<?php wp_title( '|', true, 'right' ); ?>

So What Size WAS Marilyn Monroe…? Marilyn’s (& Other Movie Stars) Measurements

Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe’s measurements

There’s a lot of discussion about whether Marilyn Monroe really was a size 16, and whether that was a US size 16 or a UK size 16, so I  thought I’d look into it in more depth and see what I could find out.

Like most women (with perhaps the exception of Sophia Loren who claims (rightly or wrongly) to have the same vital statistics for the last 40 years) Marilyn’s weight fluctuated a great deal over the years, but these are her measurements according to her dressmaker and her studio:

Height: 5 feet 5½ inches
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Now according to ASOS (which just happened to be the first place I thought to look) a 36″ bust is a UK size 12, which is a US size 8.  This would make Marilyn’s hips a UK size 10 (US size 6) and her waist would be a miniscule UK size 4 (US size 1).  Personally I didn’t know sizes even went that small, but what do I know..?!

So taking into account the fact that sizing has become more generous over the years, and that the size 16 statistic was probably from one of her slightly heavier times, this would still only make her a UK size 16 (US size 12).

The thing that really stands out to me is how much of an extreme hourglass figure she had. It’s no wonder that she had all her clothes tailor-made when she was a size 12 on top and a size 4 around her tiny waist, wowsers! Most people would have to do some extreme corseting to get a figure like that!

Next I got to wondering how Marilyn compared to other starlets and pin up girls of the time. So here we go. I’ve also included the measurements for Jane Russell, Brigitte Bardot, Elizabeth Taylor, Betty Grable, Sophia Loren, Audrey Hepburn and Bettie Page.  Let me know if I’ve missed out anyone important!

Jane Russell’s measurements

Jane Russell

Jane Russell was renowned for having a magnificent bust. Bob Hope once joked, “Culture is the ability to describe Jane Russell without moving your hands”. Her measurements were:
Height: 5 feet 7 inches
Bust: 38 inches
Waist: 24 inches
Hips: 36 inches
Bra size:38D

Brigitte Bardot’s measurements

These measurements are from 1956. There are also reports that her waist was a tiny 19 inches at one point fuelling the argument that Bardot was the original size zero girl…
Height: 5 feet 7 inches
Bust: 36 inches
Waist: 20 inches
Hips: 35 inches
Bra size:  36B

Elizabeth Taylor’s measurements

I had no idea Elizabeth Taylor was this tiny!
Height: 5 feet 2 inches
Bust: 36 inches
Waist: 21 inches
Hips: 36 inches
Bra size:  36c

Betty Grable’s measurements

Betty Grable WWII pin up for YANK Magazine

Betty Grable

At the time of her famous World War II pin-up poster Betty Grable‘s vital statistics were:
Height: 5 feet 4 inches
Bust: 36 inches
Waist: 24 inches

Hips: 35 inches

Sophia Loren’s measurements

Sophia Loren's measurements

Sophia Loren claims to have kept pretty much the same figure since the 1950s. In 1957 her figure was:
Height: 5 feet 9 inches
Bust: 38 inches
Waist: 24 inches
Hips: 38 inches
Bra size: 38c

Audrey Hepburn’s measurements

Famous for her slender gamine figure, Audrey Hepburn still had a real hourglass figure if you look at her statistics!
Height: 5 feet 7 inches
Bust: 34 inches
Waist: 20 inches
Hips: 34 inches
Bra size: 34A

Bettie Page’s measurements:

Bettie Page

Height: 5 feet 5 inches
Butst: 36 inches
Waist: 23 inches
Hips: 35 inhces
Bra Size: 36D

So, who have I missed? I’m sure I’ve forgotten to include some pretty crucial people, so let me know and I’ll add them in! :)

See how these movie stars’ measurements compare to models in the 1950s here, you’ll be quite surprised!

 


Image source and copyright: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed | Source and copyright: This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice.| Source and copyright: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed.

