Talk:Bra size

""Top Five Bra-Sizing Myths". Knickers: The lingerie blog. Retrieved 29 April 2010." Links to a oddlooking spammy website...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.129.202.232 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply 

The metric conversion in the cup size table is wrong: for example, less than 1 inch is 10-12 millimetres or 1-2 centimetres, not 10-12 centimetres (which is 4-5 inches). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.76 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest creating a comparison of all the different breast sizes using real photos, and preferably topless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of illustration, and in the name of knowledge, could someone add pictures of sizes DD+? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.116.97 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page only shows the measurement in imperial system. Can anyone please put in the measurement in metric system, so that the metric fans understand better? Thanks! ;-)--Edmundkh 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that the metric measurements should be put instead (or with) of the imperial, metric is wider in use than imperial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.94.70 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2007

Are you sure you're supposed to take the difference between bust and band size, not bust and frame size?

The beginning instructions and first table say it is in between bust and band sizes, but the table at the bottom of the page in metrics says it's the difference between bust and frame size.

I believe that it's the second, but I'm not sure. Please help.

67.170.110.122 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the EN 13402 Cup A is 12-14 cm difference. This is 4.7-5.5 inches. In the US table 5 inches is Cup DD. Both methods appear to be using the difference between bust and underbust girth. Can someone clearly explain the differences in measuring? 88.70.240.105 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The method used to measure for bras in this article is called unreliable in the article Brassiere under the section measurement systems. It may be better to talk about and show examples of how a proper fitting bra looks, rather than give a formula that does not work for every given case. I'd like the table include more cup sizes (to a K or L) so people can have more of a concept of the range of sizes. It might also be good to show multiple cup sizing systems next to each other in the table so people can see that one brand's DDDDD may equal another's GG or H. Nuku7nuku 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

UK Dress size correlations given were waaaaaaaaay off. See here: http://www.asos.com/infopages/SizeGuide/pgesizechart.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because the imperial sizes increase by 1 inch, i.e. 2.54 cm, but the metric sizes increase by 2 cm exactly, the conversion factors between imperial and metric sizes vary as breast size changes. They start out with a huge difference with women with small breasts, and end up close to each other with ladies with huge honkers. Here's a specific table, based on the table in the article:

The "N/A" means that the result is ambiguous, because "less than 1 inch" is not mathematically exact. So if you want to be scientifically accurate, either get large breasts or start dating someone who has. JIP | Talk 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I completely fail to understand from this article is the US band sizes. My significant other has been trying to figure it out herself but failed and asked me; I (naturally) turned to wikipedia and I must admit I'm completely lost. Are the US sizes not underbust measurements? The conversion table does say "in". For example, 36 inches is close to 91.5 centimeters. So how is it that said 36 inches is supposed to correspond to an underbust measurement of 78-82 centimeters? TerminusEst (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please provide definition of "sister sizes". I have been wearing bras for decades and have never heard this term, can't even guess at its meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.147.223 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As has been mentioned above, British manufacturers now produce up to cup N. British N roughly corresponds to continental-European cup Z. Continental manufacturers are always behind in keeping up with increasing bra sizes an do not produce a lot in the second half of the alphabet. However, if I want to have something tailored, me and my tailor measure in cm, not in inch, as Germans do. It would be helpful to be able to compare inch and cm measurements in this range. This is surely true for more women and tailors in Germany and all continental Europe. In the table there are sizes until British N listed. I would be grateful if also the graphics below, conversion British/Continental Europe, will be expanded until British N/Continental Z. This graphics serves as a standard in many communities in the web. Thanks a lot. -- 178.26.173.127 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

My fiancée is currently designing a dress. Here are some of the things she learned, at least for American bra sizing:

1) American bra sizes have two measurements:

1a) The "band size" (such as 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, et cetera)

1b) The "cup size" (such as AA, A, B, C, D, E, et cetera)

2) In theory, the "band size" is as described in the article: the chest circumference, as measured beneath the breasts, plus an offset of 3" to 6". In practice, many bras only have secure sizes around the chest at the bustline and/or above the breasts, not beneath the breasts. This means that the "band size" is actually a number that should be fudged to make the rest of the fit come out right.

