Abby Hawkins
Posts: 1,947
Boston, Massachusetts, US
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.
K I C K H A M
Posts: 12,954
Los Angeles, California, US
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.
K I C K H A M
Posts: 12,954
Los Angeles, California, US
Rachel Reilly wrote: 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
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.
Jem Iredale wrote: 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.
I think another fair question to ask is what is the ideal AGE?
-The average age of a runway model is 16.5.
(Kate Moss started when she was 14.)
-The average age of retirement is 24.
So....if you are taking an atypical route, then that's good, so don't worry about WEIGHT....that won't make or break your chances. Don't starve yourself, just BE yourself
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.
Good to know .I know that major agencies in LA have the luxury power to sell their models taller than they are .
Abby Hawkins wrote: 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 models on top of measuring them, but I think that's just unnecessary.
Completely agree; muscle weighs more than fat and can be such a poor indicator.
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
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.
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.)
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.
Shon D.- Homme 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.)
Autumn Rose Brightly 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.
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.
Thomas Van Dyke
Posts: 1,183
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Doll Thompson wrote: It's not pounds/weight that matter, it's measurements and proportions..
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...
as many have remarked, muscle is far more dense than adipose tissue... thus a scale reading isn't the ultimate determinate here...
Most physicians will tell you that healthy weights are highly dependent on genetics...
This runway talent clocks in at 5'9" 110lbs, yet she ran me ragged on a location shoot in mountainous terrain...
genetics are truly a major factor... thank mommy and daddy...
Angel ONeill wrote: No idea but Im about 140 pounds and Im a lean mean fighting machine lol! Ok mabye not so much of the lean ; - )
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.
Miroslava Svoboda wrote: As has been said measurements and not weight.
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.
| 
| 
| edu