|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Ideal Weight.?
What would say if the ideal weight for a runway model of about 5'8 and a half?? Not just any sort of modeling, runway modeling. Feb 09 13 07:09 pm Link It's more about proportions/ measurements/ dress size.. Everyone holds weight differently I know a model who is 5'8- 110lbs and another 5'8- 125lbs and they wear the same size Feb 09 13 07:20 pm Link Doesn't runway llamaing start at 5'9"? Feb 09 13 07:27 pm Link Good Egg Productions wrote: I ideally. But I know girls down to 5'7 who do not high end, but still legitimate runway. Feb 09 13 07:30 pm Link Yes it does if you're through an agency.. I didn't even read or notice the runway part Lol Feb 09 13 07:30 pm Link Rachel Reilly wrote: That's not always true. Feb 09 13 07:31 pm Link Not to mention that the OP says 5'8.5 If an agency girls true height is 5'8.5, they round her up to 5'9. So, for all intensive purposes a 5'8.5 girl IS 5'9 in the agency world. Feb 09 13 07:32 pm Link Jem Iredale wrote: Like 100-105 pounds, but weight isn't nearly as important as measurements. (Assuming that this 5'8" girl is an exception being let onto the runway.) Feb 09 13 07:36 pm Link K I C K H A M wrote: Yeah but 5'8 is pretty rare for catwalk Feb 09 13 07:40 pm Link Measurements are everything. From what I remember, you better not go any bigger than 32-24-34. Every region -- hell, every CLIENT -- has different standards, but I remember seeing this measurement a lot. Height factors in (and honest to God I have no interest in getting into the 5'7" 5'8" or 5'9" debate), but the importance is more on fitting the sample size. I can't tell you how many llamas with those measurements who barely fit the height requirement getting jobs in runway over me (even though, proportionally, we are identical), but that's how it is. Weight is a nasty little indicator. I remember starting up yoga and although I was shrinking in terms of overall size, the scale was telling me I was *gaining* weight. Simply because all those soft areas were turning into muscle. I know some agencies weigh their llamas on top of measuring them, but I think that's just unnecessary. Feb 09 13 07:41 pm Link Legs are really the biggest deal, assuming you *do* fit the clothes. I know a girl who does every LA fashion week who is shorter than me-- a little over 5'7. Her agency sells her as 5'9.5 (odd number to pick), but her legs are long for her body and probably at the largest part 16-17 inches around and her measurements are she probably has like a 33 inch hip. So, even though she is short, and you can tell when she stands next to other girls barefoot, she gives the illusion that she is tall, and, of course, she isn't THAT short anyway. Feb 09 13 07:41 pm Link Rachel Reilly wrote: It's not as rare as you think. Feb 09 13 07:42 pm Link Edit: to kickham -Yeah you're a model so you'll know Better. I'm just going off the stats of major agencies, the models Are mostcommonly 5'10 Feb 09 13 07:44 pm Link Rachel Reilly wrote: Yeah, 5'10 is ideal. But, they realllly like you, they'll take pretty short (the 5'7 girl is an exception though-- I think most are still 5'8 being sold as 5'9). Of course, they are also going to lie about it, so no one else is going to know. Feb 09 13 07:47 pm Link Jem Iredale wrote: I think another fair question to ask is what is the ideal AGE? Feb 09 13 08:02 pm Link K I C K H A M wrote: Good to know .I know that major agencies in LA have the luxury power to sell their models taller than they are . Feb 10 13 09:29 am Link Abby Hawkins wrote: Completely agree; muscle weighs more than fat and can be such a poor indicator. Feb 10 13 10:29 am Link It's not pounds/weight that matter, it's measurements and proportions.. Feb 10 13 10:32 am Link Why do women harp on a number. Weight is a number and all people carry their weight differently. It's more about your body style, shape and proportions. 2 women can easily be 20 # apart and look the same. Don't get hung up on a number It's going to be different for everyone Feb 10 13 10:42 am Link There is no ideal weight. Depending on the market, somewhere between a size 0-4 (2's seem to work best in the most markets). And measurements at or around 34-24-34. Feb 10 13 05:34 pm Link Jem Iredale wrote: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 9587&page= Feb 10 13 05:41 pm Link WTF? Jem is back?! Oh jeez... Jem is gone again. Man it sure is hard to get a bead on that one. She is sure one moving target. Feb 10 13 05:54 pm Link Jem Iredale wrote: There is no ideal weight. Feb 10 13 06:30 pm Link Its more about measurements than weight, remember muscle weighs more than fat Feb 10 13 06:37 pm Link Muscle weighing more than fat, actual weight isn't the issue, it's more about measurements. Feb 10 13 06:44 pm Link Nature Coast Lightworks wrote: She started this thread at 7:09 pm on the 9th. She started two more threads at 8:45 and was gone one hour latter. Feb 11 13 11:20 am Link George Ruge wrote: +1 Feb 11 13 11:31 am Link Shon D.- Homme wrote: 100lbs-105lbs?!?!? That would put her 17-22lbs underweight. No wonder so many people think all models have eating disorders. I'm sure many of you will disregard this as the ranting of a 'fat' chick though. Feb 11 13 11:40 am Link Shon D.- Homme wrote: Autumn Rose Brightly wrote: I find the size of many fashion models to be a bit jarring visually, but I understand why it's requested that they be that size, and I do believe that some women are able to be healthy at that weight. Feb 11 13 12:06 pm Link No idea but Im about 140 pounds and Im a lean mean fighting machine lol! Ok mabye not so much of the lean ; - ) Feb 11 13 01:23 pm Link Doll Thompson wrote: tenured wisdom... a long thin neck and legs are an asset here, as are editorial facial features i.e. high cheek bones, sharp straight jaw line... for all fashion an A or B cup max works... Feb 11 13 01:34 pm Link As has been said measurements and not weight. Angel ONeill wrote: Perfect example, say for the sake of the example Angel and I are the same height or about the same height. She looks fit and healthy at her weight and so do I at my weight. Some taller girls can still be healthy at lower weights although 100 is actually pushing it a little too unrealistically far. Feb 11 13 01:35 pm Link Miroslava Svoboda wrote: Thanks Miroslava kind words Feb 12 13 07:49 am Link Doll Thompson wrote: This. Feb 12 13 08:01 am Link |
