Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-31 Thread Exstock
I'm also terminally outta luck--5'10" and just can't win. Too fat to be a model today, too tall to be a model any other time. (And you'd think that what with models today being 7' tall, it'd be a bit easier to find clothing for tall people...) The great thing about being into historical costu

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-31 Thread Karen Heim
Even using artificial means, there's no way I could get down to 24". I don't compress that much - especially as short-waisted as I am. This does explain the look of the fashion illustrations, and why I always thought I was never going to recreate that look - I can't! The killer is that some

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-31 Thread Penny Ladnier
t; To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894??? > - Original Message - > From: "Penny Ladnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BTW, E-house are you a princess with all t

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-31 Thread Exstock
- Original Message - From: "Penny Ladnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BTW, E-house are you a princess with all that grace? Hey, I never said I had grace--just 42" hips! My point was that the description didn't rule out using artificial means to achieve the _physical_ measurements. -E House

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-31 Thread Penny Ladnier
Well I have the bust and hips measurements! But not the height and waist. I think I was 5' 6" in fifth grade. By 6th grade I was heading to 5' 11". I grew a lot that year. The hips came from that time of life and my was size was 24 before son #4. E-house at least you have grace...not me!

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-30 Thread Exstock
- Original Message - From: "Karen Heim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have the right bust and hips, but no way is my > waist that tiny - and when it was many years ago > the rest of me was also much tinier. Ay yi yi! Hey, it only said that the _grace_ could not be acquired by artificial means

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-30 Thread margaret
About 45 to 50 years ago I could have but that was before three kids and quitting smoking. Margaret On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:51:16 -0400 "Penny Ladnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was typing the history of the coat & cloak industry >from 1894. The following were the requirements for a >mode

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-30 Thread Karen Heim
Holy cow! I'm too short for them, but models are usually taller. I have the right bust and hips, but no way is my waist that tiny - and when it was many years ago the rest of me was also much tinier. Ay yi yi! Karen On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:51:16 -0400 "Penny Ladnier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro

Re: [h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-30 Thread Dawn
Penny Ladnier wrote: > Any young woman who has the height mentioned above, a bust measurement of 36 > inches, waist 24 inches, length of back from 16 ½ to 17 inches, arms 24 > inches, neck 12 ½ inches, hips 42 inches, and 13 ½ inches across the > shoulders, is a perfect figure and can find stead

[h-cost] Could you be a model in 1894???

2008-05-30 Thread Penny Ladnier
I was typing the history of the coat & cloak industry from 1894. The following were the requirements for a model in 1894 from the book, Cole's Dictionary of Dry Goods. I thought it was funny when comparing model requirements for today. So could you be a model in 1894? "One of the most impor