Bust not Waist

sounds like a proverb

Folks in the 50’s were underfed. Who am I offending by saying that? You will let me know.

That is the only explanation I can come up with for the differences in measurements between the 1950’s patterns and the modern bodies I would like to put into them.

A super-skilled clothing maker is assembling this 1950s pattern right now,

It says bust 40, which is the widest part of the chest. A men’s size 40 suit implies the same measurement - about an inch under the arm pits, the full way around. Breath deep and expand your ribcage if you are going to want that room.

People wear their suits kind of tight nowadays - so, when the suit says 40 at the chest, the suit actually does measure 40” around the chest sometimes. When you breathe in heavily you get a Superman-popping-chest effect. But, usually 40 = 42” around. A little ease.

This size 40 dress measures 45” around the chest. Plenty of ease! What if the intended wearer measures 43.5” (which is, oddly enough, the exact measurement of 3 people that could wear this dress)? They may like me a little less, but I am going to say that we should just make the dress as is - no added ease to accommodate more inches. Just different undergarments to make that body into that period shape.

---

why Bust not Waist?