It really started to kick in around the mid-2000s when companies realised they were not just getting sizing wrong, but we’re missing out in a really big market.
So before 2000 was the process of measuring a woman as we understand it today different. Bra sizes are the same, I wonder how they got so wrong back then?
It is interesting about materials for bras these days - I wonder if this is where the next advancement will take place. I'd imagine a bra could be developed to have different properties at certain points. As I see it, bras are elasticated, but this elasticity doesn't vary much, but this isn't necessarily the best way to give support to a woman's breasts that are dynamic. Some boffin will come up with something sometime.
IIn the 90s, it was white, black or nude - or, something that took half an hour to put on and was really uncomfortable
I remember pursuing my mums clothes catalog and seeing just that. I wasn't hugely inspiring
(Also, I have to confess, wearing sexy lingerie - even if it’s not comfortable, can be quite exciting).
This is why I like lingerie so much - its an enhancement to a woman's beauty.
The biggest issue pre-2000 (and it’s still an issue today) was/is the +4 (“plus four”) method of measuring. It's a historical hangover that was meant to be a temporary solution and ended up becoming the norm. Prior to the 1970s, bra sizing worked differently. The “number” was the your full bust measurement, and the “cup size” was an approximation of how busty a woman was. So a 36C bra was meant to fit someone who measured 36" across the fullest part of their bust, not the underbust, and a C cup was basically a “medium” - whatever that was supposed to mean. There was very little standardisation between brands, and sizing was all over the place. In the late 1970s, a consortium of lingerie makers decided on a new sizing system - which is quite close to the one we use today, where the cup size is the difference between the underbust measurement and the overbust measurement (more or less).
In order to ease the transition from the old system to the new, they told customers to add 4 inches (sometimes it was 5). That way, they'd stay in their old, familiar size, and gradually get used to the new system. So, someone who was a 30J in the new system could end up being a 36F with the plus 4 system.
Obviously that plan failed spectacularly, because we ended up stuck with a method that goes against how the system is supposed to work.
Now, we have a lot more standardisation of the underbust/overbust method - plus, fitting. I can’t stress enough how much fitting has made a difference. Measurements are only part of the process; getting fitted for a bra gives a much more accurate size. Imagine just buying shoes because you think you’re a size 9, and not trying them on to see how they fit. It’s the same with a bra.
In terms of materials - the best engineers and designers have worked bras for decades. The problem is, no two women are alike, so designing a one-fits-all solution doesn’t work. However, they’ve managed to get some things right: the back band does all the hard work, so start there and the rest tends to follow. In terms of materials, bras are made of two main components (there’s actually dozens more though): cotton and elastic (Lycra). The cotton is the fabric of the bra, which is lined with elastic to give movement in the materials - which allows for a certain size of back band to fit within a range (32” band should fit anyone within a 31-33 back reasonably comfortably) and then you also have the hooks/eyes to compensate for differences (and wear/tear and stretching of the material over time).