3) The "cup size" actually measures the radius of the underside of the breast. This dimension determines the shape of the underwire (or other material that lies on the front of the bra immediately beneath the breast). The "cup size" is important -- if it is too small (for the woman), the ends of the underwire will poke the sides of the breasts. Note that the "cup size" does not directly measure the breast volume.

4) The sum of the "band size" and the "cup size" is a useful estimate. As shown at BiggerBras.com, adding one inch per letter of the "cup size" to the "band size" gives an estimate of the "bust size". The "bust size" is the circumference of the chest, as measured at the most prominent part of the bosom. For example, 36C corresponds to 36" + 3" = 39"; 34E corresponds to 34" + 5" = 39". Because these two sizes share the same estimated "bust size" (39"), they are "sister sizes", as described in the article.

5) Here is how she was able to find a bra that fit well:

5a) She measured her "bust size".

5b) She considered bras where the sum of the "band size" and the "cup size" was within 1" of her "bust size".

5c) She found a bra with the correct "cup size" -- it followed the undercurve of her breast, but did not dig in. This method of measuring gave a larger "cup size" than she had expected.

5d) She subtracted the "cup size" from her "bust size", to give the "band size".

5e) She chose a bra with somewhat less cup material (on the fullness of her breast) than other bras with the same nominal size. This made up for the fact that her "cup size" was larger than she had expected.

5f) She tried on bras with similar sizes (to make sure she had the optimum size), but bought the bra she chose in step 5e.

Sources:

For statements 1 and 4: BiggerBras.com's Bra Size Grid

For statements 2, 3, and 5: Observation of bra construction at Seattle-area bra retailers, such as Macy's, Target, and DecentExposures.com. (It would be nice to upgrade this citation to a published source, so as to adhere to Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research.)

-- Jasper 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dressmakers have found two correlations between cup size and breast size.

The first correlation is in the widths of material needed to cover the bust. This correlation has already been discussed: The "frame size" (of the woman, not the bra) plus an offset plus the "cup size" (of the bra) tends to be close to the "bust size" (of the woman).

The seoond correlation is in the heights of material needed to cover the breasts. The "yoke line" is a horizontal line along the body, "just above where the major swell of the bosom begins." The "yoke line" is typically about 2" - 3" below the collarbone. The "waist line" is the not-necessarily horizontal line of the person's waistband. Dressmakers sometimes measure three distances: along the front centerline of the body from the "yoke line" to the "waist line", over the most prominent part of the breast, from the "yoke line" to the "waist line", and along the side of the breast (beneath where the collarbone joins the shoulder) from the "yoke line" to the "waist line". Virginia DeMarce states that the first and third measurements tend to be about equal, and the second measurement to be greater by "about one inch per each cup size beyond an A. That is, for a woman who wears a C cup, the distance from yoke line to waist over the bosom is going to be about two inches longer than that from yoke line to waist at center front."

Sources:

For the first correlation: BiggerBras.com's Bra Size Grid

For both correlations: Fitting of Clothes FAQ. Virginia DeMarce, Pam Poggiani, Jessica Schlenker, and others. Originally posted on the Dixon's Vixen conference of Baen's Bar; archived at http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/fitting.html Copyright 2002. The description of the second correlation is based on Virginia DeMarce's e-mail dated March 16, 2002 06:46 PM.

-- Jasper 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it really necessary to use the word "majuscules" up top, instead of the more understandable "capital letters"? Readers shouldn't have to click through the definitions of uncommon words to understand the basics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.216.60 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 May 2007

Right now the chart claims an A cup is a two inch difference, but everywhere I remember reading about this subject is that it's supposed to be one inch. Older revisions of this page have charts that start from there, is this a typo? -- 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.230.38 (talk • contribs)

Has someone got an accurate comparison of Japanese/rest of the world bra sizes?