44 thoughts on “So What Size WAS Marilyn Monroe…? Marilyn’s (& Other Movie Stars) Measurements

  1. platinumlovesblue

    Hi,

    I really like this post! It is so interesting to see the stats of the various icons. I was trying to think of the celebrities that I often post pictures of on my blog and I thought of Rita Hayworth, Jayne Mansfield, Ava Gardner, and Jean Harlow. Great post!

    platinumlovesblue.wordpress.com

    Reply
    • vilvintage Post author

      Thanks, glad you like the post! I’ll definitely do a follow-up post with some more 40s and 50s movie stars. I’ll check out your blog now… :)

      Reply
      • familyfirst

        One issue though is the bra sizes given… the ‘bust’ circumference & the bra size are not the same thing. My ‘young girl’ measurement was 36″ bust circumference… the band underneath is not going to be that big. My size was measured as 28D. The 28″ being the circumference under the cup…. not a 36D…

        Reply
    • vilvintage Post author

      It is, isn’t it? I had no idea her figure was so unusual until I started looking into this topic!

      Reply
    • Robin stofko

      Marilyn was not thin, she had a puffy body. What I mean is, she was fleshy in all the right places.

      Reply
  2. Dar

    Like 99% of men, I don’t understand women’s bra sizes, but

    Audrey Hepburn doesn’t really look like an A.

    Or is she just wearing one of those pointy bras from the 50’s?

    Reply
  3. clara

    Hi,
    36D was NOT Marilyn’s bra size by any means. With a waist that small there is no way her underbust was 36,or even the 32 it would be with the outdated +4 method. So she’d probably be a 32E (wirh outdated +4 measuring) or a 28FF with the way women should be measured today. This is not as unbelievable as it sounds, as a woman in my family has an average sized chest and wears a 32DD because she can’t afford to buy the 28F she should be wearing.

    Reply
    • Evie

      This. Perhaps the band size is inflated for the benefit of people (men?) who thought it represented the bust size?

      Reply
    • Robin stofko

      What the heck. I’m a 32C and but of course I’m tiny, about 100 pounds.
      I have a 22.5 waist but when I have to have a baby belt. By the time I’m finished I can get that waist measurement to look like 19. It’s all tricks

      Reply
    • AlexaFaie

      I wear a UK 32FF and my measurements are as follows:
      Bust: 38″
      Underbust: 30″
      Waist: 26″
      Hips: 38″
      Using today’s recommendations I should be in a 30 band, however it is common for people to actually need a different band size based on comfort levels. I can not fasten a 30 band comfortably. I wear a 32 band on the loosest hook. Its all down to how much stretch is in the band of any particular style and how much padding you have over your ribs. Even when I was smaller and had a 28″ underbust measurement I could not manage to wear a 30 band size and wore a 32. Some people actually still require the old “add some” method to get the best fit. The only bra one *should* be wearing is one which gives the correct support whilst remaining comfortable. 😉

      Reply
      • Anon

        Who cares about your measurements?! So what?! Why do you feel the need to post them here, like anyone but you cares! Did anyone ask you?

        Reply
  4. Betty Cooper

    Times have changed! Until the 1960s (I think, debatable) the VITAL STATISTICS of actresses were published as league tables. I remember elder girl cousins and their friends in the late 1950s measuring each other and asking “am I like actress A or B?”.

    Personally I would not trust at all the publicity put out by the actresses, they were trying to show how desirable / beautiful they were – an extra inch on the bust measurement was more important than the truth. Even their remaining dresses today may not tell the truth – there was enough money around to have 2 versions of every dress made. One to wear, one to show to the press with more desirable measurements. Conspiracy theory??? You bet.

    Also, remember that these actresses could afford the best underwear available- they could have their girdles and bras specially made, just to give a better fit, an inch more here, an inch less there.

    …..and, publicity photos are what they are, photos of clothes made to be photgraphed, not worn everyday. Every since photography was invented women have laced their waists, hitched up their bras, taken deep breaths, puckered their lips, just to get the right shape for the 1 second camera exposure.

    ;;;and another thing. The human body, both male and female comes in a gigantic range of sizes and shapes. The selection process for actresses included their figure shape. Therefore the selectors could select women with the most fashionable shape of the age. Same today with models.

    B

    Reply
  5. Kateri Scott

    Reported measurements vs real measurements or not, what I want to know is how did they get their waists so tiny? Are they all just rare women with tiny waists? Did they corset train? Did they do specific exercises? It seems today women are getting boxier…losing that waist to hip ratio. I have a decent waist to hip ratio, but nothing as dramatic as theirs.

