Women Styles Of Hairs Mehndi Dresses Makeup Jewellary Fashionable Clothes Shoes: Fashionable Dresse 2013

Tuesday 23 July 2013

Fashionable Dresse 2013

Fashionable Dresse 2013 Biogarphy

Source(google.com.pk)

There were no apparent changes in dress sizing during the 1930s. Women’s clothing continued to be divided in Misses or Ladies. There was a slight increase in the proportion of Misses to Ladies sizes advertised in Vogue. Approximately 43% of the dresses listed were in Misses sizes only, 40% were in Ladies only, 16% were offered in both, and 1% were offered in Juniors sizes. There was also a decrease in the use of “years” to designate a Misses size. Instead, the dress was simply called, for example, a “size 14.” Both of these trends could indicate the beginning of the modern size system based on arbitrary numbers.The 1940s
By the 1940s, manufacturers had decreased the percent of garments offered in women’s sizes. Sixty-three percent of the garments advertised in Vogue were in misses’ sizes only. Ten percent were available in both misses and women’s, and juniors increased from one percent in the 1930s to ten percent in the 1940s. Garments available only in women’s sizes fell from forty-one percent in the 1930s to thirteen percent in the 1940s. Moreover, women’s sizes were primarily limited to blouses, slips, nightwear, and low-end advertisers.
Clearly, manufacturers and advertisers were responding to the public. Most women would rather buy a garment that is labeled “size 14” than “size 32,” even if the sizes are based on the same measurements. The elimination of women’s sizes from commonly available clothing presents a problem. In theory, the women’s size range had a larger bust-waist-hip ratio than misses. Surely women as a group did not become less curvy from 1930 to 1949. Therefore, we must guess that manufacturers quietly changed the proportions of misses’ clothing to fit the most common figure type.
With women’s sizes gone, two more size ranges rose to take its place. Clothes available in the juniors range rose from one percent of the total in the 1930s to ten percent in the 1940s. Juniors were sized for older girls in their teens. They were often advertised specifically for college girls. Possibly, junior’s sizes took the place, in terms of proportions, of misses.
Half-sizes grew from less than one percent in the 1930s to four percent in the forties. Half sizes were represented by misses’ sizes plus ½; For example, 24 1/2. All of these available size ranges meant that a woman of average height and proportion could have a very good chance of finding a garment with perfect or near-perfect fit.
Although it cannot be proved without actual original garment specs, there are signs that vanity sizing was quickly becoming commonplace. In the 1920s, the most typical misses’ size range was 14-20. In the 1930s, thirty-nine percent were 12-20, and a few in 12-18. By the 1940s the most common sizes advertised were still 12-20, at thirty-three percent, but 10-20 followed in close behind at twenty-nine percent. The most logical conclusion is not that women were getting dramatically slimmer, but that manufacturers found it profitable to appeal to a woman’s vanity by calling a real size 14 a size 12, and making her feel that much slimmer.
The 1950s and 1960s
Misses’ sizes continued their downward trend. The smallest size range advertised was 6 to 14, the largest 12 to 22, and the most common was 10 to 20. Juniors’ were also sized down to appeal to women’s vanity. 7 to 15 was the most commonly available range, but 5 to 15 was not unusual. Oddly enough, half-sizes remained around the same level they had been at since their invention in the 1940s, at 12.5 to 24.5Clothing For Moderns, published in 1957, elaborated on the vanity-sizing problem. “Formerly we expected a size 14 in the bargain basement to be comparable to size 12 in the more expensive lines. It will be wonderful when size 14 is not tagged a 10 in coats, 34 in blouses, 36 in sweaters, 5 in panties…” Mail order catalogues, according to the book, based their measurements on data from the Women’s Army Corps. Garments were available in misses’, women’s, juniors’, and half-sizes, and were further divided up into tall, average, or short, and average hips, slender hips, or full+ hips. Different manufacturers offered different size combinations.
The measurements for a given size could vary widely. The Revised Measurement Chart approved by the Measurement Standard Committee of the Pattern Industry in 1956 lists a size 12 bust as 32”. Sears’ size 12 in 1957 was made for women with a 34” bust. A 1955 size 12 sewing pattern from McCall’s was for a woman with a 30” bust. The push of vanity sizing resulted in a wide disparity in measurements.The 1960s and beyond
Unlike sizing, figure type definitions did not change significantly over the decades. The Vogue Sewing Book, published in 1972, gave the following definitions for the most common size ranges:
“Misses: A well-proportioned and developed figure that is 5’5”-5’6” without shoes.
Miss Petite: A well-proportioned, developed figure that is 5’2”-5’3” without shoes.
Women’s: A larger, longer, and more fully developed figure than Misses; well-proportioned; 5’5”-5’6” without shoes.
Half-Size: A fully developed figure with short back waist; 5’2”-5’3” without shoes.”
Another publication defined a “junior’s” figure as “a young figure with a high and smaller bust, slimmer through the hips, shorter waisted and not as tall as the standard adult sizes.” The publication describes half-sizes as the industry answer to the “juniors” getting older and wider, but not tall enough to fit into standard women’s sizes.
The first size 2 was advertised by Calvin Klein in 1981, but did not show up much elsewhere. Vanity sizing slowed as the millennium drew to a close. Perhaps manufacturers were hesitant about making the plunge to size “0.” The smallest size advertised as of 1999 remained size 2, and the most common size range 4-14. Dress sizes in advertising had, by the early 1990s, all but faded from magazine pages. Only one or two clothing advertisements showed available sizes, compared to an average of twenty-five per issue in the 1940s and ten per issue in the 1970s. For that reason, it is difficult to make any grand conclusions about dress sizing based on what is advertised.

Fashionable Dresse 2013