NB. Tall mannequins: stock image (not TopShop)
Question: When is a size 10 not a size 10 (appearance)?
Answer: When it is placed on a 6 ft 2” mannequin.
Today Laura Berry twitted her outrage at the size and shape of a mannequin that she spotted in a Topshop store in Bristol.
Ms Merry stated (Facebook): "This mannequin is quite frankly ridiculously-shaped. Young women aspire to the somewhat cult image your store offers.
"Yet not one mannequin in your store showed anything bigger than a size 6.
"So today, I'm calling you out Topshop, on your lack of concern for a generation of extremely body conscious youth.
"I'm old enough and wise enough to know I will never be this size, but as we've all been impressionable teens at one point, I'm fairly certain if any of us were to witness this in our teenage years, it would have left us wondering if that was what was expected of our bodies."
"Perhaps it's about time you became responsible for the impression you have on women and young girls and helped them feel good about themselves rather than impose these ridiculous standards."
Interestingly, Topshop’s reply clarified that the jeans were not a tiny size 6 as Ms Berry hypothesize, but that it was based on a size 10. This being the case, why did the jeans appear so much smaller? The illusion was accomplished by the company’s decision to place it on a mannequin whose “overall height (187cm/6ft 2”) is taller than the average girl”.
Topshop’s spokesman went on to explain:
"As the mannequins are solid fibreglass, their form needs to be of certain dimensions to allow clothing to be put on and removed easily; this is therefore not meant to be a representation of the average female body.
"That said, we have taken yours and other customers' opinions and feedback on board and going forward we are not placing any further orders on this style of mannequin.
"The views of our customers are extremely valuable and we apologise if we have not lived up to the levels of service that we aim to deliver."