High street dress sizes are a mare though. I can be a 10 in one shop and a 12 in another. Only last week I tried a dress on in Monsoon in a size 10 which fitted my waist and hips but was too tight around the bust.
These dresses are made to measure, so if they are coming out at a 12, they are a 12!
I'm in my forties but when I was a size 12 years ago now my waist was a 24. I thought to be a 12 you were a 36/24/36
With respect Dancemeister, we have eyes and she is clearly no size 12 .
With respect I've just had my eyes tested last Tuesday and I have no problem accepting that Natalie is a size 12.
Flavia as Vincent's' pro partner is 5' 2" and a size 6, i.e. 3 sizes smaller than Natalie.
Looking at Vincent - who is a very slim build 5' 6" (just?!) - dancing with Natalie - who is 5' 4" without heels - then a size 12 seems perfectly feasible to me.
And you have no right to call Chiefette and her mother liars.Which of course you will play with words and say you haven't.
I didn't call them liars. They could easily have formed a different opinion to me completely truthfully. Someone else might look at her and think "wow, she looks like a size 6!" - both the people who think she's a 16 and the people who think she's a 6 might say it with full honesty. Just because they think that she's a 16 doesn't mean they're automatically correct.
You, on the other hand, are directly calling her a liar.
Yes, you are right, it is my opinion. But at least I have seen her with my own eyes, can you say the same?? My opinion is based on what I saw in real life, not on a television screen.
Yes, I can Although not in the SCD studio. I've been around hundreds of celebs and I've NEVER met a celeb that looks the same size as they look in visual media, including Natalie - but again, that's just my opinion as I did not have anything to compare her directly with. I worked once with a celeb from a popular American drama who I thought looked absolutely fabulous with a beautiful curvy figure on TV... in real life I expected her to keel over at any moment.
I didn't call them liars. They could easily have formed a different opinion to me completely truthfully. Someone else might look at her and think "wow, she looks like a size 6!" - both the people who think she's a 16 and the people who think she's a 6 might say it with full honesty. Just because they think that she's a 16 doesn't mean they're automatically correct.
You, on the other hand, are directly calling her a liar.
Yes, I can Although not in the SCD studio. I've been around hundreds of celebs and I've NEVER met a celeb that looks the same size as they look in visual media, including Natalie - but again, that's just my opinion as I did not have anything to compare her directly with. I worked once with a celeb from a popular American drama who I thought looked absolutely fabulous with a beautiful curvy figure on TV... in real life I expected her to keel over at any moment.
You are right, people look very different on TV than they do in real life. Whilst we were in the queue, Ricky Groves came out and gave everyone a signed photo and he looked very slender, and very orange! But we are talking about how Natalie looks at the moment, and last Saturday she did not look like a size 12 to me.
I am willing to believe Natalie is a size 12 if that's what she says she is, because when it comes down to it, we are all viewing her on a television show, we cannot say for definate she is not a size 12 just based on how she looks on the show. Besides, if you stand a selection of size 12 girls next to each other, they are not going to all look like a size 12 due to differences in their body shape (pear, apple etc). People have told me before that I look smaller in size than a girl who is actually a smaller size than me (yet identical height) due to body shape.
I am willing to believe Natalie is a size 12 if that's what she says she is, because when it comes down to it, we are all viewing her on a television show, we cannot say for definate she is not a size 12 just based on how she looks on the show. Besides, if you stand a selection of size 12 girls next to each other, they are not going to all look like a size 12 due to differences in their body shape (pear, apple etc). People have told me before that I look smaller in size than a girl who is actually a smaller size than me (yet identical height) due to body shape.
The point several people have made, is that whatever size is her bust and waist, her hips are obviously at least a size larger, as she has an exaggerated "pear shape" figure.
As for TV making people look fatter, does this mean just certain parts of their anatomy?
I am no fan of Natalie Cassidy but really. To start another horrible thread about her dress size is extremely unkind. It is a known fact that television makes anyone look at least 10 lbs heavier. I can remember seeing John Prescott in the flesh and whilst he was big - he wasn't as gi-normous as he appears on television. Natalie is a healthy weight and is exercising every day and doesn't deserve the flak she is getting on this forum.
...
