Clothing sizes aren't what they used to be
 

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0...2015788,00.html
Clothing sizes aren't what they used to be
By Kristina Chapuran
9News

The trim size 10 you may pride yourself on today would have seemed like a bigger size 50 years ago. As women have grown larger over the generations, clothing makers have quietly expanded size standards, keeping egos intact.

"Vanity sizing" is what the trend is called. Expect it to continue as Americans grow both taller and rounder.

"I think that they're going to keep putting smaller labels in larger clothing," says Laura Simmons, who owns Extraordinaire Fine Clothing Design in Boulder. In her 30 years in the clothing industry, she's seen size definitions steadily expand, while armholes drop and rear ends widen.

"It's a little mercenary," says Eulanda Sanders, associate professor of design and merchandising at Colorado State University.

"I'm going to be much happier if I go into a store and fit into a size 10 rather than a size 12 ... which probably isn't helping us all in the end have a realistic sense of what our body's like," Sanders says.

Both agree that high-end manufacturers are working the vanity differential even harder.

"If you go to Kmart, I might even wear a 9," says Simmons. "If you go to Saks, I wear a 2 or 4."

"I'm going to be much happier to spend a thousand dollars on a suit if it's a size 8. If it's a size 12 I might be a little depressed," says Sanders.

Individual clothing manufacturers are using their own size charts, pegged to the shape and size of their target market. This leads to confusion in the dressing room. Women can struggle for half an hour, wondering why one pair of jeans is too big and the next size down is too small.

This was not the goal half a century ago when the United States first created clothing size standards.

As women began buying more ready-to-wear clothes, mass production warranted the creation of a standard size chart. The National Bureau of Standards (now called the National Institute of Standards and Technology) measured 15,000 American women during 1939 and 1940. The Mail- Order Association of America joined the cause in the 1940s and an additional 6,500 women were measured during World War II.

In 1958, the research was completed and adopted by the apparel industry. And it worked for consumers at the time. But American women in 2004 are wearing clothes that too often are designed for the proportions of our mothers or grandmothers. While the average woman's figure once resembled an hourglass, today it is more likely to resemble a pear. Americans are growing taller and heavier, with thicker waistlines and fuller hips.

And size charts began expanding to keep up. Consider the slippage in size 10:

In 1966, the measurements, in inches, were 31-24-33. In 1972, they were 32.5/25/34.5. Today, they're 36.5-28-38.5.

No wonder Simmons, who enviably has managed to stay the same size and shape as she was in high school 27 years ago, actually seems to be vanishing, according to her clothing size. Then she wore a size 10. Today she's somewhere between a 4 and 6. Except for that vanity sizing.

"I just bought a pair of pants that's a size 2," she says. "And there's no way I'm a size 2.

Although vanity sizing may make us feel better about the jeans we're slipping into, there are hidden costs involved for manufacturers. Especially as e-commerce becomes more popular, businesses will have to accommodate more clothing returns due to poor fit and customer dissatisfaction.

In response, an industry research project called SizeUSA measured 10,500 people across the country. They used 3-D technology to gauge 200 individual measurements. The project's goal is to close the gap between clothing proportions and the statistical population

This was interesting.

I however, don't care what size I wear. I'd like to be a 6 but as long as I'm healthy and feel great and now I look good then if it's more like an 8 cause clothing has changed then so what.


Lily

What's in a size?
 

One of the interesting changes in fashion definitely has to do with sizing.

Have you ever compared a "pattern" dress size to a ready-to-wear clothing size? Add two or more dress sizes to the ready-to-wear size.

Patterns generally go by strict body measurements.

I have a pattern from 1984.

Here are the body measurements listed on the back:

...............................Size 8........Size 10.......Size 12......Size 14
Bust.........................31 1/2".......32 1/2".......34"............36"
Waist........................24"............25"............26 1/2".......28"
Hip...(9" below waist)...33 1/2"......34 1/2 "......36"............38"

When I was 14 and 112 lbs, my measurements were 36, 26, 36, which put me in a pattern dress size 12-14. I always thought that people advertising weight loss products where they lost 30 lbs when they felt so terribly fat at a size 14 was an absolutely insane notion and struggled at the idea that there were people who really wore a size zero.... I wondered what real person could possibly wear a zero? An infant? (waist size - 6 = 23"; 4 = 22"; 2 = 21"; 0 = 20")? Maybe with a corset!

