In article <[log in to unmask]>, Holly Trimper <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
>>Clothing survival is not representative of stature (adolescent
>>clothing disproportionately saved)
>
> Also remember that larger clothes were continually taken in and hemmed and
> altered to fit smaller and smaller members of a family(-ies) as the material
> wore out and the garments became shabbier.  (At least that's what my
> registrar boss told me once.)  So not only are adolescent clothes
> disproportionately saved but adult clothing may not remain in its original
> form(s).
>
> Holly Trimper
> [log in to unmask]
 
That's rather intriguing.  I was just working (identification and appraisal) on
a good-sized collection of old clothing, 1860-1950 but mostly 1880-1920.
Rather few items showed any evidence of being remade.  Generally they were
"professionally" finished (i.e., curve-cut and bound seams), which I wouldn't
expect on a home-done hand-me-down, and no evidence of old stitching in the
seam allowance (which would mean they had to be _really_ cut down a long way).
Also, most of the garments were adult in fashion, with a preponderance of black
bodices (with jet and glass beading and/or lace and embroidery) and black
(simple or ornamented) skirts.
 
I can't say I measured anything (although we did hold many of them up against
ourselves), but my impression was that most of the women's clothing was for
people not that much shorter than me (5' 7", which I thought was average for
the US), but considerably narrower in the waist, arms, and bust.  I would
estimate in a fully non-scientific way that the women averaged about 5-2 to 5-4
and 100-115 pounds.  The long gloves were the most obvious, being long enough
for most of us workers but not nearly wide enough in the hand or arm for even
the thinnest of us to wear.  I'm not convinced, from this, that Victorian and
Edwardian women in Pittsburgh were much shorter than modern Pittsburghers, but
were considerably narrower of frame (as well as lower in body fat).
 
Robin Panza