@[email protected] to Vintage and Retro Ads, Promos, Fliers, Etc. @sh.itjust.worksEnglish • 5 months agoLady Bryant clothes, print ads, 1960i.ibb.coimagemessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up138arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up138arrow-down1imageLady Bryant clothes, print ads, 1960i.ibb.co@[email protected] to Vintage and Retro Ads, Promos, Fliers, Etc. @sh.itjust.worksEnglish • 5 months agomessage-square11fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@fireweedlink12•5 months agoSizes 38-60?? Damn vanity sizing really did a number on women’s fashion over the decades. (We’re down to “00” sizing… I really don’t know where they plan to go from here)
minus-squarethe_itsb (she/her)linkfedilinkEnglish9•edit-25 months ago“Sizes 38-60” probably denotes waist or hip measurement Modern sizing for ladies’ dresses and pants (00 - 20s) is not a direct measurement
minus-squarethreelonmusketeerslinkfedilinkEnglish1•edit-24 months agoStill not sure what the units would be. 38 cm is tiny. 38 inches is larger than many.
minus-squarethreelonmusketeerslinkfedilinkEnglish3•5 months ago don’t know where they plan to go from here They could go “triple zero”, “quadruple zero”, etc., but a better solution would be to scrap multiple zeros and use “-1”, “-2”, “-3”, etc. The best solution would be to scrap vanity sizing entirely and just use the actual measurements, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sizes 38-60?? Damn vanity sizing really did a number on women’s fashion over the decades. (We’re down to “00” sizing… I really don’t know where they plan to go from here)
“Sizes 38-60” probably denotes waist or hip measurement
Modern sizing for ladies’ dresses and pants (00 - 20s) is not a direct measurement
Still not sure what the units would be. 38 cm is tiny. 38 inches is larger than many.
They could go “triple zero”, “quadruple zero”, etc., but a better solution would be to scrap multiple zeros and use “-1”, “-2”, “-3”, etc.
The best solution would be to scrap vanity sizing entirely and just use the actual measurements, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