Today at 156 lbs, with measurements of 38, 30, 38, I bought a pair of shorts off the rack that were size 10.

My aunt in North Carolina sent me a sweater for Christmas in a perfet fit that was a size "Small". When I shop at Wal-mart, I usually buy tops that are M (8-10).

It's not just a small disparity, but a HUGE disparity in sizing for women.

While travelling through Kentucky last summer, I was really astonished at the number of people who were seriously overweight. Struggling with obesity myself my whole life, for the first time not only did I blend in, but I actually felt THIN--it's all relative, folks (But of course there is some traditional fare in the South that is positively dangerous in large amounts.... grits, biscuits, biscuits and gravy, hash browns... the overwhelming load of high simple carbs and high fat I am sure is one of the contributing factors to our national trend).

I notice this phenomenon in my closet right now! I have quite a few pairs of jeans I all bought from the same place. Exact same style and everything. However, the size 16's I'm buying now are much, much larger than the ones I bought 2 years ago.

At first I though, well, maybe those old ones are stretched out 14's, so I checked the label. Nope, they're 16s too.

I hate it because the old 16's fit me really nicely now, the new ones are WAY too big and are like a bucket around my waist. Yet, I think I'm too large for 14s still.
Grr!

My mom noticed this many years ago! LOL

All her adult life she wore a 16....very thin, but 5'8" and large framed. When she hit her 50s she was first put on appetite stimulants (which she desperately needed) and then a few years later a LF diet. She gained a lot of weight. She went from an emaciated 115 to a "heavy" 180 in about 5 yrs, but continued to buy clothes in 14-16 sizes!

I noticed this a couple of years ago at around halloween time. Ive never used patterns before but I found one that was so stunning I had to try and make it. It was really old and when I looked at the sizes in the back and the measurements my jaw dropped. I was, at the time a 6/8 sometimes a 4 and this thing put me at a 14. It almost made me not want to wear it I got so depressed.

My Journey:



That's exactly why the size creep in the first place. We had a model visiting our school a few weeks ago (long story!), and she left her bio/stats. At 5'8, about 120#, and 36-24-36, she's something like a size 4-6. No way, Jose! At least, not when I was those measurements! I was a 14/16 (and looked pretty darned good, too). NOW 14 is the beginning of Women's sizes; everyone wants to be a size 4, 6, or 8 at the most, and the clothing manufacturer's are going with the flow.

Jude

Well ladies, I read somewhere that Marilyn Monroe, in her day a 14, would not be an 8 or 10!

Times haves changed.

Well, just in case anyone was wondering...

I have NEVER in my entire life looked at the size of any ladies clothing and made any sort of judgement based on that number. (I have checked my wife's sizes when planning on buying her a gift of clothing).

I strongly suspect this in an area that most men are totally clueless about. The size of clothing a woman wears is meaningless to us, unless we're shopping for you! Frankly, we don't care what size you wear. For ladies we know, we care about YOU, not your clothes. For ladies we don't know, we'll notice if you're "looking good", but that has much more to do with your personal style and the way you present yourself than the size of your clothes.

Just thought that was worth sharing.

Dan

Look like MM was not as plus-sized as we would like to believe ---

Skinny Cat on Marilyn's Dress Size

NPR on Marilyn's Elusive Size 12

Well Marilyn was close to a 12
 

The error is comparing size 12 of years past to size 12 today. Big difference.

Marilyn was close to a 12/14 by bust and hip back when size 12 actually read more similarly to the back of my pattern, except her waist was significantly smaller. Rule of thumb for fitting is to go by the bust and hip. Now the pattern was from 1984 and I'm not sure in Marilyn's day whether smaller waists were more common (more than likely with the diet of the day... that's not a lowfat decade for sure). Plus this was a time when undergarments still functioned in a more corset-like fashion to really hold a woman in. Tiny waists were very fashionable.

Government standards...
 

Wouldn't it be nice for the government to set up clothing standards for size? I think it would be awesome.

Imagine being able to go to any store and know realistically what size to buy!

(And to Dan, who really loves his wife, a word of appreciation from all the females who have agonized over size through the years).

It's not as bad with menswear because size is usually based on straight chest, waist, and hip measurements.

My wife is very petite and is still about 20-25 pounds from her goal weight. Her concern is that she is already wearing a size 2 and doesn't know what she will wear by the time she gets to her goal. Women's sizes seem to stop at 0 and she doesn't want to have to always wear clothes that are too loose for her. She is very proud of her weight loss and wants to flaunt it with tight clothes. The only solution that she has found so far is to shop at trendier stores that cater to teens. Their sizes seem to be smaller than those of more general department stores. This is a dilema for her because while she likes to look trendy at times, she also wants clothes that are more mature looking for work and more formal settings.

Well chef, my daughter shopped in the children's department when she lost weight (she was rail thin due to stress). The problem with her, tho is she's 5'9", so she couldn't buy jeans and pants, but shorts, skirts and tops were no problem. At the time she was around 105.

(Since then she's up to around 145# and looks wonderful! She's still thin, but she's healthy thin)

Great article!! I've often wondered about the sizes changing over the years. I know that in High School I weighed about 150 and wore a size 14. Now a days I see women that have to weigh much more than that claiming they are a size 14! I always thought they were exaggerating their size. But they probably are telling the truth if the sizing standard has changed.

Well this must explain why I've gained about 40 lbs since I was 20 but have only gone up one size.

I keep coming back to this thread....
 

I have to say that I keep coming back to this thread for reference because the information and discussion here is so good.

As I've lost a little weight recently, I really see the remarkable size creep exactly as described in the way that sizes are analyzed (particularly at Wal-Mart). Although I'm pleased to wear a 7-9 off "some" racks at the moment, and even small shirts, I know that is extremely euphemistic :rolleyes: and doesn't really mean anything at all. I'm not small. What's in a size? I mean I have an honest 20 lbs on my short frame to lose to be truly fit. A truly fit person shouldn't be wearing "extra small" that's just silly. A fit person should be wearing "medium" and a thin person "small"... right?

I sure wish that sizes for women would be more standard across manufacturers. I mean my husband can go and find pants anywhere in a particular size and have a reasonable assurance that they fit based on his waist and inseam measurements. Why can't they do that for women? I mean a bust, waist, hip, and inseam measurement should be enough to be able to come up with some sort of a "size."

Instead we focus on sizes the same way we focus on carbs sometimes *LOL*... try to get down as close to zero as we can, regardless of what it really "means."

Yes, a standard! Please! I completely agree. Its so nuts to walk into a store, try something on, have it absolutely hang on me and try the next size down and I can't get into it.

Me at my current weight fitting into 14's makes me laugh. I think the smallest I've been as an adult was size 10's, but that was probably 15 years ago, back then I weighed 125 pounds.

Darn, and I was so proud to wear a size 8-9. But I have a true pear shape. 35-27-40....Looking at those measurements now, I wonder how do I fit into 8/9 slacks? My jeans have to be a 10 or 12 is some stores. So speaking of sizes, why are jeans a tighter fit? And when are they going to make pear shape jeans? They never fit me in the waist!

I know what you mean. It sure feels good to put on a 10 and see it be incredibly baggy. It feels good to put on a 6 and have it actually fit (albeit tightly)! What does it actually mean if it isn't a real 10 or 6 though?

It's actually quite frustrating. I have a pair of size 13 pants I just am getting into (from some teenage shop), but then I have a pair of size 6 pants that fit the same way (from the gap). Womens clothing size is basically a number which serves no purpose other than a potential incentive to buy... as a functional tool to help a shopper locate the proper size, it is meaningless.

Rant from a Former Fashion Student
 

Great I can use my fashion design arts diploma here :D
Yes, clothing grading differs from one end to another.

