| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > O/T Off Topic > Topic: The Incredible Shrinking Woman |
Topic: The Incredible Shrinking Woman
  Page 1 of 1   |
|
| Author | Message |
| monicas | Posted – 6/9/2004 2:14:07 PM | show profile | email poster At least, I'd think so if I believed the size tags. Here's the deal, petty but frustrating: I'm the same size I've been all my teen to adult life. Started out a 5/6 20 years ago, but now I can't fill out a 0. A zero! What the hell is that? When will they start making negative numbers? Mysteriously, the tape measure says my hips, waist, et al are the same size they've always been. If I'd started out larger, this would be no big deal, but through genetics and lifestyle I'm small and I've reached the end of the line with clothes. Nothing fits. I've even tried clothes in high-end boutiques (just to see if they fit, not that I could actually buy them)--no go. |
| monicas | Posted – 6/9/2004 2:15:07 PM | show profile Shrinking part II (In addition, my feet seem to have shrunk as well. At this moment they are clad in shoes a full. size. smaller. than I wore 10 years ago five years ago, they were a half-size smaller. I'm amazed that 35 years of standing, walking and running have resulted in shorter feet. C'est incroible!) (Forgive my French--never let phoenetics be your guide.) As I said before, this is petty. But I'm an adult who's tired of traipsing around in frame-concealing rags (even the hideous polyester stretchy stuff from the juniors' department swamps me). What do the _really_ little women wear? I'm small, but still a little curvy? So I'm asking: where do slender women, especially those of slender means, shop when the peg-legged Espirits from 1987 can no longer be borne? |
| Carter601 | Posted – 6/9/2004 4:26:12 PM | show profile ! If you are seriously looking for an answer to the question: Apparel manufacturers, especially women's clothing labels, have gradually made the cuts of the garments larger while simultaneously attaching smaller labels to flatter the buyers. It seems to have worked. |
| ja | Posted – 6/9/2004 4:35:43 PM | show profile | email poster Where do you usually shop? What I mean is, 1 where do you like to shop 2 what stores are in your budget 3 what stores are just slightly beyond your budget 4 what stores are way past your budget Answer this - if you're in NYC - and maybe I can suggest some ideas. Specifics, please. Thanks. Also, if you're able, please try to define your style. For instance - I dress, mostly, in Italian made tailored clothing (suits/jkts/ties/trousers/shoes) but which all have a decidely English flavor in their colors, patters, textures (fabrics, etc.). Some people call this style Anglo-Milanese. Kids who wear Pumas, Diesel, Trucker hats are called Hipsters. Etc. Knowing what you like to wear, why you like it, and where you can afford to shop and where you can almost afford to shop makes shopping and obtaining clothing a lot easier. Let it rip off the board or here. |
| creatrix | Posted – 6/9/2004 8:35:09 PM | show profile Very interesting... I have not done much clothes shopping during the past decade or so... but within the past few months I had the opportunity to buy some new clothing, and was amazed at how many size 4s were too big! I have not needed a size 2 since the early 90s!! Even the 2s are fairly roomy. I suspected the manufacturers were fudging with the sizes, but now my suspicions seem more valid. Anyway, you sound much more slim than I, and one suggestion is to find Japanese clothing manufacturers, as they tend to have a slimmer population and their clothes [at least used to] reflect that. I have always found Liz Claiborne petites cut very small as well. Good luck! |
| monicas | Posted – 6/9/2004 8:52:26 PM | show profile | email poster hmmm Thanks to you who responded. Ja, as to what's my clothing style, my eyes popped reading the succinct summation of your own. How did you figure that out? I guess I've avoided shopping for so long, for a variety of reasons, that to name a style is somewhat out of my grasp. I guess it's basically classic, if for no other reason than that classics don't go out of style and that my closet is really, really small. So is my budget. I'm trying to find a store or designer that works for me, but haven't been able to so far. |
