3
Can shallow breasts be large?
The boobie newbie’s quest to figure out her shape continues.
In my previous, ridiculously long post (http://www.bratabase.com/profile/4tl/adventures/788/) I wrote that I my breasts were probably “close to each other; sitting high up on my chest; full on top; round.” However, these were based solely on what bras fit me and what don’t. Without a bra I couldn’t really tell, at least not only from Bratabase’s breast shape illustrations. The only one I could tell straight away was that my boobs are close-set.
I couple of days ago I read “Clarifying Breast Shape: Full-on-top VS Full-on-bottom” on Bras I Hate & Love (http://brasihate.blogspot.fi/2013/02/clarifying-breast-shape-full-on-top-vs.html ). The previous post on the topic had left me a bit bewildered, because I didn’t recognise myself from either of the pictures (full-on-top or full-on-bottom), so I was excited to see that the matter was further clarified. I did the bending over test, and... still couldn’t locate myself. My nipple sits pretty much in the middle. Logic would thus say that I have “breasts that are balanced--either full all over, or less full all over”.
This, however, doesn’t make any sense on a practical level (in my case, I mean). I’ve never ever experienced any problems related to full-on-bottom breasts, but very much so for the part of full-on-top problems. I quadboob ridiculously easily, and definitely need halfcups that are very open on top.
Then I stumbled upon Venusian Glow’s post on shallow breasts (http://www.venusianglow.com/2012/09/small-breasts-with-broad-base.html). That my breasts are shallow sure would explain a lot. My breasts indeed start very high up, almost at the collar bones. They look quite a lot smaller without a bra (or just with a sport top or like), as if the volume was distributed on a very “long” area, even though my breasts aren’t sagging (yet). The shape on the right (of the shallow breasts) is actually pretty much my shape, just smaller. But then with a properly fitting halfcup bra there suddenly is quite a lot of volume, when all of the breast tissue is gathered in one place, so to speak. I can’t post a nude pic, but I think you can maybe get the drift from the photo where I’m wearing the EM HP Cielus.
However, shallow breasts are supposedly small? I wear a 30H in EM bras, so I can hardly count myself as a small-busted girl. Can shallow breasts be large, too, or are my breasts just a bunch of coincidences that in reality don’t have anything to do with shallow breasts?
13 comments
Nsm, I wear 28JJ in Ewa Michalak as a reference and I have a "shallow" shape. So, yes, it definitly exists in larger sizes as well. The term shallow is first of all relative. One can be shallow compared to the average bra in the size, the average breast in that size etc, but also, what is shallow? Wider and less projection than average? Just less projection than average? Taller base etc?
As I've gone bigger I've also gone deeper and narrower. Still the same super tall base, but bras has started to have way too wide wires. I'm nowhere near the problems those who considers themselves deep and narrow in my size range, but, I still have these issues.
In my experience this is a shape that in the larger cup sizes is more common among younger women with firmer breasts, which might explain why it is less common in our sizes. Gravity tends to do it's job and slowly change the shape to be less shallow...
You definitely have shallow breasts. I have them too at a 30G, which although not as large as you is still much bigger than most shallow breasts.
It seems to be that once you get over the volume of about a 32E/30F shallow breasts are harder to identify, because at a certain point the tissue has to go somewhere so they do still project below the shallow section. Wires also get much wider as cup sizes go up, so with larger shallow breasts you won't have a wide base like the smaller ladies have.
This thread has 13 comments. Log in to read them