3
"Infinity top" vs classic full on top
Edit: After discussion with MilkAndHoney in the thread I've changed the description to what it is about. It's a way to try to distinguish typical full on top boobs from this shape; http://24.media.tumblr.com/982420934946203df0f5fdf6f8845676/tumblr_mghy5fuixB1roueslo1_1280.jpg I am now somewhat jokingly calling that boob shape "infinity top". Since it goes on and on and on and won't have the same kind of fit issues as classical full on top.
Classic fot fit issues: Quadboob.
Infinity top fit issues: Pushed away gores, need for tall wires and cups. Need for reshaping boobs into "ideal bra shape" after leaning over. Need for tight bands and tightened straps to hold it all in place. Terribly hard to fit shape.
Old braventure:
Tall on top = vertically shallow. Top is tall but doesn't project much. Depending on firmness support is needed or not needed.
Full on top = vertically deep and full. Need for support on top depends on firmness.
Both can have low or high nipples. Nipples might sit above or below the apex. They are kind of irrelevant for determining breast shape. They just happen to correlate with the apex on most.
Filed under Bra sizing and fit
27 comments
Hmmm, I would define these terms differently.
'Tall' and 'short', as I see it, refer to the height of the breast relative to its width. So, a breast root that is wider than high (shaped like a horizontal oval of sorts) is 'short', and a breast root that is higher than wide (shaped like a vertical oval) is 'tall'.
'Full-on-Top' and 'Full-on-Bottom' refer to the relative distribution of breast volume. A 'FoT' breast has more of its volume in the upper quadrants whereas a 'FoB' breast has more of its volume in the lower quadrants.
'Shallow' and 'deep' refer to the amount of projection relative to root width and root height. A breast that is less than spherical (root width and/or height radius > projection radius) is 'shallow' whereas a breast that is more than spherical (root width and/or height radius < projection radius) is 'deep'. Horizontal and vertical depth ratio can but do not have to be the same, meaning that a breast can be 'shallow' horizontally, but 'deep' vertically, or vice versa.
In this scheme a breast can be 'tall', vertically 'shallow', and 'FoB', or 'tall', vertically 'shallow' and 'FoT', or 'tall', vertically 'deep', and 'FoB', or 'tall', vertically 'deep', and 'FoB', or 'short', vertically 'shallow', and 'FoB', or 'short', vertically 'shallow', and 'FoT', or 'short', vertically 'deep', and 'FoB', or 'short', vertically 'deept', and 'FoT' ...
Some combinations may, of course, be more common and others outright uncommon, but these are the theoretical possibilities of this scheme. Add in the horizontal depth ratio and you'll have another so many more possibilities ;)
I agree, but this is more about trying to distinguish different top shapes from one another. Not different breast shapes. I don't have a clue what else I would call it. My boobs do not fit into either round or conical, either full or empty, either full on top or full on bottom. And I have to come up with some words to describe what's happening.
I could call it "infinity top" because that might be describing how it actually works :D
This thread has 27 comments. Log in to read them