I know that a Japanese C cup, is equivalent to a normal A or B etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is utter rubbish. There is no correlation between ethnicity and bust size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.212.211 (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can someone explain why "D" is doubled-up and trippled-up? As in A, B, C, D, DD, DDD, E etc. Why D? 82.152.159.30 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

a b c d dd ddd dddd is the same as a b c d e f g. why do they, instead of going on to the next letter after d, start adding more d's? i don't know, but if you ever hear somebody say they have a size f cup, it's the same as ddd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.115.51 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 April 2009

I don't KNOW the answer, and am not sure if anyone really knows. I'm guessing it just happend. I infer from the historical portion of this very article that this probably came about because the original bra sizes were only A, B, C, and D without even a band size, first introduced by one company then copied by others. I doubt it was obvious to the layman exactly what the increment was for bra sizes, making it difficult to visualize what an E or an F would be had they existed. It seems natural to me that especially well-endowed women were referred to as "double" or "tripple" the largest size - D. Perhaps the bra makers picked up on this and just started using it. Tinarob1993 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nothing special about it. It's same as XL, XXL, XXXL and the alternative being XL, 2XL, 3XL. In this case you could think of "DD" = "XXL" => "Double-D" = "Double Extra Large". As with XXXXXXL being hard to read and slowly replaced by much readable 6XL so did the DDDDD slowly get replaced with H. But internationally we see E, F etc being more and more commonly used instead of DD and DDD to a point of becoming the new standard. (Personally, I think, but dont know for sure, that 75F sells better than 75DDD due to psychological mechanism surrounding vanity sizing.) A major problem with bra sizes is that there is no one single standard, there never has. Instead companies, facing uncertainty, copied each-other without reflection or adaptation for ever increasing demand for sizes beyond DD etc. Kenno Bew (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seriously. What? Does anyone have sources for these sizes, even? Not to mention this is pretty WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA... I think this section should be removed as soon as possible. It's not very notable. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, this section isn't alphabetized correctly. Traditionally, you alphabetize based on the last name, not the first. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I was reading around, and I do believe the entire section violates WP:BLP. "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" So there you have it. The information is still in the history page, but I highly recommend against bringing it back. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any difference in cup sizes when it comes to height? Like, do a woman who is 4'6 with 36-inch breasts and a woman 6'8 with 36 inch breasts have the same cup size if there measurements are the same? BioYu-Gi! (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't see how a woman's bra size could be influenced by her height. The taller woman might need to extend the shoulder straps to their maximum length, and the shorter woman might need to tighten them, but there would be no effect on the cup size. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be great to include some pictures for a visual comparison of sizes and shapes. Robert Vanderbilt (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it would allow people to get a real life comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.56.215 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pictorial definitions would border on "wikipornia". I was concerned about the wisdom of viewing this page at work (I swear, at this time it was a matter of intellectual curiosity), and would have navigated away quickly if I'd found a heavily illustrated page. Unless the pictures showed a bra on a bright blue mannequin or the like, this is probably unwise. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have the question the value of including a picture of nude breasts. While the caption mentions information pertaining to "sagging breasts" and, I suppose, brassiere measurement, I do not feel the picture neccessary in this case. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WPxOG (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You cannot illustrate how sagging breasts are hard to measure for a bra by showing breasts with a bra on. Goes to illustrate one of the challenges women have. I believe it should be retained. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Showing breast sizes IN bras is the best option. It's very difficult to estimate volumes if the breast compared are not of the same shape. Kenno Bew (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

it just... sounds wrong. too informal. change? 80.5.57.84 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

-Agreed. Lines such as, 'The single most confusing thing...', 'Most people think...' and, 'Try this experiment - ...' don't sound very encyclopedic at all. Clean up required? Dgen (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The common method espoused to women here in the States has been mentioned: measure under your breasts for the band, then measure the fullest part of the bust, and finally subtract the band size from the fullest part measurement. That determines the cup size. It's a generally decent method to "ballpark" the size of bra a woman needs, but one must keep in mind that it's not foolproof. Theoretically, if you have the right cup size, your bra should rest flat against the chest wall between the breasts, underwires included.