| rulebook | Posted – 6/10/2004 9:46:34 AM | show profile Careful, Ja... I know you have a penchant for oozing an ''in the know'' persona, but the statement ''Kids who wear Pumas, Diesel, Trucker hats are called Hipsters.'' is pretty far off base. Actually, those kids are often called ''poseurs''. A ''hipster'' (in NYC, anyway) refers a sect of people, often young but not always, who live, breath, shit and eat underground culture. They wore Puma seven years ago, Diesel five, and trucker hats two. I'm not fawning, as I generally think true hipsters have to work too damn hard to shun everything popular and are often pretentious...just trying to correct your perception. |
| ja | Posted – 6/10/2004 10:28:06 AM | show profile | email poster Thank you for correcting my perception. |
| monicas | Posted – 6/10/2004 10:42:09 AM | show profile | email poster I thought hipsters were the ones with the wispy haircuts and ugly glasses. Shows what I know. |
| rulebook | Posted – 6/10/2004 11:36:47 AM | show profile Monicas, They very well could be. It's more about interests and activity than dress, although chunky glasses and wispy hair are commonplace. I just realized that I might be giving of an air of authority on this whole ''definition of a hipster'' discussion. While I am confident that Ja got the current brand names that could define a hipster incorrect, the definition is loose and obviously up for interpretation. An in the end, who cares anyway. But I digress... One final note- In the brilliant program Seinfeld, Kramer was described as a ''Hipster Dufus''. I think it was an accurate description. Take away Kramer's erratic behavior, and he really was a hipster- appreciation of things cool, interesting and obscure, both old and new (Sergio Mendez, vintage clothing, an unbelievably decorated apartment, etc). For interesting reading on the advent, development and definition of ''cool'', pick up Cool Rules by David Robins. It's an interesting read. |
| ja | Posted – 6/10/2004 12:44:53 PM | show profile | email poster ''I just realized that I might be giving of an air of authority on this whole ''definition of a hipster'' discussion. While I am confident that Ja got the current brand names that could define a hipster incorrect, the definition is loose and obviously up for interpretation. An in the end, who cares anyway.'' Exactly. Thanks for writing that. My faith in you has been vaguely restored. |
| celebutante | Posted – 6/10/2004 1:11:54 PM | show profile Try the Junior depts. A lot of that stuff is cut small. And it's not ALL overly trendy. Also places like French Connection, Benneton and Sisely, Zara, Club Monaco. They're all making clothes for skinny girls. Don't bother w/ companies like Liz Claiborne, etc. They're going to be cutting stuff big -- even in their petite sizes. Same w/ Ann Taylor. I'm not even technically a ''petite'' but the few things I've bought there that fit right have been their smallest petite size. It really is crazy. |
| selgnirp80 | Posted – 6/10/2004 1:30:21 PM | show profile As someone under 5 feet tall, with a 4.5 size shoe, I definitely hear you. Some suggestions: Try The Limited for pants; they tend to be cut pretty small. Banana Rebublic zeros tend to be smaller. American Eagle: They have more of a teeny-bopper style, but the clothes are cut for the ultra skinny, so you might have a good chance with cargo pants and jeans. I think it just really depends on the piece you buy. You can't go shopping with the expectation that you're going to buy a lot of stuff. Just browse around and maybe one or two things will catch your eye. (also, not sure about your shoe size, but if you're in NYC there's a store called Giordanos on Second Ave. and 60th that sells designer shoes -- Anne Klein, Via Spiga, Stuart Wtzmn -- in sizes 4-6. Pricey, but invaluable for a few nice pairs.) |
| rulebook | Posted – 6/10/2004 1:54:12 PM | show profile Same here, Ja. I really do have a feeling you would enjoy that book, so if you’re ever in the market for some insightful yet somewhat frivolous reading, check it out. |
| monicas | Posted – 6/10/2004 5:09:03 PM | show profile | email poster thanks, Celebutant and Selgnirp. I've never tried French Connections, Sisely or Zara, but have found Club Monaco and Benneton a bit too wide--though I generally like what they have to offer. Haven't stopped by a Limited in ages, but have found the Banana Republic petites small enough. Unfortunately, just a hair too short. Tried on a suit jacket and trousers there last fall and was at first incredulous: yes! it fits in the waist! yes! only just a tiny bit big in the seat! No, oh no my armpits are strangling and the hem is above my ankle. This surprized me. I'm 5'3'', petite is defined as under 5'4''. Shoes aren't as big a problem. My feet aren't that tiny and shoes are still made in my size, even if the number is inconsistent. I've found in New York that shoes run a little narrower than they do where I'm from, Midwest--which is good news for me. Feet like skiis. Ja, tried to mail you off the board but it bounced back. |
