The myth!

[Forgotten Man]

For a long time and I still hear it today… the common misconception that people in the 20’s to the 40’s were smaller then, then they are today is sounding more and more annoying and incorrect then I can stand! I will explain.

Now, I’m 6’3” I’m tall, I have vintage, and it has taken me some time to collect clothing from the 20’s to the 50’s but, I have it and I still find a few things in my size now and again.

Now, if the common idea that men and women were smaller in the 20’s to the 40’s were true, I’d never have as much vintage in my size as I do now.

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.

The classic argument is: But, if people were all different sizes then, why can’t we find clothing in that size? Well, I can tell you why and when I do, it will make sense!

Now, the reason why there seems to be more smaller sizes then, is because the normal sizes were sold more, worn more and tossed out! Bigger sizes fell prey to the same reasons… men of those early days only had maybe one or two suits… they wore them out, tossed them out and bought new ones.

It’s sad to think of it but, even back then people were throwing out clothes then and now! Maybe the grandparents held on to their stuff but, when they die, not always are their things sold off… in many cases the family will go in and clean out an entire home and toss all the old contents into a dumpster! People have been throwing away clothes and other collectables since the 1950’s! It’s really amazing that we have as much as we do from those years!

The human race has not changed all that much over the course of 70-80 years. It’s really not that long in the grand scale of time. Now, if you go further back, yes, I believe the average male or female was generally on the smaller size.

I firmly believe that the general average size 80 years ago was somewhat smaller then today but, the idea that 90% of the population of America fit into that general size is a laugh!

We have always come in different shapes, sizes and so forth… and we will continue to come in just that fashion… all shapes and sizes!

Thank you.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I would tend to agree.
I saw the head armorer of The Tower of London on TV some time ago in a show about armor. He stated that the common belief that people were smaller in The Middle Ages was indeed a myth. The reason we see so many small suits of armor is that they were not worn as much, not handed down to succeeding generations of "small" knights. Also there is actually surviving armor that is quite large that was not worn out by use, so there were people on the other end of the size spectrum just as we see today.
The average sized stuff was simply worn to death.
People now might be an inch or so taller on the average due to better nutrition, but not enough to really verify the misconception that the human race was once a lot of midgets.
But I also have heard, (and tend to agree) that women have been getting smaller over the last 100-150 years or so, not in stature, but weight.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm inclined to think people were proportioned differently in the past -- not so much bigger per se, but different ratios of height to leg length, things like that.

One good example of why I believe this comes from the theatre where I work. When it was built in 1923, it could seat 600 patrons with reasonable comfort -- the rows were closely spaced, but everyone seemed to fit without any problems. Flash forward to 2005, when the theatre was renovated -- and it was found necessary to remove every other row of seats in order to allow sufficient leg room for the modern patron, so that our current capacity is just a dite over 350.

There are plenty of older venues left where you can see people fussing and squriming because of insufficient leg room -- the grandstand seats at Fenway Park, which haven't been realigned since 1934, are good examples of this. The spacing of pews in old churches is another example. Either people had a much higher tolerance for discomfort in the past or they had shorter legs.

 

[Fletch]

Steeper Bell Curve?

I have a hunch - no more really - that human height and weight took a general bell curve trend then as now, but that the bell curve was somewhat steeper along the high slope.

Ie, there were a few very small people and a few very large people, because there always are. But I suspect there were more people slightly smaller than average, and (this is important) fewer people slightly larger than average.

My rationale is the lower general standard of nutrition, the more limited availability of food, and possibly, less tendency for ethnic groups to interbreed.

Liz, I'm interested how you would explain car interiors being so much bigger back in the day, even as public seating was smaller.

 

[Feraud]

People having different body proportions and not being necessarily larger overall makes a lot of sense.

I have heard women talk about vintage shoe and glove sizes. My impression is the shoes and gloves are mostly very small. How much of this is an accurate reflection of the population and not what has survived is speculation.

A very interesting topic.

 

[Paisley]

I think people tend to need more room now not because they're taller, but because they're fatter. It's easier to draw in your arms and legs when you're thin.

Smaller clothes might have been purchased by someone in their late teens, outgrown, and left in a trunk.

 

[Paisley]

Liz, I'm interested how you would explain car interiors being so much bigger back in the day, even as public seating was smaller.