As a woman who's dealt with this, I have to say that's just not true, particlarly with women in above-average sizes. Someone mentioned that if the cups are too small, they'll poke the wearer. This is true in some cases, but another approach more accurately describes the real problem: there's not enough fabric in most cups whose circumference would otherwise comfortably fit a larger woman. Therefore, women have to go up in cup size to get the extra fabric to sufficiently cover the breast/get the wires to rest against the chest wall (or they resort to a larger band size).

The problem with going to the next cup size is that the manufacturers assume the wires' circumference and length must be greater in order to accommodate the breasts. But most wearers would find them unbearable, because the wires' circumference and length are so great, they literally dig into the wearer's armpit, causing painful sores, or go up so high between the breasts that the bra would probably poke up and out anyway, thus showing under normal clothing. Tailors deal with this problem-are you ready?-by using a slightly smaller cup size, and bending the underwires so they don't poke forward! They do not get a larger cup size to make the wires rest against the chest; the bra would never fit the rest of the woman.

If women adhere to this measurement method religiously, they may find themselves in this situation. This is a manufacturing issue, not a woman-not-finding-the-right-size-bra issue. Thankfully, more companies are starting to design better bras, so women have to deal with this less than ever. In my experience, the best way a woman can determine what fits is to actually go and try a bunch on, and pick only the most comfortable, supportive, and attractive. If you find they're all the same band and cup size, good for you. Otherwise, sizing be darned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.185.196 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

COMMENTS TO THE STATEMENTS ABOVE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenno Bew (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with these assessments. Brands differ. There is no single accepted size chart. For example, if you look at Asian brands, they tend to have different shapes and different ways a bra is enlarged to accommodate for larger breast or band. This is a real problem for western women living in Asian countries.

The measuring method you describe is flawed. Particular in above-average sizes. The issues described are very typical for specific bras or specific bra brands that are not suitable for that particular person, or simply that the size selected was wrong. This is a very common problem for, as mentioned above, above-average sizes. I'm sure you have dealt with this problem. But I am quite confident that these issue would be fully solved with the more sutiable brand and skilled staff.

First of all, US band sizes refer to above the bust size (!) but the measuring is most often done under bust. European sizes refer to under bust. If you measure 36in under bust then that measurement is definitely not referring to the bra band size 36. The proof of this in the charts. US 32 is equivalent to EU 70. But 32in = 81cm. For US size, if you measure under bust, the "traditional" way is to +4. This "+4" is exactly meant to adjust the udner bust measurement to the fact that US band sizes refer to above bust. So if you measure 28 under bust, then +4 and that will give you US band size 32. 28in = 70cm.

Furthermore, measurements are meant to be measured tightly! There is a bad trend created by some brands saying "skip the +4". But this is only a lazy way to get people to choose a tighter band size. Instead, measure tightly and +4. Or simply use the European size chart that doesn't require these recalculations (since EU sizes are based on under bust).

For cups, above average sizes pose problems due to adipose tissue on the back which leads to skewed overbust measurements. To accomodate for that you need to estimate how much back adipose tissue adds to the over bust measurement.

Hence, the traditional measuring technique described above is bound to fail. Unfortunatelly, not even staff in lingerie shops will be fully informed. Kenno Bew (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I dispute the neutrality of Bravissimo's claim. 207.67.101.35 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bravissimo's estimation of the average bra size being 34DD or 34E is backed up by the fact that the UK's best selling bra size is 36C, and the vast majority of women need to be wearing at least one band size smaller, which means that the true average size is almost certainly no larger than 34 and cannot be smaller than D cup. 34DD is a good estimate, as this accounts for the number of women who should be wearing a larger cup size. Zoggi the mouse (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

remember, the majority of the page is in european measurements, so anything that doesn't seem right, such as 2 inches equaling 14-16 centimeters on the chart, is not incorrect, but just european. another example is both of the pictograms are for european sizing only. an american b cup and a european b cup are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentBob420BMFJ (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 April 2009

