potential at the age they were drafted. Going to any high school reunion will show you that the "runty kids" did not stop growing after high school in many cases.

 

[reetpleat]

Got to be careful with military sources since many draftees might not have attained their full height potential at the age they were drafted. Going to any high school reunion will show you that the "runty kids" did not stop growing after high school in many cases.

Not to mention that the us army is increasingly black and latino. However, they might cancel each other out.

Historically though, military records are gold as they may be the only record many had ever been a part of.

Here is the New Yorker article I mentioned. Previous poster, Is this the type of study you do?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405fa_fact

It seems that while americans are getting a little bigger, some europeans are getting huge. The dutch are indeed probably maxed out. Interesting stuff about height. While it is also genetic, things like nutrition and disease can affect it, but most at certain stages, and it can be made up for etc.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Myth?

Here is a picture of me wearing my Dad's fedora from the 1950's (A Penny's Marathon.) My Dad was a big guy, or so it seemed at the time. When I was a kid his fedora fell over my eyes and ears. You can see how it fits me now!

The second picture is of me wearing my own Penny's Marathon, fitting perfectly. It's a 7 1/2! My head is MUCH bigger than my old Dad's and I'm only 5'11" and about 180.

Make your own determination about the myth of sizes.

-dixon cannon

 

[Luddite]

'Ere we go, back at work and I have The Figures.

Discounting military surveys (which skew the data because only the prime specimens are chosen)
Since 1952, stature has been increasing at the rate of 10mm / decade. waist measurement, however clocks in at 25mm / decade (SizeUK / ESRI).

Apparently, Japan is also following this trend but at a much faster rate.......

 

[BellyTank]

Drastic diet change in Japan since WW2- away from the traditional.


B
T