squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 4 months agorule 📏lemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square58fedilinkarrow-up1360arrow-down10
arrow-up1360arrow-down1imagerule 📏lemmy.blahaj.zonesquirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square58fedilink
minus-squaresicarius@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up19·4 months agoSo the 1950’s lass is wearing high heels. Without them she’s probably a similar height to the first lass.
minus-squareMouselemming@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up10·4 months agoWomen’s shoes in 1900 routinely had high heels as well. Here’s a sample: https://vintagedancer.com/1900s/edwardian-shoes-styles/ The difference may be about an inch from the 1950s shoe shown.
minus-squaresicarius@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·4 months agoSo, they are both smaller and there’s a giant leap up to amazonian.
So the 1950’s lass is wearing high heels. Without them she’s probably a similar height to the first lass.
Women’s shoes in 1900 routinely had high heels as well. Here’s a sample:
https://vintagedancer.com/1900s/edwardian-shoes-styles/
The difference may be about an inch from the 1950s shoe shown.
So, they are both smaller and there’s a giant leap up to amazonian.