Originally Posted by Film_Noir_Buff
Relative body size does have something to do with tie lengths being acceptably shorter. The ties wouldve been shorter for them anyway but that 48-51 inch length was adequate for people back then.
That's a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence. Take a look of vintage photographs from the 30s and 40s. If the tie is completely visible, with few exceptions it ends at least a few inches above the belt. Because vests and double-breasted suits were more commonplace, that didn't matter. Within the stylistic confines of the era, tie length was adequate.
In the early 1950s, as vests and DB suits fell out of favor, what happened? Your argument would presume that, because folks were roughly the same size they would have been a few years earlier, they'd keep their short ties. But they did nothing of the sort. They adapted a longer tie, one that extended down to the waist band. The change was dictated by style, not by size.
And there simply hasn't been the kind of great increase in the size that your argument supposes. American men born in 1950 are only 4cm (slightly more than 2 in.) taller than their counterparts born a century earlier.http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/taller.htm