| ja | Posted – 6/10/2004 6:14:58 PM | show profile | email poster Rulebook, thanks, but I have no interest in cool. Monica, thank you too. You can try again, or send it here: info@girlsinthescenery.com Good luck if we don't meet up in the cyber dressing room. |
| ja | Posted – 6/11/2004 3:15:22 PM | show profile | email poster Monicas - Check your e-mail. I just sent you a 46,000 word message. |
| sheilamullan | Posted – 6/12/2004 11:38:17 AM | show profile monica Hello, Monica: You have the makings of a GREAT story there: manufacturers are trying to flatter American women by shrinking the sizes. It's hilarious. But to get to the matter at hand, Talbot's clothes are a bit pricy, but they wear forever. They have a petites lines that might suit. Suggest you drop by during the semi-annual sale, when they slash prices by approximately 40% or so; great savings and the quality is top-class. Best of luck, Sheila |
| kimberly_bradley | Posted – 6/12/2004 1:53:48 PM | show profile It has been a story... ... but probably not in the states. A colleague of mine did an expose on this issue on my pitch (big German mag) -- tied it into the fact that the EU is attempting to ''norm'' women's sizes in a campaign that is measuring average women in each country and coming up with some uniform system (Italian, Brit, French and German sizes are all slightly different, something that may change). Gap and Banana seem to be the worst offenders on this issue, btw... I've been able to cram my formerly size 6 behind into a ZERO at BR... |
| celebutante | Posted – 6/13/2004 9:48:58 AM | show profile Yes. This is definitely not a new story. It's been done before. It's been going on for quite a few years. As for Talbots, sorry, but those clothes are really, really ugly. If you live in NYC and are young and single, don't go there. |
| ja | Posted – 6/13/2004 12:33:57 PM | show profile | email poster Talbots. No, Talbots clothes aren't ugly. They're just very conservative and gentle and sedate in shape, style and color/pattern. I'd actually rather buy basic blouses (solids) in cotton and accessories like scarves and such at Talbots over Banan Republic because the quality at Talbots is better than BR. (That's if I were in the mrkt for cotton oxfords, etc...). BR quality, thus, the general fit and wear/longetivity of its product is shit. For men and women. Bottom Banana Line. No offense to Ms. Mullen, but I found it interesting she was the one to reccommend Talbots here. Having read her caring advice on these boards for months, and in her various posts, seeing her rather genteel personality/constitution shine through - it makes sense she would reccommend Talbots. She reads like Talbots looks: Safe and non-threatening. Know yourself. Know thy wardrobe needs. So let it be written. So let it be done. recalling her alarm that one time a man asked a female journo here to dirnks |
| ja | Posted – 6/13/2004 12:44:20 PM | show profile | email poster That last tag-on line (meant to be deleted) about drinks on my post above was in reference to Sheila's concern a few months ago that a man, a source for a story (who worked in finance) wanted to meet a female poster here for drinks so he could be interviewed. The poster (fem.) asked about hotel bars which would afford them privacy and anonymity. Sheila got a little worked up, concerned about this woman going into a strange hotel with a man. Not because the issue at hand was the legitimacy of the interview/the man's request for anonymity, but seemingly because they were going to meet in a hotel. Sheila's replies on that thread reeked of FEAR OF SIN. She was concerned about this man wanting to meet in a hotel as if that was a one way ticket to being deflowered. (Sorry Sheila.) My point was going to be that in those replies also, Sheila's Talbot's-like demeanor came shining through: BE SAFE. Nothing wrong with being safe in life, being a virgin or shopping at Talbots. |
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
