Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

fuller figure shop mannequins

Options
«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    PhysiologyRocks
    Registered Users Posts: 2,813 ✭✭✭PhysiologyRocks


    Morag wrote: »
    179016_502389806486063_1508538697_n.jpg

    How nice would it be to go shopping and see mannequins like that?

    One shop in sweden has these two on display.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-swedish-mannequins-20130318,0,4424401.story

    I think that it'd be nice to see a variation in mannequin shapes - different people are different sizes, and at the very least they'd give people an idea of how clothes might suit their shape.

    However, I wouldn't replace the smaller ones altogether, because plenty of people are very slim. I know you didn't mention anything about this, but I hate references to "curvy" or "real" women with the intention of implying that slimmer women aren't real.

    I generally do appreciate and agree with the intention behind them.

    However, those particular ones look quite a bit more human than most mannequins (not because of size), and that's mildly alarming. :eek:


  • Options
    #3
    The Big Red Button
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,390 ✭✭✭The Big Red Button


    PhysiologyRocks wrote: »
    However, those particular ones look quite a bit more human than most mannequins (not because of size), and that's mildly alarming. :eek:

    It's the knees. Those ones have normal gammy-looking knees, which most of us do. But mannequins' knees are always oddly smooth.

    Creepy, so it is!!

    :pac:


  • Options
    #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Freaskishly life like!

    I'd kill to have a figure like that.

    Great idea, like PhysiologyRocks says, it would be good if they catered for varying sizes.


  • Options
    #5
    sillymoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭sillymoo


    I think they are a great idea but would look much better without the socks!


  • Options
    #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sillymoo wrote: »
    I think they are a great idea but would look much better without the socks!

    Maybe they have ugly feet


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    How so Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭How so Joe


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Maybe they have ugly feet

    Who wears socks with their lingerie, though?
    I'll just put on this sexy bra and Knicks so I feel wonderful about myself. And the socks too, now I'm doubling or tripling my sex appeal!


  • Options
    #8
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    They are in a shop in Sweden where it is colder then here, maybe they would look wrong with out socks up there.


  • Options
    #9
    How so Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭How so Joe


    Morag wrote: »
    They are in a shop in Sweden where it is colder then here, maybe they would look wrong with out socks up there.

    Apparently more women reach orgasm with socks on than without, I'm sure I read that somewhere this week.

    They are nice mannequins though - most shop mannequins are a size 8 and have B cup boobs, or something like that.

    I'm still not sold on the socks.


  • Options
    #10
    Legs.Eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭Legs.Eleven


    I like them. One thing I've noticed here in Spain is how the mannequins are slimmer than the ones in Ireland. The average woman here would be smaller than Ireland but still, the mannequins seem even thinner. As a woman with a more Irish body (10), I think subliminally it bugs me. They seem so impossibly slim to me.

    On a more practical level, I have no idea how the clothes would look on a woman with a bit more meat on her bones like me. I understand using very slim models to sell Haut Coiture but in the shop surely the idea is to show you how the clothes might look on you so you'd be inclined to try them on and in turn, buying them but instead I ignore them knowing that it's not going to look anything like me. A bit more variation in the sizes would be nice instead of just one supposed "standard" size (which most women aren't)


  • Options
    #11
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Legs.Eleven wrote: »
    On a more practical level, I have no idea how the clothes would look on a woman with a bit more meat on her bones like me. I understand using very slim models to sell Haut Coiture but in the shop surely the idea is to show you how the clothes might look on you so you'd be inclined to try them on and in turn, buying them but instead I ignore them knowing that it's not going to look anything like me. A bit more variation in the sizes would be nice instead of just one supposed "standard" size (which most women aren't)
    This in a big way. It makes no obvious business sense to me at all. You would think given people vary so much that having a spread of sizes, never mind shapes to judge what X garment would look like on you. Never mind the "standard size" is anything but. It's very much an outlier. Its bad enough the guff ye have to go through with sizes that aren't consistent. Where a 14 in one shop/manufacturer is a 10 in another and vice versa. I've looked at wardrobes of girlfriends and wondered were they growing and shrinking when I wasn't looking.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Wibbs wrote: »
    This in a big way. It makes no obvious business sense to me at all. You would think given people vary so much that having a spread of sizes, never mind shapes to judge what X garment would look like on you. Never mind the "standard size" is anything but. It's very much an outlier. Its bad enough the guff ye have to go through with sizes that aren't consistent. Where a 14 in one shop/manufacturer is a 10 in another and vice versa. I've looked at wardrobes of girlfriends and wondered were they growing and shrinking when I wasn't looking.

    Fashion industry sells aspiration not reality.