You can not compare the most sold bra of the UK in 2003 to the most sold bra of the US in 2009. One, it's illogical, two different years, two different countries, what's the point, it's completely inaccurate to use as a comparison . Two, the people of the UK are not cows, of course they have smaller breast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.185.91 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where is the info on the Bro? Or is there a seperate article for men's undergarments? Seems like sexism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.36.115 (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why there isn't a full article just on breast size, it's social importance/influence, psychological impact, it's variation by country/race, etc given the huge sums of money spent on implants and push up bras by women not to mention the attention and time spent by men looking at them. Half of the television in the US is centred around breasts. Instead, ridiculously, the pages 'breast size' etc redirect to this 'fashion' article. There should be something comparable to the penis size article.

To start, here's a couple of references so that sections can be added on breast size by country: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article17807.ece

The poll for bra maker Triumph

Percentage of women wearing cup size: D C B A

UK 57 18 19 6
Denmark 50 19 24 7
Netherlands 36 27 29 8
Belgium 28 28 35 9
France 26 29 38 7
Sweden 24 30 33 14
Greece 23 28 40 9
Switzerland 19 24 43 14
Austria 11 27 51 10

Italy 10 21 68 1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1181550/Ee-BRA-gum-Yorkshire-lasses-biggest-breasts-Britain.html

I'm sure a lot of better sources and studies can be obtained, particularly on the social influence and psychological impact in advertising, marketing etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.101.9 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 January 2010

Added this chart to Brassiere. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me or is this a topic which could use some pictures for illustration? One or two images of different sizes of bras would help with understanding. IsambardBrunel (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one image that specifies the bra size. Better than nothing. IsambardBrunel (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder how many actual women have edited this article. ww 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

ww I am certain that the answer to your question is n ≤ 1 at this time. I just did. I hope there were others before me. --FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Under this heading: Majority wear wrong size bra. One line says "...most commonly resulting in too large a cup size (by a mean of three sizes) and too small a band size (by a mean of four sizes)" and the next line says "...most common mistake being to select a bra with too large a back band and too small a cup..." —Preceding unsigned comment added byJenniferholland (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) \Reply

It's not necessarily a conflict. The researchers and the hospital practitioners cited in the primary sources found opposite conclusions, true. But both findings go to support the overall statement: women aren't able to select correctly fitting bras and as a result wear the wrong bra size. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The bra size conversion guide seems to be inaccurate.

is all lunacy. Even the chart right above it "Bust/band difference and cup size" states that:

are equal. Yet suddenly they're now a size different. Look at http://www.breasttalk.co.uk/size_charts.aspx (Cup Conversion Chart) to see that uk and us are the exact same until E.-NeF (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This appears to have been fixed. However, there are inconsistencies from country to country and manufacturer to manufacturer. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Part of the inconsistencies are the different sizing systems, metric 2-cm-System vs. inch-system. Most conversion charts out there are simply flawed bc even experienced brafitters do not know that there are two different sizing systems!!! This includes the chart at breasttalk.co.uk, never seen something as stupid and uninformed. Most Italians don't even know cupsizes, they use 1,2,3, ... all B-Cups. Europe the same, the only thing they got right at the chart is that Europe doesn't use DD.

I tried to add information on this topic, it would be nice if it wasn't deleted every time! 79.216.119.151 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

When you added information, do you also add sources? If you would like to contribute, it is a good idea to create an account. Edits made by anonymous IP addresses raise flags because so much vandalism is perpetrated by individuals using IP addresses. Please do add information just make sure it's got reliable sources. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is what I take issue with:

"===Older European systems=== The EN 13402 standard was introduced in 2006, and a range of other cup-size definitions are still in use in Europe, using either centimeters or inches to indicate the under bust girth. One common cup size system used by European manufacturers, in order of increasing size, is: AAA-AA-A-B-C-D-DD-E-F-FF-G-GG-H-J, although the use of double letters is not consistent between manufacturers (e.g. some may use EE rather than F, DDD rather than E, etc.). The majority of bra bands run true to size (as in, a size 36 band measures, when stretched, 36 inches).

