The size of the female starlet today VS Golden Era.

[NicolettaRose]

So exactly how small were the starlets of yesteryear? Most of them must have been under 110 lbs...probably much smaller then today's starlets.Or maybe they wore shapewear?

A local store to me has just bought up a huge amount of clothing from Paramount studios from the 1930's and on and is selling it in thier store. Many of these peices were used in movies in hollywoods golden age. I have bought many, many of the pieces, but other pieces leave me wondering. There are articles of clothing left which look almost child size. There are some pieces that would would probably require a 20 inch waist to fasten.

I suppose most of the modern hollywood actresses are size 2 or 0, and we say how very skinny they are, but one must look at one what the stars of yesteryear wore. I am a modern size 0/2, infact some of the 0's are too big on me, yet I go to try a few of these pieces from the 1930's and 1940's and they are inches too small, I would literally have to fit someone who was half about 15 pounds less then me, which would mean they would tip the scale at about 85. I did find a lot of things that did fit me, but someone any taller/bigger would be out of luck.

This store is known for selling clothing that was worn by movie stars ( mostly modern) and most of the clothing that is sold comes in size 4 or under, yet these size small sizes are nothing like the sizes of yesteryear.Most female stars that we consider to be skinny today in Hollywood fitting into thier size 0's and 2's, probably would be considered to be a little chubby in the 1930's.

 

[carter]

what the stars of yesteryear wore

Nicoletta, I have been watching a lot of the classic films of late on Turner Classic Movies and the Fox Movie Channel. One observation is that the clothes certainly are more fitted in many of these films. This may say as much or more about the Costume Designers as it does about the actors. However the synergy between the two is inescapable. In "Meet the Stewarts" starring William Holden and Frances Dee, her clothing is impeccable and she is just lovely. I'm always impressed when the actress and the role fit so well. A talented actress in great clothing in the right role is pretty close to heaven!
All this being said, in the Golden Age of film and even later, people were smaller in general. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Frankly, I'm surprised that we don't see more of these classic styles reproduced by some of today's designers for women as well as men. Excepting Ralph Lauren, the mass market really has no current proponent of classic style. Brooks Bros. does adhere to a somewhat limited classic library and Jos A. Banks is introducing some clasic-inspired pieces for men this fall.
This might be an interesting thread to pursue, 'Who are the mainstream purveyors of classicly-inspired clothing for men and women today?'.

 

[ShortClara]

That's interesting. But some of the stars, and Marilyn Monroe comes to mind first, when you look at them they do not look like a size 0. In fact, more like a 6-8 or larger. They actually look healthy (I'm not saying natural 0s like yourself aren't healthy - just the ones who starve themselves to that weight). So now I wonder. I think people overall were just much smaller in the past, but that women like Marilyn were considered curvy and sexy and not fat.

 

[gluegungeisha]

Well...what does a size 2 or 0 even mean today, with the variations due to vanity sizing and such? There aren't any sizing standards!

The 20-inch waist dress is probably meant to be worn with a tight-cinching corset or girdle. Also, a lot of women's "natural" waist sizes shrunk after cinching for a long time. A modern example of that is Dita von Teese, who has a natural 22-inch waist from all that corset-wearing (her corset size is 16 inches).

Small vintage sizes fit me, and small modern sizes usually don't. If a small modern size fits my hips and bust, it probably won't fit my waist (natural 24 inches).

 

[ohairas]

It depends on height as well. Many of the gowns you're seeing might be 'leftovers'... most likely all of the wearable sizes have been picked over.

I *was* a natural 24 inch waist in HS, and my sister who is 21 and has had a baby, used to be too. We could've easily corseted to an 18 inch waist. My sister would not be considered fat by any means, however she is overweight for her frame, and what she used to be. But even with the same "old" waist size, she is smaller all over and more petite than I am, and two inches shorter.
I weigh 135 but I can corset into a 22 inch dress.

I'm sure all stars wore shapewear, or the garments were constructed to shape for them. Many were sewn into their costumes.

Just as we've been discussing in other threads.. people are larger today all over. Our eating habbits are different along with all the hormones injected in the food.
Nikki

 

[Viola]

Most outfits starlets wear today wouldn't give you anywhere to PUT the shapewear of yesteryear. And the underwear from back in the day was much more able to make you take on a certain shape. The waist sizes of back then don't actually tell you what their natural waists are.