    I like the mannequins but I don't think there will be many of them around anytime soon. Btw even those mannequins are hourglass figure.


  • Options
    #13
    homemadecider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,858 ✭✭✭homemadecider


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Btw even those mannequins are hourglass figure.

    This was my first thought too. I know lots of women who are bigger sizes but none of them look remotely like that mannequin; they are more likely to have big bellies and chubby arms etc. I don't think this mannequin will show many women what clothes will look like on them, as most larger women don't look anything like this.


  • Options
    #14
    beks101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,802 ✭✭✭beks101


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Fashion industry sells aspiration not reality.

    Karl Lagerfield said it: fashion is all to do with "dreams and illusions, and no-one wants to see round women".

    Granted he's one of fashion's more vocal / bitchy/insufferable designers, but he does speak to a truth that just exists on the catwalk / in most clothes stores that no amount of "Dove's real women" campaigns will change.

    Most designers will tell you that the clothes are usually better showcased on linear bodies, smaller frames that don't account for the actual lumps and bumps that will get in the way of how the garment was intended to fall (unless they're designing specifically for plus sizes etc)

    And that's the dream that you're sold when you walk into a store and come face to face with a display of tall, slim, straight-up-and-down mannequins with clothes hanging off them effortlessly.

    I found it easier to dress when I was at my lowest weight, minus the boobs, hips and bum. I didn't have to worry about the fashion "no-gos" that I always had to avoid because they were unflattering - like crew necks or plunging neck lines...good god the boobage!:eek:

    So I think these "real women" mannequins (a fair bit smaller than the average women in most western countries at that) might become at best something of a novelty in fashion stores, but ultimately they'd just upset the apple cart too much to ever take over as the new norm. There's too many vested interests and too much of a perception challenge in the industry for that to change any time soon.


  • Options
    #15
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.


  • Options
    #16
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Madam_X wrote: »
    The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.

    Is she smaller or is she just further away? :P

    Each time I look at the one closer I envy her (I know she's not real >.<), that's the exact figure I'd love. Slim, but curvy.


  • Options
    #17
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    In terms of getting an idea of what clothes actually look like on, the front one in the pic would be very helpful from my point of view - it looks fairly similar to my body shape. Seeing the clothes on a size 6-8/B cup frame gives me about as much information about seeing them on a hanger.

    Probably never going to be widespread though, for literally every reason that beks101 stated.


  • Options
    #18
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    I think if they made mannequins that most clothes from high street shops looked well on, they would look really weird. Have you ever actually looked at the back of shop mannequins? The clothes are often clipped and pinned to make them fit properly! They don't even fit the "ideal" mannequin, how are they supposed to look good on a "real" woman (be she thin or curvy!)?


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd like to see some small mannequins that aren't 'children'!

    Size-ism isn't just dress size, it's height too.


  • Options
    #20
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    It would be interesting to see comparisons how clothes would be selling depending on size of mannequins. Two xxxx chain shops in two similar shopping centres with similar turnover, same clothes on different size mannequins. I still think that we don't necessary want to see reality. It's ridiculous to use size 6 mannequins if you are selling plus size clothing though.


  • Options
    #21
    Das Kitty
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 17,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭Das Kitty


    A few years ago I was doing a lot of sewing and making garments. The difference between a garment off the peg and one that's made to fit your body is phenomenal.

    I don't think there would be enough mannequins in the world to adequately cover the vast and varying body shapes and sizes of women. Even if a mannequin shares my dress-size and my height, it's still going to look completely different on the doll than it is on me.

    I do think it's nice to see different sizes and shapes represented, but no mannequin is gong to tell me how good or bad an item of clothing is going to look on my body.

    I'd love to do a top-up sewing course on alterations. I have a basic knowledge but it could be better.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    FizzleSticks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭FizzleSticks


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #23
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    FizzleSticks wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    That reminds me of a remark I heard when I was watching Project Catwalk a few years back; there was a challenge involving plus-sized (i.e. normal sized) models, and one of the contestants was complaining about how hard it was to tailor clothes for her because her breasts ruined the hang of the clothes. I wanted so badly to be able to reach through the TV and slap them, and point out that most women have bigger breasts than that model did, and if they found it hard to make clothes for actual women rather than the skinny malinkas you see on catwalks then they'd better rethink their career choice.

    Someone said to me once that they put the blame for skinny, curveless models on gay male designers in the fashion industry. Their reasoning was that because gay men don't find women attractive, so they subconsciously design for what they are attracted to; thin people with narrow hips and no boobs. I don't know enough about the prevalence of gay designers to be able to make a cogent argument one way or the other, but I do think that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of men designing women's clothing, and I do wonder how this impacts on trends, both in clothing and in body types.