Yes, I can Although not in the SCD studio. I've been around hundreds of celebs and I've NEVER met a celeb that looks the same size as they look in visual media, including Natalie - but again, that's just my opinion as I did not have anything to compare her directly with. I worked once with a celeb from a popular American drama who I thought looked absolutely fabulous with a beautiful curvy figure on TV... in real life I expected her to keel over at any moment.
Hmm. I haven't been around 100s of celebs, but whenever I have seen someone in real life that I'd seen before on tv, they looked as I expected them to, not smaller.
Is there any explanation for the "10 lbs" theory, any reason why people would look heavier on tv?
And do people feel that photographs do the same? How about mirrors?
(This is raising the rather worrying prospect that (1) no one knows how they look themself, and (2) lots of people think they look heavier than they actually do or are. :eek: )
When we got our new flat screen TV I was at all happy as everyone looked dumpy and stumpy .
Not till my son came and changed the setting to a different screen could I watch SCD in peace /
I am much happier now that they are all not wide and dumpy !!
Hmm. I haven't been around 100s of celebs, but whenever I have seen someone in real life that I'd seen before on tv, they looked as I expected them to, not smaller.
Is there any explanation for the "10 lbs" theory, any reason why people would look heavier on tv?
And do people feel that photographs do the same? How about mirrors?
(This is raising the rather worrying prospect that (1) no one knows how they look themself, and (2) lots of people think they look heavier than they actually do or are. :eek: )
I don't know - I'm over 5'8, just - and, when I'm thin, I'm a fourteen, and I am far from skinny and have strong legs and a good sized butt.
At four inches shorter Natalie as a fourteen would be much bigger than she appears, I think.
Size and shape can be very confusing, visually. I've a friend who is nearly my height and a fourteen and we are such different shapes we can't really wear each other's clothes.
I'd give Natalie the benefit of the doubt, myself.
Thanks. It's interesting, but it also leaves me thinking the "10 libs" might well be a myth: that is, false.
The "pixel" theory is obviously nonsense. The way the pixels are arranged might distort, but the mere shape of the pixels wouldn't.
And if the "aspect ratio" theory were correct, we'd see people looking heavier in a 4:3 picture than when we switched to widescreen or letterbox. We'd also see it happening when a photograph was cropped to 4:3, we'd look fatter in square mirrors than in full-length ones, and so on. None of which happens.
(It certainly is possible to look thinner in some mirrors than in others, but it does not vary systematically with aspect ratio.)
Besides, the claim is that tv puts on 10 libs, not that some tvs do and others don't, depending on aspect ratio and pixel details.
Thanks. It's interesting, but it also leaves me thinking the "10 libs" might well be a myth: that is, false.
The "pixel" theory is obviously nonsense. The way the pixels are arranged might distort, but the mere shape of the pixels wouldn't.
And if the "aspect ratio" theory were correct, we'd see people looking heavier in a 4:3 picture than when we switched to widescreen or letterbox. We'd also see it happening when a photograph was cropped to 4:3, we'd look fatter in square mirrors than in full-length ones, and so on. None of which happens.
(It certainly is possible to look thinner in some mirrors than in others, but it does not vary systematically with aspect ratio.)
Besides, the claim is that tv puts on 10 libs, not that some tvs do and others don't, depending on aspect ratio and pixel details.
I agree it's all impressionistic. I have seen many film actors and actresses in the flesh and they look no different than on screen (other than often having worse skin than shows on film and don't start me on the size of Tom Cruises nose in real life!) However, I have been startled on occasion by how much smaller sports stars, especially tennis players, seem in the flesh than on screen. Is there some optical illusion which could relate to perspective when a person is usually seen isolated on screen in the foreground?
I agree it's all impressionistic. I have seen many film actors and actresses in the flesh and they look no different than on screen (other than often having worse skin than shows on film and don't start me on the size of Tom Cruises nose in real life!) However, I have been startled on occasion by how much smaller sports stars, especially tennis players, seem in the flesh than on screen. Is there some optical illusion which could relate to perspective when a person is usually seen isolated on screen in the foreground?
I think it's often difficult to tell how tall someone is. I am sometimes surprised that someone on tv is smaller than I thought when I see them standing next to someone else. Or that someone is taller than I'd thought.
