In at least three dimensions
Someone once asked me for an off-the-cuff description of Michelle Obama, figure-wise, and I said something to the effect of “She’s a big, healthy girl.” At the time, of course, I had no numbers to quote.
Now maybe I do. Newsbird has made an attempt to size up the First Lady, and reports as follows:
Shoulder width 18″
Waist 35″
Widest part of hips 46″
Her bust measurements are maybe 37″ to 39″. Her waist size has to be more than 29″.
She is size L at the top due to her broad shoulders even while her waist and bust measurements are small. That is why her cardigans are too small — she most likely buys them according to her bust size.
At the bottom she is at least misses size 18 or XL.
A classic pear shape, really: not particularly busty, a defined but not exaggerated waist, and a center of gravity about where you’d expect it to be. And it explains much about her fashion choices:
I guess Michelle thinks that wearing sleeveless tops which are as small as possible she will look slender because her upper torso is small compared to her shoulders and hips. And she is right. But she also looks good in smooth simple dresses with 4/5 sleeves as she wore at the DNC.
But when she wears a suit like she did for Congress last month, she looks matronly and heavy because her wide shoulders require a large size jacket or top. This was the worst type of suit for her figure.
[Links added by me.]
Generally, this fits with what I’ve been saying: sometimes Mrs O comes up with something really excellent, and sometimes I wonder what she was thinking. Then again, I’m no fashion consultant, and I suspect that the ones she has, she overrules from time to time. I mean, it’s not like you can make her wear what you want.
(Via Cripes Suzette.)
Donna B. »
11 October 2009 · 10:39 am
I think she’s pregnant. Or she has at least put on 7 or 8 lbs all around the middle since the inauguration.
fillyjonk »
11 October 2009 · 1:33 pm
Holy carp, if those numbers are accurate, I’m almost the same size as she is. (I don’t think her waist is the 35″ they claim it to be; it seems smaller than that). (Actually, I’m a BIT slimmer, at least through the hips. This is a revelation to me.)
Damn, I need to get the phone number of her tailor. Much of the stuff she wears, I wouldn’t wear, but by and large, her clothes, on her, don’t come across as “big woman clothes.” At least to me.
(Yeah, I probably couldn’t afford her tailor/dressmaker. But still.)
CGHill »
11 October 2009 · 3:53 pm
Newsbird is betting on lordosis rather than pregnancy.
Donna B. »
11 October 2009 · 8:51 pm
Ah. That makes sense.