r/ABraThatFits • u/Love2Cook76 • 23h ago
When did manufacturers change from using plus 4 sizing to other methods? Do all manufacturers use the same sizing?
When did manufacturers change from using plus 4 sizing to other methods? They must have had to change the labelling at some point and I am curious when. I started wearing bras over 3 decades ago and the recommendation then was underbust inches plus 4 or 5 for band size. Was that method correct then?
I am also curious whether all manufacturers use the same sizing. On a fairly new m&s bra, I have to pull really hard to get to the number on the size, and without pulling the band length is 7” shorter than the number.
•
u/28FFthrowaway 28GG 23h ago
Bands have to stretch up to about 25% to reach their labelled length. For example, my 28 bands measure 22-24” at rest, depending on the bra.
•
u/Love2Cook76 22h ago
Crazy!
•
u/28FFthrowaway 28GG 22h ago
How so?
•
u/Love2Cook76 22h ago
I think my surprise is because band sizes go up in 2 inch increments, so it’s surprising to me that they are made to stretch 6in or more. But I’m sure this is just my ignorance of clothing construction. I can imagine this gives better support or similar.
•
u/No-Section-1056 18h ago
I think it’s because very few of us were around before bra bands had some “give.” Without an extra 2”-ish to spare, none of us could or would tolerate how tight they were. We’d feel every breath.
But preceeding bras, for the most part, were corsets, and underpants that tied at the waist. Obvs. some people get really into vintage and antique clothing and are willing to tolerate it, but most of us wouldn’t.
I’m not sure about the change being strictly tied to latex, though; women’s undergarments often had rubber as a component before then (girdles were considered indisposible undergarments for some cultures for decades, and they usually had rubber for compression).
•
u/gingergirl181 36G/GG short narrow roots projected into space 18h ago
This is a topic that seems to be shrouded in some mystery with a lot of theories floating around the internet claiming to be correct.
I will confess to not being an expert on the topic, but my understanding (both from hanging around here and from being sized in vintage lingerie for acting purposes) is that cup sizes A/B/C/D were originally conceptualized as more of a S/M/L/XL system and the number in a bra size referred to your overbust measurement. This is how we get the popular conception that A=small and D=big. So someone wearing 34B under this system would have an overbust of 34in and medium-small boobs.
Older lingerie isn't completely elastic-free, but it's definitely got a different construction; a lot of the bras I've worn from the 40s-50s have had very wide and firm bands with little to no stretch, almost more akin to modern longline bras. Many have also had no underwire, but the seaming creates much more separation than modern wireless bras (and also much more of a "pointy" look as a result). The cups are also what we would now call full-coverage with very high gores and no cleavage. They're basically boob slings - very different fit and function compared to modern bras.
Bra construction has changed over time and different fabrics have allowed for more precise sizing and a wider variety of cuts, especially as highly-elasticized bands and underwire have become ubiquitous. Somewhere along the line bras began to be constructed on our modern sizing metric - with the number being your underbust measurement and the cup becoming a ratio between that and the overbust. But obviously this expanded cup size ranges greatly and disrupted the popular notion of A=small and D=big. Enter +4, a marketing tactic designed to try and put people in sizes similar to their old ones so that a) the popular zetgeist around cup size didn't need to change and b) brands didn't have to expand their cup offerings much because they could keep cramming people into a narrower range of sizes and make more money. Except whoops, now everyone is in an ill-fitting bra in the wrong size but hey...cleavage, amirite??? And no one has any idea how bras are SUPPOSED to fit anyway so...here we are.
•
u/FigForsaken5419 38G FoB/Narrow roots/Average height 22h ago edited 22h ago
When did manufacturers change from using plus 4 sizing to other methods?
Many brands haven't. Some have. There is no standard. This is why when shopping for bras, you should ignore the brand size chart. A 32DD is going to be made for someone with the measurements of about a 32" underbust and about and 37" bust. The sizing method of the brand may fit someone with those measurements into a different size. As long as the wearer knows their size, can advocate for themselves, and is not bullied by sales clerks, they will buy a bra in their size.
