not too thin...
Posted by P. Bingham on September 15, 1998 at 15:06:05:
In response to You overrate my knowledge in this area...., written by The Mysterious H.C. on September 15, 1998 at 05:09:15
] But I thought that the flattish-chested boyish look was in favor in the 1920's (not the Edwardian period), and that it was achieved with undergarments which didn't very closely resemble the "classic" Victorian corsets of the 1890's or whatever.
Your right, of course. I was being a little too general. Around the end of the century, when the styles came closer to the body (and it was once again fashionable to by "SLIM", the shape took several forms as it progressed. The corsets that were most similar to the Regency "Empire Revival" appeared c.1911. They encouraged more straight (or natural depending on how you look at it - when compared to the Victorian shape) lines. They progressed in the 1920's into what is called a 'corselet,' which was similar but smashed the chest (the boyish figure) and apparently was strapless.
I too should rather use the word "slim" rather than "thin" as some might have the wrong impression of thin. But I don't think I would consider the anorexic fashion models as typical in thin but downright unhealthy, and so would not have included them in any comparison.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.