Why Is Plus-Size Vintage So Hard to Find?

It’s Vintage Week at Yahoo Style! In honor of our favorite environmentally friendly way to make sure you’re never wearing the same outfit as anyone else, we’re bringing you insider intel on the best vintage — what to look for, where to find it, and how to make the most money when selling yours. Stay tuned all week for more.

(Illustration: Courtesy of New York University)

Shopping for vintage can feel like an exercise in futility. By the time you locate a piece you love, it not only has to be in good condition and the right price, but it also has to be in your size. Finding the first two is a miracle, but finding all three is almost too much to ask from the universe. In fact, it often is, especially if you wear a plus size. It’s so hard that we have to ask: Does plus-size vintage even exist? Or is the whole category a myth?

The first theory waving its hand in the air is our weight. Have you heard? It’s higher than it’s ever been. The Centers for Disease Control has been watching the scale for decades, and it has damning stats at the ready: On average, American women weighed 18% more in 2010 than they did in 1960, with the average weight going from 140 to 166.

True as this all may be, weight has always varied, and obesity wasn’t invented in the ‘90s. Julie Smolinski, co-curator of this year’s Beyond Measure: Fashion and the Plus-Size* Woman exhibit at New York University, says clothes have catered to larger women since the early 20th century at least. “Plus-size vintage is not necessarily a myth because these women existed, and they needed to clothe themselves,” she tells us.

Illustration: Courtesy of Lane Bryant.

Lane Bryant, which opened its doors in 1904 as a store for maternity clothes, was focused on larger sizes for “stout” women by the 1920s (it would go on to rebrand “stout” as “plus misses” in 1922). And in 1924, Smolinski says the New York Times declared “stout” as women with bust sizes between 38.5” and 52.5" — the latter being the modern equivalent of a 3XL.

Until the 1940s, women’s sizes were determined solely by bust measurements. The custom was a holdover from ready-to-wear menswear, which dates back to the Revolutionary War. Women resisted the idea of ready-to-wear fashion until the 1920s, when they realized its relative low cost (as compared to dressmakers) allowed them to update their wardrobes more frequently. It was an epiphany we can undoubtedly thank the burgeoning ad industry for, and it would go on to bring sweeping changes around how clothes are sized and categorized.

The first non-bust-centric sizes came in the ‘30s, and there was no size 0, not even a size 2. “In the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s, most clothes intended for adult women started their sizing off at 8, 10, or 12,” writes Jessica Cangiano on Chronically Vintage. She adds that clothes from the ’30s to the ’50s are about double the size of what they would be today. “A dress from the 1950s with a size 18 tag would likely fit a woman today who wears a modern size 8 or 10.”

This is a relief to anyone who’s ever tried (and failed) to fit into a vintage dress nearly twice their size. But it still does not answer the real question: Where are all the plus sizes? If a size 18 is a really a size 8, and it’s almost impossible to find anything above a size 18 in pre-’80s vintage, what is going on? Is everyone with an appetite for both pussy-bow blouses and office birthday cupcakes destined to a life devoid of vintage?

“The reason [plus-size vintage] may be rarer may have to do with the notion that this demographic was even less catered to than it is today by both designers and manufacturers,” Smolinski tells us. “There is little to be found because it simply wasn’t produced in high volume, so there is less surviving and less in circulation. I know [from] hunting on Etsy, it was very hard to find pieces that would work for our exhibition, but they were certainly out there.”

It’s a sad tale but a true one. Ragini Nag Rao of Curious Fancy, a vintage-skewing plus-size blog, is a pro at foraging for plus-size vintage. She agrees the dearth of plus-size vintage can be attributed to the fact that less of it was made. It doesn’t help that most of what was made was unattractive or unflattering, and what was attractive was worn to death either by its original owner or a vintage pioneer who struck gold long ago.

“When I first started shopping for vintage back in 2004, the ’60s and ’70s dominated the scene,” Rao says. “Now it seems only the smalls and extra smalls remain on the racks because a huge number of these sizes were manufactured to begin with, and there aren’t enough people who wear them.” Unfortunately, she says, it’s a trend that will only become more common as time goes on.

The good news is plus-size vintage is a very real thing, and with a little bit of strategizing, you can still find it. Alissa Wilson of Stylish Curves says if you’re shopping for vintage, you should be willing to travel. “Some of the best vintage can be found at estate sales and even garage sales,” she says. And if you’re looking for ’80s vintage, she suggests heading directly to the nearest rich neighborhood’s vintage store.

Rao, who lives in India, is an Internet-shopping pro. She loves using Etsy and eBay, and mining these sites has taught her an important lesson: Don’t be put off by bad photos. Good photos, she says, come with bigger price tags, and as long as you examine the pics carefully, you can still spot flaws. Besides, she adds, asking sellers for more photos is always an option.

Plus-size vintage may not be myth, but it is a bit of a white whale. Just thinking about all the options that weren’t available to women decades ago makes us grateful we live in a time where plus-size fashion is having a moment. Still, it’s good to know it’s out there for anyone willing to put in the work. We just wish it was a little less work.

Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest for nonstop inspiration delivered fresh to your feed, every day.