Comparing styles of women in those two pictures. I would like to enlarge them, but, unfortunately, this was not possible. Which woman do you mean have the best style?
This is to introduce a classic romantic style with sophisticated colouring and simple lines. Simplicity is often the solution to how to dress the best. Look at the woman opening the door of the pompously classic car, a Lancia Aurelia, model 1954, The picture is, unfortunately somewhat grainy and so is the woman. : Her frock is fully covering her upper body, even buttoned in the neck, her curves being mildly marked. Her underarms and lower legs are bare, foots in simple black pumps with a heel not too high, thus rather comfortable. No extremely 12 inch heels, here – 12 inches being a suggestion that of course is ironically exaggerated by me. her face, arm and legs are light – which proofs you don’t have to be tanned to be beautiful. The palor contrasting to her eyes, brows and dark hair in a simply styled coiffure reminding me of a 40-‘s rather than a 50-‘s style. But what the heck, this is a style that could …… during the whole postwar era, and timeless as it is, could become any slender, curvy lady even today. I, for instance, would willingly treat me to a style like this. Unless I had not these problems with pumps! Here ends this post. For more on the subject of pumps, feel free to read my post on my visit to town the other day, when I went into a shoeshop to try some on.
As a comparison I found this photo with a woman from about the same era::This lady is dressed in a long and bottomheavy jacket with waistbelt, buttoned over a skirt in calf length. What kind of body does this indicate. The upper torso seems normal. Waist short, almost directly under bust. Belt quite high, probably meant to give impression of long legs. What the long part of jacket under the waist belt does is hinting to a very long and generous under torso, indeed a very feminine asset as this is the body part directly affected by child bearing. This womanly body part is most often ”forgotten” when different female body shapes are described on style pages. For instance, Mary Spillanes’s book -don’t know English title, find no picture of it on Google Pictures, but it is from 1980’s where she introduces the 12 colour seasons theory. In the book she presents us with two types: 1. short torso-long legs, 2. long torso-short legs. Reality is more complicated. Number one would actually be a barbiedoll with no underbelly whatsoever. That indicates a female type with a hardly visible, frankly a masculine pelvis. An ideal kind of woman for employers: she is ”halfman, actually a man with bust and feminine face traits, she does not beget babies, so he saves money as she is not likely to take maternal leave. What Mary Spillanes does not mentioned is of course the important space in between upper torso and legs : that part affected by pregnancy. Because there’s not just torso and legs, there are upper and under torso, whose mutual sizes varies quite much from woman to woman. Returning to woman with length is abrupted in three places: waist, jacket hem and skirt hem: several factors make her legs obviously extremely short, so short it looks unnatural, like her legs were malformed, much too short, from birth.
In reality, a woman with short upper body and long legs, would mean her torso so short she would not have much room for inwardly baby carrying. She would have her long barbie legs on the expence of place for a baby, a featus having less space to move in. Should a woman be blessed with both long legs and a large bottom torso, it would be at the expense of a short bust area, the breasts could still be large, but the vertical line between neck and waist, would be quite short. Which is quite OK, because upper torso does not have to be long, a short bust area does not encroach on any vital functions. From a female beauty perpective -given today’s conception of what is beautiful, the optimal vertical distribution would therefore be: bust area relatively short, a generously sized underbelly -to disregard this body part is to deny a woman’s maternal capacity: this should not be ”forgotten” but incorporated in her style manual. A large underbelly would, with a compensatingly short bust area, allow for relatively long legs, so coveted by modern ladies. Wish I had such legs myself, but mine are short, unfortunately, this is a luxury problem, indeed, easily solved with right proportions on clothes.
In fact, the long underpart of the jacket, the jacket hem crossing the middle of her thighs, make her skirt look as if it had slipped downward: she should pull it up, so that hem would reach not further down then sligtly below hem of jacket, not more than 15 cm (or even higher) I guess, not exactly sure, the point is she should show much more of her legs. With that kind of jacket emphasizing upper and lower body – a long torso, the skirt has to be short in relation to jacket so the legs gain more in length, giving her as good proportions as possible.