Teresa Devlin wrote:
Oh, I "get it", but that still doesn't excuse the fact that your posting says :

"(which will fit someone who is 5'8" from shoulder to hem)"

Now, let's clarify again, inasmuch as you seem not to "get it" that 58 inches does not equal 5'8" from shoulder to hem.  We can carry this discussion as long as you wish, but it will never alter the fact that the two numbers are not equal, so your assertion that they are is meaningless. 

Get it?

I never once said that 58 inches equalled 68 inches. Not once.
I made a comparison saying that a garment that measures 58 inches from the shoulder to the ground will fit a person who is 5 feet 8 inches. And it will. Now that just happens to be the minimum height that designers use for their clothing. Hmmm.

I KNOW 58 inches does not equal 68 inches, I made a comparison stating that the standard pattern measurement fits someone who is 5'8" ... point blank. And if you have anyone measure themselves who is that height, you'll find that they are 58 inches from the shoulder down.

Gown patterns would not be made in 68 inch lengths because it would still fall from the shoulder down and so then would be best suited for someone who is 78 inches in height. You don't wear a gown from the top of your head down. Never seen that one done!

Z DESIGNS wrote:
I wasn't speaking of the clothing you find in stores, there you're more than likely right. I'm talking about the actual clothing patterns used to make clothing from scratch. If you look at the lengths on the back of any gown pattern, skirt pattern, etc., the minimum standard length given in the pattern is 58 inches (which will fit someone who is 5'8" from shoulder to hem) for gowns and 42 inches from the waist for long skirts

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with you with regards to what the industry standards are. I also completely understand why you would work with standard lengths - I design clothing too (although I also do some custom fitted designs). ;-) That wasn't really my point though. My point is that, for some types of garments (jeans, for example), there are some shorter models who can still wear the clothes unaltered and look great in them. I think it's a shame that they usually get overlooked because of their overall height, when they may still look great in the clothes.

With regards to me personally, for dresses, you're right... shoulder to hem, I'm do not measure tall enough to wear a floor length gown cut to standard pattern length. No argument there. If I were to model this kind of gown, I'd need the gown altered. You're correct. But, that is not the case for slacks or skirts, nor for many tops.  I wear slacks with a 31"-32" inseam and can wear the 42" long skirt length that you mentioned above. I have what is known as a classic heroine's build (thin, long legged, with a comparatively short torso). My sister is 5' 10" (yeah, she's the one who got the torso - lol), and we wear the same length slacks and skirts... only I wear a smaller size (I wear a 0-2).


Another note... I am happy to see that there are a few designer brands (like Levi's) that use shorter (and older) models at the local fashion shows, and in print ads, as long as they fit the clothes. As an increasing number of designers are starting to offer petite lines, perhaps others will eventually come on board. Fact of the matter is, most of the time, the designer's target audience (the consumers who are buying the designer's clothing) aren't anything like the runway models who model them. From a marketing standpoint, it really doesn't make any sense.

Teresa Devlin wrote:
I'm sorry.  You obviously have still not re-read your post.  You did not say "which will fit a person 5'8" tall" - you said "which will fit someone who is 5"8" (that's 68", correct?) from shoulder to hem".  Had you said, "which will fit someone 58" from shoulder to hem", you would have been exactly correct.  That is not what you said.  I've pointed that fact out, repeatedly, and you still don't "get it".

These semantic conversations always dumbfound me.  How can people go on so long being so sure of themselves and yet so obviously and simply wrong?

Z knows 58 inches is 4 feet, 10 inches.  She also knows that from the top of your head to your shoulder typically measures about 10 inches, so the 58 inch pattern fits a 5'8" person. It was pretty obvious to me that 5'8" was the measure of the whole person and 58" was shoulder to hem.  Why is this so complex?

theda wrote:
These semantic conversations always dumbfound me.  How can people go on so long being so sure of themselves and yet so obviously and simply wrong?

Z knows 58 inches is 4 feet, 10 inches.  She also knows that from the top of your head to your shoulder typically measures about 10 inches, so the 58 inch pattern fits a 5'8" person. It was pretty obvious to me that 5'8" was the measure of the whole person and 58" was shoulder to hem.  Why is this so complex?

Thank you!
I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

theda wrote:

These semantic conversations always dumbfound me.  How can people go on so long being so sure of themselves and yet so obviously and simply wrong?

Z knows 58 inches is 4 feet, 10 inches.  She also knows that from the top of your head to your shoulder typically measures about 10 inches, so the 58 inch pattern fits a 5'8" person. It was pretty obvious to me that 5'8" was the measure of the whole person and 58" was shoulder to hem.  Why is this so complex?

Because someone was sniffing too much glue today.