But that's getting their overall size wrong rather than seeing them as a different (heavier) shape. (It's also comparing then in two different contexts on tv rather than tv vs real life.)
I'm pretty sure there are explanations for things seeming the wrong size (like the moon seeming bigger when near the horizon).
I think it's often difficult to tell how tall someone is. I am sometimes surprised that someone on tv is smaller than I thought when I see them standing next to someone else. Or that someone is taller than I'd thought.
But that's getting their overall size wrong rather than seeing them as a different (heavier) shape. (It's also comparing then in two different contexts on tv rather than tv vs real life.)
I'm pretty sure there are explanations for things seeming the wrong size (like the moon seeming bigger when near the horizon).
Sorry. My post didn't make it clear I was referring to bulk as well as height in sports stars. By way of example, I can remember being astonished on seeing Martina Navratilova in the flesh for the first time (and I'm not talking re her 'fat' days) and thinking she looked much less muscle bound and bulky than on tv. Chris Evert, who looked slender on tv was minute in the flesh and so on with nearly all tennis players. It definitely seemed as if filming added bulk to their shapes.
Sorry. My post didn't make it clear I was referring to bulk as well as height in sports stars. By way of example, I can remember being astonished on seeing Martina Navratilova in the flesh for the first time (and I'm not talking re her 'fat' days) and thinking she looked much less muscle bound and bulky than on tv. Chris Evert, who looked slender on tv was minute in the flesh and so on with nearly all tennis players. It definitely seemed as if filming added bulk to their shapes.
I've seen Dianne Oxberry the BBC Look Northwest weather presenter "in the flesh" and she looked no slimmer than she does every night on TV.
I guess this "adding 10lbs" effect only applies to "certain" people, like those who like to think they're a size smaller than they are really.
I'm in my forties but when I was a size 12 years ago now my waist was a 24. I thought to be a 12 you were a 36/24/36
Sizes have definitely changed over the years - I am of a similar age to you and was also a size 12 in my twenties, and yes, I agree, back then those measurements were a size 12 - but it seems not anymore.
I remember years ago buying a skirt from M&S and, despite the label definitely showing size 12, it was far too big for me.
When I returned it, I remember telling the assistant that the waist of the skirt measured 29 inches, and she said it was actually a size 16!
(perhaps I should have kept it - I could now have "proved" I could still get into a size 12!!:D:D)
I have kept some pink satin dungarees (:eek::eek:) from the 1970s that have a size 8 label (yes, fols, I used to wear them!!.
My daughter, who wears size 8 all the time now, in almost all shops (she has the occasional size 10) cannot even do them up, let alone wear them!!! Sizes have definitely changed in the last 30 years - I reckon a size 8 now would have been a smallish 12 then.
I have kept some pink satin dungarees (:eek::eek:) from the 1970s that have a size 8 label (yes, fols, I used to wear them!!.
My daughter, who wears size 8 all the time now, in almost all shops (she has the occasional size 10) cannot even do them up, let alone wear them!!! Sizes have definitely changed in the last 30 years - I reckon a size 8 now would have been a smallish 12 then.
Perhaps that explains Natalie's confusion.
It is a common thought amongst the female members of our family that in certain shops the sizing is geared to "flatter the customer."
In others, it seems to be a case that the size tag was the nearest one to the machinist during the item's manufacture.
Comments
I'm in my forties but when I was a size 12 years ago now my waist was a 24. I thought to be a 12 you were a 36/24/36
With respect I've just had my eyes tested last Tuesday and I have no problem accepting that Natalie is a size 12.
Flavia as Vincent's' pro partner is 5' 2" and a size 6, i.e. 3 sizes smaller than Natalie.
Looking at Vincent - who is a very slim build 5' 6" (just?!) - dancing with Natalie - who is 5' 4" without heels - then a size 12 seems perfectly feasible to me.
Is that seriously what you registered to post as your first post? I don't see the point in even asking that question given the content of my post.
I didn't call them liars. They could easily have formed a different opinion to me completely truthfully. Someone else might look at her and think "wow, she looks like a size 6!" - both the people who think she's a 16 and the people who think she's a 6 might say it with full honesty. Just because they think that she's a 16 doesn't mean they're automatically correct.
You, on the other hand, are directly calling her a liar.