  • Options
    #24
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    kylith wrote: »

    Someone said to me once that they put the blame for skinny, curveless models on gay male designers in the fashion industry. Their reasoning was that because gay men don't find women attractive, so they subconsciously design for what they are attracted to; thin people with narrow hips and no boobs. I don't know enough about the prevalence of gay designers to be able to make a cogent argument one way or the other, but I do think that there seems to be a disproportionately large number of men designing women's clothing, and I do wonder how this impacts on trends, both in clothing and in body types.

    I read a really interesting book a few years back called Fashion Babylon which said this exact thing. Designers want to showcase their designs in a way that they feel shows it to their best so will go for what they feel is the most beautiful body to showcase it. As it is they tend to go for boyish figures. I think if you look at most of the cases where a "normal" sized model has been on a catwalk its usually for a female designer.


  • Options
    #25
    Legs.Eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭Legs.Eleven


    They have models as young as 16 (with a load of make up caked on to look older) modelling clothes for women for the love of Jesus! Says it all. Over 22 and you're past it for catwalk modelling. We should constantly remind ourselves as this and not fall for this shenanigans. Fook'em.


  • Options
    #26
    TheBellJar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭TheBellJar


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I read a really interesting book a few years back called Fashion Babylon which said this exact thing. Designers want to showcase their designs in a way that they feel shows it to their best so will go for what they feel is the most beautiful body to showcase it. As it is they tend to go for boyish figures. I think if you look at most of the cases where a "normal" sized model has been on a catwalk its usually for a female designer.

    I've heard before that in the case of the catwalk models etc., designers opt for 'clothes hanger' bodies so that there is nothing to detract from the clothes. I think it does make sense when you think about it; if Kelly Brook was walking down a catwalk in a low cut dress would it really be the clothes you'd be looking at?!


  • Options
    #27
    Babooshka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Babooshka


    Madam_X wrote: »
    The one on the left is still slim and not too different to mannequins I'd usually see.


    Agree with you.

    And why are mannequins arms twice as thin as most women's? Lots of size 6-8 women have way bigger arms than the twigs they stick on mannequins....it's all about the aesthetics. I also think the one closer up has wayyy longer a neck than any woman would have, and the head looks too small for the rest of it.


  • Options
    #28
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    TheBellJar wrote: »
    I've heard before that in the case of the catwalk models etc., designers opt for 'clothes hanger' bodies so that there is nothing to detract from the clothes. I think it does make sense when you think about it; if Kelly Brook was walking down a catwalk in a low cut dress would it really be the clothes you'd be looking at?!

    I can't imagine that too many people at a fashion show would find themselves completely distracted by boobs, unless they were falling out of the dress. Do you find yourself unable to concentrate if you see a woman in a low cut dress?


  • Options
    #29
    TheBellJar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭TheBellJar


    kylith wrote: »
    I can't imagine that too many people at a fashion show would find themselves completely distracted by boobs, unless they were falling out of the dress. Do you find yourself unable to concentrate if you see a woman in a low cut dress?

    Not really what I was getting at. The idea is that a curvy body is going to be noticed (and rightly so), but that's not what designers want - the model is simply a hanger they use to display their work.


  • Options
    #30
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    TheBellJar wrote: »
    Not really what I was getting at. The idea is that a curvy body is going to be noticed (and rightly so), but that's not what designers want - the model is simply a hanger they use to display their work.

    But various supermodels are absolutely drop dead gorgeous. They're noted for it in fact. Why wouldn't designers worry about Heidi Klum's or Kate Moss' face distracting from the clothes? I just can't wrap my head around this idea that a feminine female body would in some way detract from the clothes rather than accentuate them. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to say that by having a woman with curves on the catwalk everyone would be too busy saying 'phwoar' to look at the frock. If models could be such a distraction then why not just send the clothes down the runway on mannequins?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    TheBellJar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭TheBellJar


    kylith wrote: »
    But various supermodels are absolutely drop dead gorgeous. They're noted for it in fact. Why wouldn't designers worry about Heidi Klum's or Kate Moss' face distracting from the clothes? I just can't wrap my head around this idea that a feminine female body would in some way detract from the clothes rather than accentuate them. The only thing I can think of is that you're trying to say that by having a woman with curves on the catwalk everyone would be too busy saying 'phwoar' to look at the frock. If models could be such a distraction then why not just send the clothes down the runway on mannequins?

    Their faces have nothing to do with it. It's not primarily to do with the 'phwoar' factor either; it's a comment I read once that I agree with - which is that the curvy female form can detract the eye from the clothes, which in my opinion is true.


Advertisement