A thought why all the Great suits are Small

[shamus]

Here's just a thought of mine why it is that all the great suits we find are in a size 38. I'm a 44 long so I never find anything...

Well one, people just didn't eat as well as we do today. This is seen today in many 3rd world countries and even Asia. Where the children of today are near twice the size of their parents because they are eating better than their parents did. (and I don't really mean "twice" it's just a figure of speach.)

#2
But not everyone at that time was small... no, there were many 6 foot 200 pound men, but they generally didn't work in a office, they were the ones that built stuff, farmer and the like. People who didn't wear suits everyday. They wore work clothes, and maybe owned one suit for sundays.
Esp. Farm kids were big because they ate better than a city kid, who would naturally go into an office, while a farm kid, would, well farm.

If you were big you were expected to do a job that was worthy of your size and statue.

#3
I'm crazy and have offened everyone short, tall and inbetween. Just a thought that's all...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Shamus, some great observations. Lets not forget the Great Depression. There were allot of malnourished people back then. My father said that he felt very fortunate that my Grandfather had some land and some livestock because they helped allot of folks that weren't so fortunate.

 

[elsewhere]

Let me assure you that women's clothing is the same way. Of course... some of that we can blame on corsets, girdles & other undergarments. But that doesn't change the narrowness of the shoulders, or the length from shoulder to waist.

My husband's Granny recently offered him his Papa's old hats. He SO wanted them... but they were TINY! They fit our 7 year old! I've seen some of his old sweaters, too... my goodness! He was so tiny!
Plus... when I do find men's stuff, it's fairly small. I think I have a 30's grey wool suit around here somewhere... I should check the size on that...

 

[IndianaGuybrush]

I tend to think of it this way:

The things that lasted this long are the things that were not worn as much. Otherwise they would have undoubtably worn out. All this NOS clothing you find, the reason the seller has a 38s in perfect condition is because the original maker couldn't move it. It's the same thing with hats... the smaller head sizes were the ones that weren't bought, so they're the ones that you can still find today, while the 7 3/8 and 7 1/2, which were probably a more popular head size, were bought up and worn. Go into any store with an 'on sale' section and root through the clothes there. They're brand new and I gaurantee you it's a helluva lot easier to find an extra small than it is to find a large or medium. I think it's aprt of the same principle.

 

[jamespowers]

I tend to think of it this way:

The things that lasted this long are the things that were not worn as much. Otherwise they would have undoubtably worn out. All this NOS clothing you find, the reason the seller has a 38s in perfect condition is because the original maker couldn't move it. It's the same thing with hats... the smaller head sizes were the ones that weren't bought, so they're the ones that you can still find today, while the 7 3/8 and 7 1/2, which were probably a more popular head size, were bought up and worn. Go into any store with an 'on sale' section and root through the clothes there. They're brand new and I gaurantee you it's a helluva lot easier to find an extra small than it is to find a large or medium. I think it's part of the same principle.

I am not quite so sure I am convinced. Because the correlary of that theory would be that the extra large stuff would not have sold either because really big people were not very common either. They should exist in NOS condition as well because people with 7 7/8 to 8 size heads and size 50 suits just don't come along very often---even today.
The real situation is that they just do not exist in the numbers that we would expect to find. Either that or people were using them for tents and rowboats. Nah, I don't think that happened either. People were really smaller and that is more than likely, as previously stated, to do with nutrition during the depression and the subsequent war years. The women were much more constrained in their corsets and other body shaping desings that is for sure.
On the other hand, I have not had much trouble finding a larger size frock coat that fit me (1908). This makes me wonder if there were more big (fat) people during the Victorian/Edwardian eras than in the Golden Age. There seem to be no shortage of pictures of heavier people during the previous ages. You had presidents like Taft, Grant, Harrison and a few others that were more suited to the word BIG. Was it also more acceptable then? It makes me wonder if body size and weight goes in spurts and changes every fifty years or so.
What say all of you?

Regards to all,

J

 

[shamus]

James:

Good point but I think you forget one thing. Everybody owned a coat. But few owned suits. So it would be natural for you to find a coat easier than a suit.

Now to the size. There were big people, but people also dressed in layers and although he might be a 40 in size, by the time he has layer upon layer.. it's a nice size 48.

 

[jamespowers]

James:

Good point but I think you forget one thing. Everybody owned a coat. But few owned suits. So it would be natural for you to find a coat easier than a suit.

Now to the size. There were big people, but people also dressed in layers and although he might be a 40 in size, by the time he has layer upon layer.. it's a nice size 48.

Actually a frock coat is the same thing as a suit jacket today. The overcoat would then go over that. The frock would be part of a suit---same material and such. I actually found one with the coat and vest of the same pattern as mine down to the buttons. It was too small and the pants were missing though. The pants could well have been a different pattern or material that matched the frock and vest. Sometimes they would be striped to match a solid color. Very interesting clothing from nearly 100 years ago.
In three years my coat will be a true antique.

Regards to all,

J

 

[scotrace]

Biggie Sized

I'm thinking that people today are most certainly larger-sized than earlier generations. Makes sense, as we also live longer, and enjoy better health.
A local Victorian museum mansion has a good collection of vintage clothing from around 1900 through WWII, and all of it is small by today's standards. The things I've seen at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, from President Harding's jammies to Lincoln's frock coat (that man's shoulders were as narrow and sloped as can be imagined) brought remarks of "look how small" from onlookers. The exception is Washington's uniform, but he was 6' 3" or so.
The modern parallel is South Korea, where the population's average size has increased dramatically over the past two generations due in part to the more widely available dairy products.
All of the points made above are valid; depression era folks were somewhat malnourished, the NOS stuff seen today was the stinker stock of yore, and big strapping fellows who drove rivets all day had one suit, likely worn for a decade of Sundays.
This is an interesting thread. I may, as usual, be completely wrong.