    Reply
    • Caitlin

      I have a pretty hour-glass figure (35-25-35) and I have never, ever corset trained or exercised for it. I honestly put my figure down to the fact that I have a pretty huge rib-cage. Like, my rib-cage sticks out a lot more than it should. You can see the same thing with Betty Page. I really reckon big bones (A big rib-cage and a big pelvis) causes the hour glass shape. I mean, it makes sense. The waist is really just the gap in between. Just a thought! =]

      Reply
      • Mishka

        Oh for crap sakes! This article is talking about measurements of movie stars from the 40s-50s. We don’t care about your measurements! Did anyone ask you to state them? You’re probably shaped like a bowling ball with chopstick legs and flat breasts! Go some where else to get some validation!

        Reply
      • AlexaFaie

        They never removed ribs. The ribs are above the waist line so removing them would never assist in making the waist any smaller.
        They also didn’t starve themselves. No matter of starving can give you an hourglass figure. You either have one by nature or you do not. You can create one using corsetry (proper steel boned, none of these latex waist shaper nonsense we see now) but it only really remains as long as you continue to wear corsets.

        Reply
    • AlexaFaie

      I used to be 34″, 24″, 34″ and at one point at university when I wasn’t eating as well as I should have been (yay student debt) my waist actually dropped to 22″ whilst my bust and hips remained the same. That was all without corset training and no special exercise (unless you count the 5 min walk to lectures and back 3 times a week).
      Nowadays I’m larger but also a lot more curvy with my measurements being 38″, 26″, 38″. I do even less exercise and I’m mostly housebound (huzzah for mental health issues).

      I do however wear corsets and have done since 2007. Its really only very occasionally though. I keep meaning to train down because I would love to be even curvier (I like extreme curves) but as I already have a natural 12″ hipspring and can get to a 14″-15″ hipspring when going out for an evening with no training (giving a 23″-24″ waist), I’ve never ended up with enough motivation! 99% of my time I do not wear my corsets even though I own a reasonable selection. Many of those custom. If I were to actually wear my corsets regularly then I would be able to have corseted measurements of 38″, 22″, 38″. Or even a 20″ waist if I wore for longer as that’s what my best fitting custom corset closes at. But as I’m already so curvy I don’t have to go to the extremes others do to get such a large hipspring in their corset. I feel like I can cheat a bit.

      These women did wear shapewear such as girdles and corsets as was pretty commonplace. Even someone who has a rather boxy figure can attain an hourglass figure with the use of the correct shapewear which suggests why women back then in general had more hourglass figures. It is also worth noting that the measurements most often quoted were those used for making their dresses from and so would have been taken over the appropriate foundation wear (much like today when a bride to be is told to come in the underwear she will wear on the big day). So the waist measurements could be 2″ smaller than they would have been without any foundation wear (perhaps even more).

      Reply
  6. Nkosizana

    Just by looking at these women and knowing my measurements I know they are all lies – I’m a US size 4, 5 feet 9 inches…they are all exaggerating their waists and their busts…it’s fiction.

    Reply
    • Spicy Brown

      I really don’t know if they’re exaggerating, but i believe Marilyn’s measurements are accurate. I’m 5’3″. and my measurements are 37.5-24-38. I weigh about 123 and i’m a U.S. size 4 as well.

      Reply
      • Spicy Brown

        Sorry, it got posted before I got to my point: her body looks the same as mine. But mine might be a little more compact because I’m about 2-3 inches shorter than she was and my waist is about 2 inches wider.

        Reply
    • Kayla

      i kinda feel like that too. i’m a US size 4 – 6 and am a 38 – 27 – 38 and everyone’s always telling me my waist is too thin, they can see ribs, i need to eat more, etc., so either these women just have really small frames, used corseting, or…i don’t even know. xD

      Reply
  7. F.A.M

    Theres no such thing as Marilyn was a size 16.. She was 14 but she prefers to wear 12 for a tight fit. But as u said they sew her own clothes mostly. However in the 1950s size 14 today is a size 8 uk. Size 12 is a size 6 uk now. Back then, in the 1950s size 8 was children/teenagers size, 8 wasnt an adult size. I know because i always use vintage patterns 😉 so i know their sizings and i actually have similar body frame except for my bust is smaller, im 33-23-35 and i wear 6-8 uk :) and i always adjust the waist because theres no clothes that is made for my waist size. makes sense now?;D

    Reply
  8. Pingback: [ what are sophia loren measurements ] Best Web Pages | I-Recommend-Best-Web-Pages(KoreanNetizen)

  9. Robin Stofko

    The waist measurements are at least two inches to low. No one can have a 20 inch waist at 5’7. A lot of exaggeration.