As Ohairas said, corsets can do some really dramatic things.

 

[Diamondback]

Yes, we have grown dramatically larger in the intervening decades. Illustration from the guys' side: In World War I, the average soldier was about 5'3"-5'6", just about the right height to stare Runtzilla me in the eye and around 110-130 lbs. I'd estimate (don't have weight stats at my fingertips).

IIRC, someone around here mentioned Veronica Lake as 5'1" or shorter, but she probably woulda been fairly tall for her time.

 

[Viola]

Oh good. I'm not "short," I'm a "vintage-style reproduction."

lol

 

[Diamondback]

Other vintage size stats: at 5'10", MacArthur was considered tall (granted, he also used optical illusion and posture tricks to look like he was 6'+) even as late as WWII, and at over 6' Patton was considered a giant.

So, ladies, it's that your frames today are larger, to correspond with your greater heights. (And, if any of you ever take pity on a short guy, it means more of you for us "accurate-reenactment-sized" guys to love... lol )

 

[Viola]

I'm two inches shorter than my 5'3" grandmother was, and just about the same height as the other.

 

[The Wolf]

Diamondback beat me to it

I was going to mention how tiny Veronica Lake was. She was not the common female height though she mentions in her autobiography that she quite small and people on the street assumed she was taller. Of course standing next to Alan Ladd makes anyone look taller.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I'm a great example of the generational differences in size. My Dad (born 1906) was 5'-2" and Mom (born 1916) was 5'-6" and I'm 6'-0", born in 1961.

It was a standard punchline in the US in the 1950s-60s how much taller the kids were than their parents.

 

[katiemakeup]

Nicoletta~ Is it It's A Wrap on Magnolia? If not, would you be so kind as to tell me where? Thanks

 

[patrick1987]

Starlets back then used diet pills, and didn't eat if they were filming because they would get fired if they gained too much weight. The costumes were sewn onto them. Costumes aren't real clothes.

 

[NicolettaRose]

Oh wow thanks for the info. I was looking at these gowns and saying "How in the WORLD would anyone put those on without weighing 85 lbs"

I bet for the most part female stars ( with some exceptions) are probably healthier. They probably keep thier figures by eating healthy and excercising.

But in the some instance there is such a obcesssion with weight today, it really makes me angry.We have entire magazine covers devoted to " so and so celebrity lost 50 lbs!" or " Look how skinny So and so celebrity is".

The is a backlash against women who are heavy, I have noticed a whole lot more critisizm for a woman who is overweight then a man who is.

The same is true for people for are thin. Its like " Your a size 2 or 0? You must be unhealthy or always on diet?"

Pssssh I'm a size 2 and I eat like a horse.

 

[Diamondback]

Pssssh I'm a size 2 and I eat like a horse.

That also drags the "individual metabolism" into play, along with the aforementioned issue about "frame size" versus overall height/size. I'd figure, by your av, you're probably a small to medium frame.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

I've always eaten what I wanted and now you can tell

Your age has to do with it as well. Never in my life did I think I would ever weigh over a hundred pounds, unless of course I was pregnant. Even when I had the all-you-can-eat buffets, brownies for supper, milkshakes at every meal I weighed about 92. Then when I was around 42 I gained about 30 pounds quickly. This occurred when I actually started eating much less! Obviously my metabolism changed as I aged. Now I barely have an appetite and still weigh over 120, so I have 4 closets of too-small unwearable clothes. I've never dieted and wouldn't know how to.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Bingo. It was age 35 for me -- good bye to the petite waistline forever. Time is the great leveler -- or un-leveler, as the case may be.

 

[imoldfashioned]

According to "Those Glorious Glamour Years" Claudette Colbert was 5'3", 109 pounds with measurements of 32.5-25-34 (modern size 2), Garbo was 35-27-38 (modern size 8-10), Bette Davis 34-21-34 (modern size 4). They also mention that Kay Francis and Garbo were considered giants at 5'7".

 

[NicolettaRose]

According to "Those Glorious Glamour Years" Claudette Colbert was 5'3", 109 pounds with measurements of 32.5-25-34 (modern size 2), Garbo was 35-27-38 (modern size 8-10), Bette Davis 34-21-34 (modern size 4). They also mention that Kay Francis and Garbo were considered giants at 5'7".

Wow me and Claudette would have practically been twins! I come from a family of small people I don't think my father has ever been over 130,and my grandfather has never been over 125.