This is wrong. Only the British use the inch-based AAA-AA-A-B-C-D-DD-E-F-FF-G-GG-H-J.. system. All other European countries use the metric-based 2-cm-system. Cupsizes run A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-(i)-J-K-L-M-N-O-P. Because of the difference between the two systems 4 cups in the UK-System equal5 cups in the EU-sytem. Just how much the two systems differs can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cupumrechnung.svg (I already created an English version of that, but it got deleted, oh thanks so much.)

The only thing worth keeping of this section is IMO the reference to EN 13402.

There needs to be a section about conversion of the British system to the EU system(s). I already wrote it, check it up in the erlier versions. (Which some helpful watchdogs undid. Hrmpf.) Iknowbrasizes (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't take into consideration that there are two European sizing systems: the British and the Continental European. In the British system cups increase by one inch, 2.54 cms. In the Continental European system cups increase by 2 cms. This leads to considerable size differences in sizing in the larger cup sizes. I added this information to the main article Brasserie along with sizing charts - but some twit decided to delete it!!! 79.216.119.151 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

"British bras currently range from A to K cup size, while most Americans can find bras with cup sizes ranging from A to G, although some brands go as high as L." I would like to change it to (without somebody jumping at my throat):

British bras currently range from A to K cup size (with Bravissimo recently bringing out the L-cup). Most Americans can find bras with cup sizes ranging from A to G, although some brands (Elila, Goddess) go as high as N, which is roughly equal to a British JJ.

Sources: Bravissimo.com, Goddess sizing chart at goddessbra.com, Elila sizing chart at elilausa.com, various online stores where you can buy Goddess and Elila bras in N-Cup sizes. Iknowbrasizes (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Her right breast was a B cup ... and two cup sizes smaller than her left breast, a D cup. [snip] In January 2001, she underwent a ... procedure ... which transferred fat cells from her thighs to her left breast.

Wouldn't that make her left breast bigger after stating her right one was smaller?

Grumpy44134 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. 114.73.87.143 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The chart with the equivalent band size numbers was off by one step on the US/UK sizes as compared to the EU and FR sizes (which match perfectly). While the US/UK sizes are given in inches, the actual conversion to centimetres (as in the EU sizes) is not particularly accurate, but the convention is that a 32 band size is equivalent to an EU 70 band, or a French 85. This is readily confirmable at conversion sites or sites with size guides (such as [1] or [2] or [3]), and on the tag of most bras produced by companies that sell internationally. I could not confirm the match in dress sizes (thought this measurement would likely be inaccurate in most cases given the variability of breast size), or the Italy and Australia/NZ-specific band size numbers, so it'd be great if someone could double-check that! :) Mirithing (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Adding the subjectReply

With respect to all employees and administrators of wikipérdia, More Cade and quote OFFICIAL report measures of Brazil and Latin America, qual No. mistaken it is different from the other, Measure now officially used in America, because of Mercosul. thank you VERY

NOT even exist, wiki, or text field in the Portuguese version, despite having warned Brenno_CAP —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC).Reply