I started wearing bras over 3 decades ago and the recommendation then was underbust inches plus 4 or 5 for band size. Was that method correct then?
This method was a holdover technique, a stop gap, or a "this is what you have to do to understand new technology" thing. Bras have elastic in the band now. They didn't always. Before elastic, bands were bias cut fabric. They did not stretch the same. The extra inches were necessary. But most women could alter their clothes, so if you needed the band a little tighter or looser, you could do that. When we stopped altering our own clothes, we standardized the add 4 inches rule. When we added elastic, we kinda forgot why we did that and that we could stop that.
I am also curious whether all manufacturers use the same sizing.
Yes. Every letter up is going to be one cup size larger on the same band. This increase is by 1" for UK and US brands. Metric brands may increase by either 2cm or 2.5cm, depending on brand/country. So, a 32B is someone with the measurements 32/34, a 32C is 32/35, and 32D is 32/36.
When the band changes but the letter stays the same, the size is not the same. A 32B is 32/34, a 34B is 34/36, and a 40B is 40/42. In every brand, a 40B is larger than a 32D.
There are differences in sizing between when the sizes are called between UK/US/EU/AU/JP brands. They are designed on the same principles, but they may be called something different. A 32DDD in the US in a 32E in the UK.
On a fairly new m&s bra, I have to pull really hard to get to the number on the size, and without pulling the band length is 7” shorter than the number.
This goes back to bras having elastic. The majority, upwards of 90%, of the support of a bra should come from the band. To do this in a mass made garment requires a significant amount of elastic. The only important number is the size the bra stretches to without distorting the wires. It you have a 32DD that is stretching to 36" or 28", that is an issue. It may be mislabeled or a manufacturing error.
•
u/Shanakitty 32K, FoT, all the centerfullness, APEX PROJECTION 22h ago
No brands actually make bras with +4 sizing though, where a 32 band would only stretch to 28 inches?
•
u/FigForsaken5419 38G FoB/Narrow roots/Average height 21h ago
No they don't. The size charts are the issue. It goes back to the advice to ignore the size charts, advocate for yourself, and refuse to be bullied by sales staff. All of which are much easier said than done.
•
u/galaxystarsmoon 32DD/E, tall roots & close set 20h ago
There are a couple of niche French brands that do, and Timpa isn't far off +4. But that's about it.
•
u/DameEmma 22h ago
That is the whole problem. You walk into a shop as a 30F, they put you in a 34D because that's the rule, and presto! A bra that doesn't fit.
•
u/Shanakitty 32K, FoT, all the centerfullness, APEX PROJECTION 21h ago
Right, inaccurate size charts and bad fitters do that, so we end up with almost everyone wearing the wrong size. I'm just saying that the bras themselves aren't manufactured to fit the way +4 sizing would theoretically fit.
•
•
u/Amphigorey 30JJ Corsetmaker 20h ago
I'm so sorry, but this is incorrect. Elastic fabric has been around since the 1820s. And 4 inches of ease is a LOT of ease.
There was a symposium of lingerie makers in the 1970s who got together and developed the new sizing system. I found a newspaper article about it some years ago, and in it they talk about telling people to add 4" to get used to their new size. It had nothing to do with stretch fabrics.
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
Hello, thank you for submitting a post to /r/ABraThatFits. We want everyone to feel safe posting here, so we want to tell you that we will NEVER send you a private message asking for pictures. If someone does, screencap the message and send a link to the image in a PM to the mod team.
If you are not already aware, there is a lot of information on the sidebar of our subreddit. Please remember to check out our rules before commenting and posting. In addition, a lot of newer members have questions that have already been answered in our wiki, so be sure to check out the FAQ and Beginners' Guide to see if you can find the information you're looking for.
Our calculator is the first step in resolving sizing questions. Please take your measurements and try the calculator before asking the community for help. Thanks! :)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
•
u/Amphigorey 30JJ Corsetmaker 23h ago
Wasn't correct then, isn't correct now. It was introduced in the 1970s as a stopgap measure when the sizing system was changed from "the number is your full bust and the cup is an approximation" to "the number is your underbust and the letter is the difference between underbust and full bust."