Oct 10, 2013 Weirdness
I just got 3 bras. Quick notes.
I don't understand how the 36G Panache Zara (5086) is so flat on the bottom. Is it expecting the weight of my boobs to push the cup down? Is it supposed to be cakes on a plate? My boobs don't do that. The multi-way straps are great, but I don't know about this cup situation. I feel like a little girl playing dress-up in her mommy's bustier top.
Love the bird-print Cleo Meg Balconnet (6751) I got (36G), but it illustrates that Cleo ain't for my short boobs. Bigger boob volume is fine when I lean forward, but my boob is not shaped like that and the side supports are fighting my outward-pushing boobage. Makes my waist look tiny, though. Candidate for top-of-cup alteration? possibly. I only got the 36G because the 34GG was not available. Will think about it.
The only one that fit right is the 34H Panache Emily (6101) - The bottom of the band is slightly tight, but the rest fits fine and I don't even mind how wide the straps are set on first try-on. Top-of-cup lace hides the slight gap at the strap attachment and any top-of-cup shape mismatch.
So confused. I think 36G isn't for me and 36GG would just be bigger cups and make it worse. Seems like 34H with a short extender at first is the way to go, with 34GG as an option in certain styles.
Filed under Bra sizing and fit
11 comments
I just don't understand the Zara in general. It's a truly bizarre shape. Super wide, super shallow cups.
That's really interesting. I actually found Cleo Meg to be good on my short boobs. Maybe there's other shape/fit factors at play. I certainly wouldn't describe my breasts as 'outward pushing', so side support tends to make me happy, unless of course it's poorly structured and starts half-way under my armpit.
This thread has 11 comments. Log in to read them