    Reply
    • Maria

      Why not, Robin? I’m 5’11 and during my twenties I had a 22.5 waist. Now, in mid-thirties, with more lazy lifestyle and love for chocolate and fried foods, I’m at 36-26-37 and as I’m averse to dieting I won’t come back to my old measurements – but that was definitely possible.

      Reply
        • BennieLynne McEnette

          I’m 5’6″ and have a 20″ waist. It’s a lot of upkeep but it’s definitely possible. I’ve never tried corset training, but I imagine one could get an even smaller waist.

          Reply
          • Bonnie Proffitt-Leuschner

            my daughter is 13 and weights 87 pounds and her waist is a 25 1/2 sorry but unless you are really sucking it in its not true, at age 18 I was 107 pounds 5 ‘4’ and wore a size 1 jean and my waist was a 26″

          • BennieLynne McEnette

            Firstly, a size 1 in jeans has never been made to fit a 26″ waist. Even if i don’t factor in vanity sizing throughout time, it doesn’t make sense. I don’t want to call you a liar so I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just wearing the wrong size. (if there’s a dimple under your belly button where your pants button typically rests, you’ve been wearing the wrong size for a very long time)

            Muscle is the big factor. Not only is muscle slimmer than fat per weight measurement, but it impacts where and how things rest. This is why, even if you didn’t put on a lot of body fat during pregnancy, you still look pregnant for a few days to a week. Your core muscles just went through hell and they aren’t holding your figure together. I weigh more than I did when I was 17 but have a much slimmer waist. Aside from the short period that I let myself go in adulthood, my waist was probably largest when I was twelve. I assure you that I was not being dishonest about my measurements but they aren’t accidental natural. I work hard and with great intention to have the body that I have. It requires me to move when I’d rather rest and turn down all sweets. Sushi is my cheat food (rice carbs) to give you perspective.

            When people are trying to get the right shape (not necessarily slim down) the best thing you can do to create the hourglass shape is tons of stretching and a little resistance training.

  10. Evie

    Unless bra sizing has changed a LOT, there’s something wrong with the reported sizes. The number in the size should not be the same as the bust measurement (unless she’s using the +4 method AND is an A cup by that method!)

    And yeah, those waist measurements seem more like “the smallest measurement I can cinch to with a corset” rather than the actual measurement or what it looks like in the photos. They do look like true hourglass (9″ or more difference between waist and bust/hips), but not the 12-16″ they’re reporting.

    Reply
    • AlexaFaie

      People hold their measurements in different places. You can have two people with the same waist and hip measurements, but they can look totally different depending on where that weight sits. If the weight is carried over the hips then viewing the person front on will make that person look like they have a significantly smaller waist than if the weight is carried over the bottom. If its carried over the bottom either due to large cheeks or lordosis creating a pelvic tilt (or a combination of both) then viewed front on, the person will not look as curvy as their measurements appear on paper. I have a natural 12″ difference between my waist and hips. Its not very noticeable in clothing but it is visible when I’m in my underwear. Most of my hip circumference is in my back half of my hips so I have some noticeable curves viewed front on, but not as much as if I had a flatter bottom and wider pelvis. I also have lordosis which affects the distribution somewhat. I know of a model called Hex Hypoxia who has a hipspring of 20″ today and she totally refuses to model corsets as she already gets enough people thinking that that is how she got her very pear shaped figure when its just genetics. Its a shame really as I’d love to make a corset for her to model. It wouldn’t even need to do any reduction to look super extreme as her hipspring is all widthways. She has an amazing figure and it is very much real. They were definitely true hourglass with waists 10″ + smaller than their hips (that’s the true number not 9″) and their measurement seem totally believable knowing my own measurements. If I were to post my “smallest measurement I can cinch to with a corset” my hipspring would be 16″ as the smallest I can rapidly lace down to is 22″ over the corset (internal measurement would actually be smaller than that, but not visible) If I closed my corsets I’d have a 20″ waist over the top of them. With 38″ bust and hips. So an 18″ hipspring. Other women who are more rectangular wouldn’t get that kind of hipspring with only 4-6″ reduction on their natural waists. As I used to have a natural waist of 24″ (from 1998 to 2010 with a short few months were it dropped to 22″) I know it is possible to have those waist sizes naturally without any kind of diet or exercise regime or corset wearing. Whilst they did wear shapewear, their natural waists really were small to begin with.