The table here has a header named weight of both breasts. Despite what some may think, I am still not sure if it means total weight of both breasts or weight of each breasts. And I assume I may not be the only one to be confused! This is a confusing enough a subject to begin with! --90.184.9.209 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Blah, I forgot to log in for that comment. --Svip^pong 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is unambigous now. -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I updated the cup conversion graphics. Any comments? Should US sizes be included? -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have always wondered what exactly do women's bra sizes mean. From this article, I have formulated a rough rule of thumb: The number means the circumference of a woman's body directly under the breasts. The letter then means how much larger than this her actual breasts are. Is this correct? JIP | Talk 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Correct! -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Except Australia/New Zealand, who use the approximate dress-size for the number - Correct! All the under-bust+0, under-bust+offset, under-bust+chart, over-bust, combo over-bust/under-bust formulae are just ways to estimate what can't be measured because the breasts are in the way. They are not an alternate definition of band size. And, vanity sizing and other manufacturer variations are not OTHER systems so much as they are a case of bras being marked as some size other than what they really are. In the real world, all the measuring schemes just give you a starting point for trying bras on until you find a size that fits correctly. That being said, lots of internet "profiles" giving bra sizes are actually bust circumference (the number) and cup size. In many cases, this is a matter of ignorance. Someone has the girl's basic measurments (bust-waist-hips, which other clothing sizes are computed from), finds out her cup size and just adds it. This may also be done intentionally to provide a larger number to make her seem bigger breasted in a certain industry (rhymes with torn). tinarob1993 — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Of course, the band position is low on some bra styles. But, most bras I buy have a wide band and the center is just below the bust line, but above the under-bust. tinarob1993 17:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"[...]a size 16 may wear a 16 C (UK 38 C), a 14 DD, 12 F or a 10 G (UK 32 G) underneath her dress[...]"
while the table clarifies...

So what's right?

-- and --

Isn't it rather this way?

The source: http://www.breasttalk.co.uk/size_charts.aspx

--Salvania (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

That second table is currently found in the subsection titled Consumer measurement methods > Cup sizes vary (with O added). A bit later, in Manufacturer design standards > UK | Australia / New Zealand | United States and Canada, the prose suggests even more variants, resulting in the following table (M&S is ambiguous; the variants from the table above are similar to #1a, but included separately as #1b/c). — Christoph Päper 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Suggetions:

1) Band size method Underbust+0 should be changed to Underbust.

2) Band size method Underbust+4 should be changed to Underbust+Offset, noting that the offset varies between manufacturers and between regions (Europe, UK, Aus/NZ, Asia, etc.). In the US, 5 inches rounded down to the nearest even number is traditional, but 4 inch and 3 inch offsets are also common, also rounding down to get the number even.

3) Band size method Underbust+Chart might just be a note in Underbust+Offset stating that some manufacturers simply provide a chart correlting size to measured under-bust. Some manufacturers may actually vary the exact offset as the underbust chages.

4) Add cup-size scheme Underbust-Overbust Interpolation. This method is simple, measure the underbust and overbust. Use the average of these two measurements as the "Rib Cage". Select the cup sized based on the difference between the bust measurement and this computed "Rib Cage" measurement. This method is published by Emma Scott in Calculating Bra Size: The New Way for cup size only. (For band size she uses Underbust+Offset, recommending 4" as the most common offset, rounded down to the nearest even number.) I've found the interpolated "rib cage" works well for me as the band size starting point when I try something new.

Tinarob1993 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the looks of it this woman was measured with the +4 method (or a European method which delivers the same result: 75D = 34D). The +0 method would probably give the result UK 30FF / US 30H / EU 65H. Having this picture in the article as and example of 75D bust is not helpful. Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, pictures of women wearing bras in size 34D and 30FF respectively (NSFW) who (probably) measured with the +0 method. Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bra size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225011832/http://www.womenshealthmag.com:80/beauty-and-style/bra-size to http://www.womenshealthmag.com/beauty-and-style/bra-size

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that there are too many "citation needed" statements. Reading this, it seems clear to me that a reference was meant for an entire paragraph. --Tim Sabin (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bra size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917025215/http://www.ivillage.co.uk/beauty/promotions/articles/0%2C%2C628687_694143%2C00.html to http://www.ivillage.co.uk/beauty/promotions/articles/0%2C%2C628687_694143%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womenshealthmag.com/beauty-and-style/bra-size
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714180216/http://www.ngcimedia.com/programmes/episode.aspx?id=64&episodeid=189 to http://www.ngcimedia.com/programmes/episode.aspx?id=64&episodeid=189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand that all measurement and sizing in women's clothing is crazy, but given the measurement systems listed on the page and actual measurements of 30 under-bust and 36 bust, we would get the following bra sizes:

