Originally Posted by Fuuma
Dude that is simply bullshit, it depends on a host of factors but someone like Ali Michaels is 90 cm, most girls hover around 85-89cm but that is around 35 (slightly lower). I know my conversions aren't perfect but I'd say the av. girlin the industry is a size 4 US and some are aroundish size 6. Now TBH dress size hold absolutely not specific meaning to me...
Anyway this is besoides the point, aside from runway and editorial work those super tall and slim models aren't exactly saturating our consciousness compared to more average sized women (but still going toward a somewhat hard to attain beauty ideal).
90cm is 35.5 inches.... not sure how that contradicts what I said at all? Clearly if a girl like Ali Michaels gains .5 inches nobody will care because she is established, but a girl of her success is not the norm for the girls who do runway.
My point though WAS that for standard modeling, not the Ali Michaels type but the Macy's catalog types, the Department store advertising types, the girls still have trouble getting booked when they have a 38 hip (96.5 cm). The more commercial you go the greater the tolerance, true, but trust me that none of these women are "average" - they're all still 5'9 at least and that's the only reason they have a bigger dress size (up to 6).
At least, that's been my experience working in the industry in New York.
Edit: Errrr, that last line sounds way more douchey than I meant it. I just mean the way I've seen it, it's not good enough to be a better looking version of normal if you want to make money in the industry.Edited by origenesprit - 10/17/16 at 10:30am