In message , Kim Andrews 
 writes
>badriya wrote:
>
>>>
>> I must have just tried bad quality ones then.  I had a couple of very
>> pretty ones from M & S but they are uncomfortable.  On the other hand
>
>Did you get measured? Any bra has to fit properly, and most women's 
>don't apparently - and I'd expect that wiring *would* be more painful 
>than plain cloth if the size was wrong.
>
Whenever I have looked into this matter (down, boy), I have been caused 
to really wonder who devised the _very_ peculiar measurement algorithm, 
and why. (Add four inches if even, five if odd - I think, take away the 
number you first thought of, if there's an R in the month ...)
[]
I still think the title of this thread sounds like an Agatha Christie 
novel or Enid Blyton chapter (or spoof on same ...)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

I've banked the cheque!

God must love the common man; He made so many of them.

In article , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:
>  I have been caused 
> to really wonder who devised the _very_ peculiar measurement algorithm, 
> and why. (Add four inches if even, five if odd -

Surely that's simply to arrive at an even number, as bra sizes go up in twos
- and if you're actually an odd number of inches, you're better off with the
larger size.

Rosemary


-- 
Rosemary Miskin     ZFC Pm   miskin@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK             http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:48:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:

>In message , Rosemary 
>Miskin  writes
>>In article , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> wrote:
>>>  I have been caused
>>> to really wonder who devised the _very_ peculiar measurement algorithm,
>>> and why. (Add four inches if even, five if odd -
>>
>>Surely that's simply to arrive at an even number, as bra sizes go up in twos
>>- and if you're actually an odd number of inches, you're better off with the
>>larger size.
>[]
>It wasn't the odd/even bit - that makes sense, to force it into an even 
>number size - that puzzled me; it's the need to add 4 (or 5) inches at 
>all - why?

It's to do with cup size. If the measurement under the bust plus 4/5
inches is the same as the measurement round the fullest part, then
you're an A cup. If the cup size is one inch more than that, you're a
B, if two you're a C, and so on. 

-- 
Jo

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:44:46 +0200, Jo Lonergan
 wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:48:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:
>
>>In message , Rosemary 
>>Miskin  writes
>>>In article , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> wrote:
>>>>  I have been caused
>>>> to really wonder who devised the _very_ peculiar measurement algorithm,
>>>> and why. (Add four inches if even, five if odd -
>>>
>>>Surely that's simply to arrive at an even number, as bra sizes go up in twos
>>>- and if you're actually an odd number of inches, you're better off with the
>>>larger size.
>>[]
>>It wasn't the odd/even bit - that makes sense, to force it into an even 
>>number size - that puzzled me; it's the need to add 4 (or 5) inches at 
>>all - why?
>
>It's to do with cup size. If the measurement under the bust plus 4/5
>inches is the same as the measurement round the fullest part, then
>you're an A cup. If the cup size is one inch more than that, you're a
>B, if two you're a C, and so on. 

In other words, just to further clarify or to further confuse JPG,
there's a difference between what you actually measure round the front
(which is what you'd use if you were going to buy a man's sweater) and
what you measure around the top of your ribs. In your case it would be
more or less the same. In our case it's not. It is confusing because
women's clothes are sold by "sizes" 12, 14, 16 etc, which do have a
chest measurement (I think size 12 is 34 and they go up in twos) as
well as a waist and a hip measurement (how many women really are all
three places the same size? I know I'm not) and the chest measurement
there is not necessarily the same as the number you find on your bra.

"And I want you to sing it to the tune of knees up Mother Brown"

lff

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message , Linda Fox
>  writes
> []
>>> It's to do with cup size. If the measurement under the bust plus 4/5
>>> inches is the same as the measurement round the fullest part, then
>>> you're an A cup. If the cup size is one inch more than that, you're
>>> a B, if two you're a C, and so on.
>
> I even know that bit. But, why the 4 - in other words, why is a 34 bra
> not a 30? Then you'd know that it was 30 round the underbust. For
> example, there's no part of, say, a 36C or 36D that actually measures
> 36.

I agree, that this system is very peculiar, something along the lines of 
what you suggest would be much better.

I reckon that it's all a plot on the part of  corsetiers. It is so hard to 
understand, that you have to visit one of their number in order to find out 
what size you are. Alternatively you become part of the vast majority 
wearing the wrong size.


-- 

CaroleT