Using under-bust +0 the bra should be a 30DDD
Using under-bust +4 the bra should be a 34B

These give underwire sizes of 38 and 36 respectively, so they are actually different sizes based just on the measurement technique used. The article then goes on to compare the "US System" to other systems, with no indicator if the "US System" is UB+0 or UB+4. (Of course the "US System" could also be the over-bust method, but it normally gives about the same band size as UB+4, and since it starts for two different physical measurements, it doesn't have the same noticeable difference as the two UB methods.)

US bra band sizes refer to ABOVE bust measurement. But most measure UNDER-bust (it's easier to do by yourself). (You could watch Victoria Secret's own video showing self-measuring of OVER-bust and how it spectacularly fails because you see what values the model gets on the tape measure but those values are nonsensical and suggest that the model is flat-chested, which she is clearly not.) So, US band size refers to OVERBUST and overbust is "generally" bigger so a standard addition of 4 is done to UNDERbust-measurment and if the measuring it snugly made! So the +4 is a way to crudely convert UNDERbust measrument to OVERbust-based band size. So, UNDERBUST + 4 will give us an some what ok approximation of the US OVERBUST-based band size. The whole US underbust +0 is just a way to get women to choose tighter bra bands because most have too loose bra bands. For European bra band sizes it's easier because the EU bra band size refers to the UNDERbust measurement.

This article explains a lot. https://www.evasintimates.com/blog/perfect-bra-size-starts-with-the-bra-band/ I've cited it two times already but I refrain from taking too much from one source. Check the section "Tight or loose?" The article is quite meaty but it explains things in detail, including the +4 issues. Prepare to get slightly confused at first. =) Kenno Bew (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool finds a 67.5% confidence result against Quora, but it happens to be a backwards copy. Answered 37w ago, and surely Special:Permalink/723001726 is older than that.

I checked other results too and they're unlikely, just quotes. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Woman in beige bra, side view.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to switch the order of South Korea and Japan chronologically? 秋山夕子 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a clear discrepancy in the assumption that “Cups give a hemi-spherical shape to breasts”, which feeds on throughout the table. According to the table in that section, a 40A breast has the same shape and volume as a 34D (given by the volume of a 5 inch hemisphere), and yet the rest of the article is clear that there’s a only 1 inch difference between Over the Bust/Band measurement for the A cup, and 4 inches difference for the D cup. Clearly, the volume figures are vastly out of accord with the rest of the article. It would have been better to use the Spherical Cap as the simple geometric shape upon which to base such calculations. Using Spherical cap formula in the previous example of a 40A breast, radius 'a' would be underwire size 38 = 6.6cm, h(eight) is (for an A cup, say) 0.8cm, which gives a volume of 55 cm^3, rather than 590, as shown in the table - much more realistic. Daveoftruro (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was prompted to comment by the whole volume part saying the same underwire and curvature is used between "sister" being same as that sounded wrong. They have same volume by being shaped different, aka a 40B will be wider than a 38C. So that whole volume table is called into question for me. I did see that table elsewhere so possibly accurate in the data but description is flawed.

This is part of reason I actually why generally go for the higher cup vesion of my sister size that would be indicted by my underbust measurement so that cups are appropriately narrow for my breast shape. 174.113.195.207 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking through the article and seeing the usage of the words “woman” and “women” accompanied with using she/her pronouns to talk about people who have breasts would be incorrect as it does not include nonbinary people who were assigned female at birth, transmasculine people, and nonbinary transfeminine people who have breasts as well, and may need bras. I would suggest to replace such usages with non-gendered terms such as “people with breasts” and use the singular they/them pronouns to refer to all people with breasts. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m not editing the entire article, keeping the whole thing grammatically correct sounds like a nightmare. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, in some of places, it would be simpler to just say “people” instead of “people with breasts” Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply