Hi Galaxy,
I agree on the fashions, especially for ladies. However, I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that men (overall) looked better back then. To begin with, the people you see in movies, etc. are chosen for their good looks to play romantic roles and dressed for the part. Also, any paintings from the era will have tended to be a bit "romanticized" as well, since painters who made their upper-crust portrait subjects look a bit better than normal were more likely to leave behind a pleased client than otherwise. That being said, it is possible that the upper classes being portrayed may have looked better than their more plebian peers due to better diet, etc. Also, with the males, being a gentleman generally required the mastery of (or at least some minimal level of training in) riding, dancing, shooting and fencing. Except for shooting, these are all strenuous activities that, IMO, lead to a balanced level of fitness in terms of balance/dexterity, coordination, musculature and endurance. Still, as remains true today, those physically gifted were likely to do better and do more of the foregoing activities than their less gifted peers. So, I am sure there were also plenty of clumsies and tubbies around in those days just like there are today.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents as they say.
Cordially,
S&S
PS--What country are you from?