This essentially means going back to the past. Although it will probably be an improvement on the current, seemingly random, sizing, it will not necessarily make it easy to find the clothes which are the right size for you
It all depends on what you mean by ‘fit’, & these are as much questions of fabric & fashion as of centimetres.
Then there are the compromises: trousers to fit your long legs or your slim waist? Your broad shoulders or less than ample bosom?
The article also gives some fascinating figures about the change in the average woman’s measurements since 1920
I am particularly intrigued by the big increase in waist size. It seems extraordinary to me that journalists can scoff at Mrs Beckham’s 25” waist as suggestive of an eating disorder. When I was young 24” was a bit much, & 26” the absolute limit. More than that was our equivalent of having to admit to being more than size 16 today
I just wonder whether it is all to do with body mass, as such, or whether corsetry & posture have anything to do with it. Even teenagers might have worn a garment called a roll-on, which was a kind of lightweight elastic corset. As to posture, we were nagged constantly to stand up straight, pull up our rib cage & tuck our bottom in
You expected an expanded waistline after childbirth, one which would never go back to its maidenly span. Nothing to do with weight; your rib cage had been pushed out by the baby & often failed to spring right back. Allegedly
Related post: The number next to zero