      Bra sizes have changed a lot as have the shape of the bras. Back then the majority of undergarments would have been made for the person (either by themselves or others if they could afford it like these stars could) and so the actual measurements may not represent exactly what we think they do. For example, a dress designer is going to know to take the underbust measurement and overbust measurement to create the right fit. However, given that the style of the dress might fluctuate in terms of how closely it fits to the ribcage, the measurements noted down for reference were likely the bust measure and the cup size. The dress designer would probably have made note of the underbust measurement too, but since most reporters were men with little understanding of bras they might not have understood what those measurements actually meant in relation to the cup size. Its also worth remembering that the old rule was to add 4″ to the underbust measurement to get the band size. This was partly because bands were very firm back then not stretchy like now. But the fit was different and women with odd sizes would likely have made their own lingerie. My Grandma certainly made her own as well as her own clothes. Until I gained the extra bust and hip weight I used to fit her old dresses so she had similar measurements to me. I could wear them when I was 36″, 24, 36″ on the way to my current measurements. They fitted when I wore a 32DD (UK size). In photos the dresses fitted her just as well so I’d estimate that would have been her size now if they didn’t measure bras differently. She’d have likely been a 34B using the old method. That is what I used to measure at one point with the older sizings too. My Grandma was no Hollywood actress. She worked on Lancaster Bombers during the war. Just a regular lady who happened to have an hourglass judging by her outfits. If it was possible for her, it was possible for the Hollywood starlets.

      Reply
  11. elseless

    As someone who’s sold vintage clothing for over 20 years, let me tell you – these were NOT far off of the standard measurements of the time. Yes, maybe the movie stars are a LITTLE on the extreme side… but that’s not unusual, even today.

    Yes, Marilyn Monroe DID wear a size 12 and 14 – that’s because the entire size scale changed in 1968. Prior to this, a size 10 garment was Bust 32, waist 22, a size 12 was Bust 34, waist 24 and a size 14 was Bust 36, waist 36. And keep in mind that the bust size is the amount of room inside the garment at the bust – nothing to do with bra or cup size. A 10″ difference between bust & waist (and hips) was the standard – and the sizing I just listed encompasses at least 80% of everything pre-1960s that I’ve found over the years. I currently wear a vintage size 16 (Bust 38, waist 28) – which is approx an 8/10 (US sizing) today, depending on what store I’m shopping at.
    But – there are important things to know about sizing of the past: people were MUCH SMALLER! The average woman was both smaller AND more petite (shorter), and generally smaller boned, as well. Even their feet were much smaller – the average shoe size in the 1940s was about a 5 or 6 – and on top of that, they were AAA at the ball and AAAA at the heel (that’s triple narrow and quadruple narrow, respectively). If you go back as far as the turn of the century (1900s), the average waist sizes were closer to 18-20″!! AND women pretty much ALL wore appropriate undergarments. A corset or girdle was STANDARD until the 60’s. During certain periods, different looks were desired, and there were undergarments made for each look. In the 20’s, they went away from the very exaggerated waist corseting (plus the puffed out “pigeon bust” & bustles (padding of the hips/butt) to exaggerate their figures even MORE!) of their parents, and instead began binding their busts down for a more androgynous look. The 30s saw a return to girdles & waistlines, but with a less severe silhouette. The late 40’s into the 50’s was the post-war prosperity era and they wanted to celebrate being women after the austerity of WWII rationing – with the popularity of Dior’s “New Look” their skirts got super full, and the busts high, and pointed, with a (once again) tightly bound waistline.
    Not long ago, I bought a wedding dress from a woman who wore it originally in 1953. I took out my tape measure and said “The waist is 26 – and you’re STILL pretty small!” She said “Small? But… in my group of friends, I was considered CHUBBY!” With her was her long time best friend & maid of honor in the wedding – she nodded her head and said “that’s true!”.
    Perspective is everything!
    I hope that helps! I’ll try to check back in case anyone has any questions :)

    Reply
  12. BennieLynne McEnette

    Hollister doesn’t carry a 00. Their size 0 is for 23″-24″ inch waist so it’s probably time to get your daughter some bigger pants. My bust is 36,” my waist is 20,” and my hips are 39″ so I’m no stranger to being frustrated with sizing. I basically just live in spandex. I’m genetically predisposed to bustyness and soccer made me majorly bottom heavy. It’s annoying but I really love the way my body looks so it’s worth the frustration. After all, who would deliberately make their stomach bigger to fit in clothes? Not I… that’s for darn sure.

