(Closed) Marilyn Monroe?

posted 8 years ago in Full Figured
Post # 3
10713 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2012

I read an article where she was quoted as being a size 12. I;m a size 12 so I believe that =) People weight changes a lot though maybe at one time she was a 16?

Post # 4
11324 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2011

She is the one that is quoted as a size 16 all the time. It is true. Kinda. First of all, she fluctuated weight quite a bit in her life. Second, she had an extreme hourglass figure. I think I read once that she had like a 25 inch waist but her hips put her in a size 16. Third, the size 16s of yester-year are not the same thing as ours now. She’d probably wear a 12 by today’s standards, but have to have all the clothes tailored to fit her mid-section.

Post # 5
2226 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: January 2012

Keep in mind that a size 16 then is equivalent to a modern size 6-8. Her measurements were recorded at around 36-24-37… that’s no 16 nowadays!!

Post # 7
3521 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: December 2010

@MrsRugbee: Exactly–it’s vanity sizing that tricks people. A 16 back then is actually much, much smaller today.

Vanity sizing is pretty much horrible. Case in point: my hip measurement is 43″, but I just bought work trousers in a size 6. That’s ridiculous; my hips are clearly nowhere NEAR a size 6.

Post # 8
868 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: November 2011

If you read the caption on that photo it says that it was taken after she’d lost about 25 pounds.  Also, I agree with what one of the PP’s said above, that a 16 today would have been the equivalent of a 10 or 12 back then.

Post # 9
171 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: December 2011

She was a size 16 at times her weight fluctuated.

Mainly the reason that she doesnt look like a size 16 is because today she would not be as sizes in the 50s were way smaller than now.

A size 16 in 1950s had the following measurements:

Bust 34

Waist 28

Hip 37

I live in NZ and our sizes are smaller than US, im a 10 here so probably an 8 in US and i would have to squeeze into this

Post # 11
4689 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: January 2014

Marilyn looked beautiful at any weight, but honestly, I thought she looked the best when she was on the plumper side.

Post # 13
4689 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: January 2014

@QuietOne: Yes, at her 8/10 size, as opposed to when she lost the 25 lbs. I should have put “plumper” in quotation marks.

Post # 14
265 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

I usually hear of her being a size 14 but that is still a 1950s size 14-probably an 8 max today.  Just by looking at her body you can tell that her body fat was generally on the low side and in the right spots no matter what her weight was.  I think her heaviest was about 130-135 at 5’5″.  Her low was about 115.  I saw some of her dresses once in a museum and they are rally tiny.  She was actually a small but curvy lady.  

Don’t be bummed about anything or compare your measurements to hers!  If you like your curves and you feel good about them then you will be gorgeous. 

As a matter of interest, a true hourglass figure is described as having a waist measurement 10 inches smaller that the hips (boobs don’t matter too much).  So you could still have a 30″ waist and 40″ hips and be incredibly hourglassy!  

Post # 15
4485 posts
Honey bee

Sizes change with the times since women prefer what they call vanity sizes (the number on the tag is quite smaller than her actual measurements). What was a size 16 then is closer to a size 10 that you can find today. In a couple decades, be prepared for the sizing chart to change yet again so that numbers are even smaller than they are now.

Post # 16
37 posts
  • Wedding: October 2011

I have to agree sizing has been altered over the years.  My niece found an old dress of mine from the 70’s, a size 12.  She thought it would be big on her size 6 frame and perfect for Halloween.  The dress was too small for her in the waist. 

The topic ‘Marilyn Monroe?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors