LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,825
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
We talk a lot about shoes here, but one topic I've yet to see examined is the issue of changing size standards. If you look at vintage catalogs, you'll notice it's very rare to find sizes over 9 (US), at least before WW2, and the common assumption is that gals then simply didn't have the larger feet that so many of us have today. But is this true? There's reason to suspect otherwise.
In going thru some mid-thirties vintage Montgomery Ward and Sears catalogs recently, I noticed a size scale for shoes -- a very simple foot-measuring chart where you'd lay your foot on the page and read the size off the scale. What's most interesting about this is that there was no separate scale for mens' and women's sizes -- it specified that men and women were to both use the same scale. So when I measured my own foot, it gave my size as somewhere between 8 and 8 1/2, not between 9 1/2 and 10, as in modern sizes, and I noticed that for most styles listed in the catalog, 8 or 8 1/2 were the largest sizes offered. (Interestingly, this thirties-era size scale seems quite close to the modern-day sizing of women's shoes in the UK.)
So, here's the question -- you gals who have a lot of vintage footwear: how closely do the marked sizes correspond to your own known size in modern shoes? Does this vary according to the era of the footwear -- do you wear a larger size, for example, in '50s shoes than in '30s? As far as I've been able to find, we've never really tried to pin down a standard for vintage shoe sizing versus modern sizing, or to document when it changed, and it'd be interesting to see if a pattern emerges from the replies to this question.
In going thru some mid-thirties vintage Montgomery Ward and Sears catalogs recently, I noticed a size scale for shoes -- a very simple foot-measuring chart where you'd lay your foot on the page and read the size off the scale. What's most interesting about this is that there was no separate scale for mens' and women's sizes -- it specified that men and women were to both use the same scale. So when I measured my own foot, it gave my size as somewhere between 8 and 8 1/2, not between 9 1/2 and 10, as in modern sizes, and I noticed that for most styles listed in the catalog, 8 or 8 1/2 were the largest sizes offered. (Interestingly, this thirties-era size scale seems quite close to the modern-day sizing of women's shoes in the UK.)
So, here's the question -- you gals who have a lot of vintage footwear: how closely do the marked sizes correspond to your own known size in modern shoes? Does this vary according to the era of the footwear -- do you wear a larger size, for example, in '50s shoes than in '30s? As far as I've been able to find, we've never really tried to pin down a standard for vintage shoe sizing versus modern sizing, or to document when it changed, and it'd be interesting to see if a pattern emerges from the replies to this question.