Bigger families?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Liz, I'm interested how you would explain car interiors being so much bigger back in the day, even as public seating was smaller.

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.

 

[A.R. McVintage]

We also know people weren't tiny in the past because someone like Lincoln, while considered a tall man for his day, wasn't looked upon as some sort of anomalous freak.

 

[Fletch]

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

Your carriage awaits madame.

1935 Ford Fordor

 

[Forgotten Man]

Lizzie, I know what you mean... I've sat in a few good ol' theaters here in LA that date back to 1926 and so on and have had to suffer the lack of leg room.

My theory is that then, a theater likely would have desired to fit more guests into the theater then give the guests more leg room. If they cared about the average moviegoer they would have made more comfortable seats. In most big theaters by the 30's and 40's they had padded seating and did make them a little larger. But, in the 20's to the early 30's I've seen very small wood theater seats... I don't mind sitting in those or being some what cramped because I'm experiencing the movie in its natural historical environment. lol yeah, I'm weird!

Now, I believe that the auto manufacturers of the 1920's believed that the proper human size was around 5'6" or so... because, cars of the 20's are SMALL! It's kind of awkward for me when I drive my buddy's '29 Chevy... oh man, not much leg room at all! But, by 1935 it really started to change! More room, wider, longer cars with added comfort. And by the 1940's improvements continued!

Some of our favorite stars were rather tall... Gary Cooper, James Stewart and also Cary Grant all were on the tall side. Stewart was about 6'3"!

 

[carter]

I don't know about the seating issue. It seems to me that there were/are plenty of vintage automobiles with big roomy seats for the same reason that there is vintage furniture that is plenty roomy. Not all, mind you, but quite a lot. I think people may have placed comfort in their private lives as much at a premium then as now. Perhaps moreso since the wearing of a hat, for instance, provides not only style but also shade, warmth, etc.
As far as public seating is concerned, it may be that posture was better than we generally see today. Less slouching and reclining in your seat and more sitting erect. Some of the vintage silhouettes in clothing seem to suggest this as well since the more tailored look, even in over the counter goods, shows to best advantage with good posture. Certainly less leg room would have been needed if those seated sat rather than slouched. Perhaps slouching was reserved for the automobile and the home?
This is reminiscent of ladies getting "dressed up" even to go to the market and men doing the same. There seems to be an indication of more separation than we see today between the private and the public personna.
Then there is always the profit motive where public entertainment is concerned. With far less competition than today, movie theatres and ballparks did not need to resort to improved ammenities to attract an audience. Fewer and, in some cases, newer sources of entertainment could count on an audience. The same was true of public conveyances, particularly air travel.

Interesting thread.

 

[Feraud]

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.

 

[Sefton]

Seeing as research money is spent on just about anything nowadays here's another useless idea for a study: Find any surviving manufacturer and major store/distributor inventory or production lists and see what's there. Just like now,big business isn't going to make and stock large numbers of items for the least common sizes. Let the (old-dead)invisible hand of the market answer this question!lol

 

[Feraud]

Seeing as research money is spent on just about anything nowadays here's another useless idea for a study: Find any surviving manufacturer and major store/distributor inventory or production lists and see what's there. Just like now,big business isn't going to make and stock large numbers of items for the least common sizes. Let the (old-dead)invisible hand of the market answer this question!lol

A great point.

 

[BellyTank]

Hmmm...

"...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."


See the data here, see..
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1008143


Read the text here, ya know..
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1008143


B
T

 

[BeBopBaby]

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.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Nothin' better then photographic proof!:eusa_clap

 

[BellyTank]

Nothin' better then photographic proof!:eusa_clap

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

B
T

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

I think my experiences in vintage clothing could help illustrate how the average stuff was worn out. I'm 5ft 9 3/4inches in height. I bought a nice tweed suit from the 30's, and the suit jacket fit well, but the trousers were about 2-3inches too short.

I bought a Palm Beach summer suit, and the jacket fit in the chest and shoulders, but the arms were to long, and the trousers were to long. The suit was probably for someone about 6ft 2in. I thought it could be altered to fit, but even if it was, the suit jacket would be to long. Besides, I don't like editing history.

There you have it. Of course I probably just need to keep looking.