Yes, I can
You are right, people look very different on TV than they do in real life. Whilst we were in the queue, Ricky Groves came out and gave everyone a signed photo and he looked very slender, and very orange! But we are talking about how Natalie looks at the moment, and last Saturday she did not look like a size 12 to me.
The point several people have made, is that whatever size is her bust and waist, her hips are obviously at least a size larger, as she has an exaggerated "pear shape" figure.
As for TV making people look fatter, does this mean just certain parts of their anatomy?
Is there any explanation for the "10 lbs" theory, any reason why people would look heavier on tv?
And do people feel that photographs do the same? How about mirrors?
(This is raising the rather worrying prospect that (1) no one knows how they look themself, and (2) lots of people think they look heavier than they actually do or are. :eek: )
Not till my son came and changed the setting to a different screen could I watch SCD in peace /
I am much happier now that they are all not wide and dumpy !!
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/08/does-this-camera-make-me-look-fat-the-extra-10-pounds-myth.ars
Gives some explanation.
She's still not a 12.
That's very interesting thanks.
At four inches shorter Natalie as a fourteen would be much bigger than she appears, I think.
Size and shape can be very confusing, visually. I've a friend who is nearly my height and a fourteen and we are such different shapes we can't really wear each other's clothes.
I'd give Natalie the benefit of the doubt, myself.
The "pixel" theory is obviously nonsense. The way the pixels are arranged might distort, but the mere shape of the pixels wouldn't.
And if the "aspect ratio" theory were correct, we'd see people looking heavier in a 4:3 picture than when we switched to widescreen or letterbox. We'd also see it happening when a photograph was cropped to 4:3, we'd look fatter in square mirrors than in full-length ones, and so on. None of which happens.
(It certainly is possible to look thinner in some mirrors than in others, but it does not vary systematically with aspect ratio.)
Besides, the claim is that tv puts on 10 libs, not that some tvs do and others don't, depending on aspect ratio and pixel details.
I agree it's all impressionistic. I have seen many film actors and actresses in the flesh and they look no different than on screen (other than often having worse skin than shows on film and don't start me on the size of Tom Cruises nose in real life!) However, I have been startled on occasion by how much smaller sports stars, especially tennis players, seem in the flesh than on screen. Is there some optical illusion which could relate to perspective when a person is usually seen isolated on screen in the foreground?
But that's getting their overall size wrong rather than seeing them as a different (heavier) shape. (It's also comparing then in two different contexts on tv rather than tv vs real life.)
I'm pretty sure there are explanations for things seeming the wrong size (like the moon seeming bigger when near the horizon).
Sorry. My post didn't make it clear I was referring to bulk as well as height in sports stars. By way of example, I can remember being astonished on seeing Martina Navratilova in the flesh for the first time (and I'm not talking re her 'fat' days) and thinking she looked much less muscle bound and bulky than on tv. Chris Evert, who looked slender on tv was minute in the flesh and so on with nearly all tennis players. It definitely seemed as if filming added bulk to their shapes.
I've seen Dianne Oxberry the BBC Look Northwest weather presenter "in the flesh" and she looked no slimmer than she does every night on TV.
I guess this "adding 10lbs" effect only applies to "certain" people, like those who like to think they're a size smaller than they are really.
Sizes have definitely changed over the years - I am of a similar age to you and was also a size 12 in my twenties, and yes, I agree, back then those measurements were a size 12 - but it seems not anymore.
I remember years ago buying a skirt from M&S and, despite the label definitely showing size 12, it was far too big for me.
When I returned it, I remember telling the assistant that the waist of the skirt measured 29 inches, and she said it was actually a size 16!
(perhaps I should have kept it - I could now have "proved" I could still get into a size 12!!:D:D)
She's 14/16 I'd say. She is in denial if she thinks otherwise.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1149236
My daughter, who wears size 8 all the time now, in almost all shops (she has the occasional size 10) cannot even do them up, let alone wear them!!! Sizes have definitely changed in the last 30 years - I reckon a size 8 now would have been a smallish 12 then.
Perhaps that explains Natalie's confusion.
It is a common thought amongst the female members of our family that in certain shops the sizing is geared to "flatter the customer."
In others, it seems to be a case that the size tag was the nearest one to the machinist during the item's manufacture.