Andrea-Anderson wrote:
Fact of the matter is, most of the time, the designer's target audience (the consumers who are buying the designer's clothing) aren't anything like the runway models who model them. From a marketing standpoint, it really doesn't make any sense.

I said that same thing not too long ago actually.
Aren't people getting shorter? Think I read that somewhere .....
They did a study on highschool kids or something like that.

Now, for skirts, height doesn't matter for me in the stuff I create, but the gowns and pants are where I would prefer taller girls.

Teresa Devlin wrote:
I will compliment you, though, on the designs you've created.  Very nice!!

Thank you for your kind words.

Lapis wrote:
Because someone was sniffing too much glue today.

Yeah, but I still got it.

Andrea-Anderson wrote:
Z Designs... just an off-topic observation... I just looked at your port. Beautiful work! You really should work with shorter models, at least one red-headed model I know from Calirfornia! Seriously, I like your style. Very nice work.

Thanks!
As I said before, skirts usually aren't the problem with height, as long as you can look tall in pics, which isn't hard to do if you have the right photographer.
But it's the gowns and pants that are the buggers.

If you are ever over this way, let me know
Being a redhead myself I have a soft spot for fellow redheads!

theda wrote:

Yeah, but I still got it.

Guess you just picked the wrong brand.

Teresa Devlin wrote:
I fully understand what you're saying, now, but what you say now is not what you said in the original posting to which I replied.  Your entire post was this:

You misread the emphasis. Is English your first language?

Z DESIGNS wrote:
If you are ever over this way, let me know
Being a redhead myself I have a soft spot for fellow redheads!

More power the redheads! Will do!
I admit I'm a sucker for beautiful clothing and elegant style. I'm doing more photo styling and prop/set design work than anything these days, although only maybe half of it is fashion oriented. I'm concepting a few projects for fashion editorial submissions, though. I can't help myself. Thumbing through Zink makes me drool!

Andrea-Anderson wrote:
Thumbing through Zink makes me drool!

Oh DITTO!!

Lapis wrote:

at 5'7" you and I both are in that wonderful limbo area where we aren't good for anything. but getting naked is fun anyway.

amen to that.

s3xyinsomniac wrote:
hmmm im a short (5'0) to be exact model and i find it very difficult to find progress as a model. Especially in Jacksonville FL. Could it be that im just not looking hard enough? could it be my look? I was always told that tall women 5'6 and above is made for this industry. HOW RUDE!!

s3xyinsomniac

5'6" is not tall.  5'6" is average height.  5'9" is tall (for a woman).  Jacksonville doesn't have much of a market as it is, so being 5 feet isn't going to help you.  I haven't looked at your page, so I have no idea how well you would be suited for other areas of modeling.  What are you interested in?
ps-It's not rude, it's common sense.

bobby sargent wrote:
Well for what I do short models are just as good as tall models. 

I put on my trip shoots.  All I care about is CAN THE MODEL DO THE JOB. 

Tall, short, young or old if they are good and can work good then I will hire them. 
I have done way more short models   5'5" or shorter than taller models. bs

u are perfectly right!!!

Steve Campbell wrote:
I am not sure about all over... but it sure seems that this area is getting swamped with model from 5 ft. to 5.5 or so. Is the market changing in your area?  Are these models finding work othen then the nude glamour market?  I would love to hear your comments.  Thanks.

One would think the abundance of models between 5'0" and 5'5" on MM has to do with the abundance of women of that size in the general population.
It's an open door thing not a change in the amount or type on work avaliable.

Melissa Lynnette wrote:

5'6" is not tall.  5'6" is average height.  5'9" is tall (for a woman).  Jacksonville doesn't have much of a market as it is, so being 5 feet isn't going to help you.  I haven't looked at your page, so I have no idea how well you would be suited for other areas of modeling.  What are you interested in?
ps-It's not rude, it's common sense.

Common Sense? whose to say what the average height for woman is now adays? Is that poll included in ethnic women as well? Your right about Jacksonville, i can honestly say there is absolutely nothing going on here. But i guess when it comes to modeling, im convinced that its not for the "shorties". As for being Rude, i guess its how people break it down to someone like me. Cant have people tellin me theres absolutely no hope for me cause im tiny (thats rude). I currently work for the fire service, and being my height isn't discriminated especially since i work with "football" sized men. Overall i still enjoy modeling

Lapis wrote:
short women look better naked.

....and they're just so damn cute!

Lapis wrote:
short women look better naked.

Amen.

lightsandshadow wrote:

....and they're just so damn cute!

this is a compliment for all shot womans!!

Lapis wrote:
short women look better naked.

I think short women who are fit and have nice legs look good in swimsuits, they don't look like towering sticks, just toned and good (:

Lapis wrote:
short women look better naked.

yeah I would never go out with Adriana Lima.. she is ugly!