March 29, 2010

My ideal female form are the figures of women in the 1940s and 1950s. On the thinner side, I adored Audrey Hepburn for her gamine appearance, but there is nothing quite like a bombshell figure, no?

How did women stay so slender back then without looking sickly skinny? I wonder why they did not have that "I need a sandwich, like now!" look as popularized by many celebrities these days. Brigitte Bardot had a 19" waist, NINETEEN! Instead they look wonderfully feminine and soft.

{ Measurements of Vintage Hollywood's Leading Ladies }

Rita Hayworth || 36.5C - 24 - 36
Sophia Loren || 38C - 24 - 38
Betty Grable || 36 - 24 - 35
Vivien Leigh || 32A - 23 - 33
Audrey Hepburn || 34A - 20 - 34
Marilyn Monroe || 36 - 23 37
Veronica Lake || 34 - 21 - 33
Ava Gardner || 36 -23 -37
Brigitte Bardot || 35.5 - 19 - 35
Elizabeth Taylor || 36C - 21 - 36

{ Veronica Lake - 21" waist }

{ Rita Hayworth - 24" waist }

{ Betty Grable - 24" waist and the most perfect legs in Hollywood }


  1. wow. you're right... all of them look healthy and NORMAL... love these. i've never made such a comparison to models today.

  2. Oh my.. a size 19 waistline?! That's like.. my thigh! Ha, only kidding. But wow they do look like a healthy size. I honestly would have never guessed they were that small. They all look femininely figured unlike many models today who look grossly like sticks. Maybe it's their heights? Models today are getting scarily tall.

  3. I think it's their heights, they were not 6 feet tall as models are now!

    I find these girls from the past much prettier.

  4. Well, it is, for sure, their heights. Back then, women had to be shorter than men, and the men weren't always so tall. So they had to be even shorter. Nowadays, it doesn't matter that much, and even if it did, the women that are considered 'bombshell figure' as it was said, are REALLY TALL!
    The trick in most of this lovely women bodies was that although they weren't so tal as women are now, they had really long legs, and don't forget, their bodies came from a long long history of encorsetted women. Women bodies nowadays are free from those, have been, for a long time, so their skeleton form isn't 'used to' the figure that corsettes give.

  5. I adore you blog. I wish I could have lived in this era, women were curvy and so feminine.

  6. Your blog is fantastic! I have an award for you!


  7. Yes, the women were definitely much more petite... Veronica Lake was 4'11"!! It's like Salma Hayek - hourglass and teeeeeny. Also, the measurements back then were always taken when the women were in their support garments and girdles, not on a girdle-free waist as measurements are taken now a-days.

    Some of them had figures comparable to the super models of the 80's and 90's... think Cindy Crawford. Even in the earlier 90's, runway models' sample sizes were a size 8. Yes, size 8. Really.

    Anyways, very interesting post with very interesting comments!!


  8. im so jealous of their slim hips!!
    i have an hourglass shape so dont mind my waist even after 2kids its still not bad haha
    but yeah people were petite
    and didnt eat the platic foods/crap we eat these days!!

  9. Good swimsuit but I'm looking wedding suit for my incoming Wedding.


Thank you for taking the time to leave me a little comment, I do try to respond back as often as I can. Have a lovely day! xoxo - Rodellee