    Reply
  13. Betty Sue

    Y’all are forgetting, most women’s pants today might “carry” a waist size, but nothing sits at the waist anymore, the rise is much lower. So, buying women’s trousers/jeans/etc. really just depends on hip/backside size and structure. Who’s to say who would fit in what?

    Reply
  14. Deidre Kaiser

    It is physically impossible to be 20 inches smaller in the middle than you are on top and on the bottom. Unless you did extensive waist training with a corset, or had at least 2 or 3 ribs removed.

    Reply
  15. azindn

    In no way was Bettie Page a cup size D. Look at her breasts, she is very small and likely a B cup at max. Women of the 1950s were so much smaller, like my mother, 5′ tall, a 34-20-35 until I came along and her waist was enormous: 22″. Her shoe size was 5 AA, later a 6, and she weighed 95-100 lbs. She was tiny, worked on her figure with exercise, weights, yoga, and ballet. She modeled hosery with her amazing legs for print ads back when garter belts and girdles were standard undergarments, along with longline bras to give women that amazing figure. I was huge with a 36″-29-40″ body, no waist, and size 12 on top, 14-16 US on the bottom. Then, sizing changed in the 80s, and I was a size 8-10 US on top and 10-13/14 on bottom. I was turned down as a “plus-size” model for being too small as a size 12 US in 1982.

    Reply
  16. Suzi

    In an episode of British 1970’s sitcom “Are You Being Served,” you can hear Mrs Slocombe, the dumpy older lady, bemoan that her waist is now 77cm, which is just over 30 inches – a small size to most modern women.

    She’s not especially petite (in height) and she mentions her waist size has recently increased, and is unhappy about it.

    I can’t be sure if those were the actress’s real dimensions (the clothing’s very unflattering around the bodice, but she has shapely thighs shown in a few of the episodes) but that was evidently regarded as an unattractively large waist size back then.

    But other things have changed for the better, in another sitcom from the seventies, “Fawlty Towers,” we see the frumpy Sybil Fawlty’s age is only 35 on her medical chart… compare her now to the stunning Natalie Portman, also 35! But that must have been a believable age to be a rather sturdy battle-axe back then.

    Reply
  17. Louise

    YES bra sizes have changed! although I don’t know when. Where as clothes have gotten bigger, bras have gotten smaller so most people wear a bigger size than they used to. (One of my best friends is a bra fit specialist) I happened to watch a video of Sophia Loren and wondered what her measurements were which eventually led me to this article, and no way is she or Marilyn Monroe a modern 34c. Those gals were 32 or 34 DD or EE. Both were naturally built like a brick house and no silicone.

    Reply
  18. megaravintage

    they were not lying about the waist and bust size,i can tell just by looking since im 5,5 and have a 22 inch waist 34 inch bust and hips, i have never worn a corset in my life, Genetics have changed a lot since that time.

    Reply
  19. Polly Radcliffe

    Oh for goodness sake!

    Dress sizes in the 1950’s and 1960’s were totally different to our modern sizes. Please take a look at some vintage dress patterns and compare them to modern measurements! Untill 1956 a size 16 had a 34″ bust (meausured around the fullest part of the breast not the chest as in our modern bras). This changed in 1956 when a size 16 became 36″ bust and then again when patterns were standardised in 1967 and a 16 became 38″.

    Let me give some examples from vintage patterns. Butterick 6683 dated 1953. On the back of the envelope it states ‘Measurements Size 12 14 16 18 20
    Bust 30 32 34 36 38 In
    Waist 25 26.5 28 30 32
    Hip 33 35 37 39 41

    I really hope this puts to bed the innane debate over Marilyn’s figure. She was a vintage size 16 bust with a much smaller waist! What that equates in modern terms, who cares? Having seen many of her dresses in exhibitions and studied her measurements I can tell you she was tiny. Many women had much smaller waists than we do today and wore cincers. I am a modern size 8-10 and I make and wear vintage size 16 dresses.

    Well done to Elseless in her comments above….Totally correct :-)

    Reply

Please Leave a Comment! I Love Hearing From You!

Top