Due to mass manufacturing of clothing, manufacturers sometimes 'cut edges' when it comes to using textile bolts. So a pair of pants that's graded at sz. 10 can be a sz. 6 or, it can be vise versa a sz. 10 could be marked as a sz. 6.

The world of small, medium, large, extra large is for convience rather then putting a tag of all the mesurements. These garments we're made to fit the a majority of people with ease (ie T-shirts), but it's not as good as using yourself as the decieding factor.

It's hard to say what the 'standard' is for industrial garment sizing because clothing manufacturers may have different standards from another.

Read:
Will Size 8 Dress Soon Be a 12?

There are size conversion charts out there or go look on the ISOhttp://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

Just google it but I can't gurantee that the charts you'll look at very due to the type of textile, clothing, etc... to suit the purpose of the clothing.

Confused yet :) Well, there's a lot more I can get into but here is what I know ;)

:( Everyone has unique proportions. Charts are used to give a manufacture an 'idea' what will fit the majority (target) of consumers possible under one 'umbrellla' size.

:) It is next to impossible (except if you make or have a personal tailor) that store bought clothing will be perfect. Tags are part of a numerical ordering system and give salespeople an edge to sell clothing to a customer by observation.

:) Sizing by garments lables alone is deceptive and should not be used be the main indicator of progress BUT using a measuring tape properly and comparing your mesurements to a standard chart for size will give you an idea what RANGE you sit comfortably in.
Also, clothing companies prefer even numbers as oppose to odd numbers for clothing. Only stores use the odd numbers (more sales) but it always looks like
6/7 or 10/11
:eek: Some will try on a sz. womens 10 jeans from five or six years ago and then go to a store down the street to try on sz. 10 to find out it doesn't fit, but the sz. 14 does! We change sizes, the industry does too.

My advice, since everyone must be dizzy from reading :D :

:cool: When your clothes don't fit properly, buy new or get them altered.
Altering is a bit expensive BUT they measure you out and can give you the measurments so now you have inches, rather then 'sz?'.

:eek: CUT OUT ALL TAG SIZES!! Burn 'em, give them to your spouse, make a quilt, JUST DON'T GET SUCKERED IN. This helped me greatly avoid the 'perfect size trap'.
It sounds dumb, but without the tags, you don't focus on the number but the the way clothing feels and fits, which IMHO is better. Get that monkey off your back and concentrate on the better part of your lifestyle change!

Finally, last but not least: Spandex blend clothing.

The greatest misconception. Spandex blends to me is the hidden enemy along with size tages. It's not all evil, it does make one look good but I would avoid wearing it when I go out to eat or wear spandex blend clothing every day (especially bottoms).
Spandex IMHO should be only for working out and not for everyday wear, except for undergarments. Even polyester pants with the elastic waist band is way better b/c it doesn't stretch everywhere, just at the waist!

A pair of spandex blend jeans/pants can be a womens '30' or 'sz 12', it's true until you put them on. It give allowance up to an inch to possibly 2 or 3.
It's hard to figure out if your lossing or gaining because it stretches.

Companies did this so they can outfit as many people as possible with one pair of jeans under one size (also cost effective for manufactures)

:p Best clothing to wear is the jeans w/o spandex allowance or pants with a proper zipper and button waist band.

But if your hung-up on the sizing thing, you'll have to use mid to upper labels (boutiques). Usually there closer to the standard sizing b/c there clothing is exclusive and it's based on 'quality' not 'quantity', thus, more expensive. Also, most of there clientel custom order, so the clothing on display are for display and for the sales associate to give the tailor the sz. so they can create custom block from existing blocks...blah blah blah blah..


ex: Lida Baday (very good sizing), Chanel, Armani etc...

So sorry for taking up all this space :o but fire away on my journal if you have any questions.
Were all working for the same cause and though those little hiccups are the small reminders/challenges, not the end of the world.

When I was 18 years old I weighed 103 pounds and wore a size 7, sometimes a 5 (1968). If people who weigh 160 pounds can fit into a size 7 now then obviously the sizes have increased.

When I was a teenager and swimming slim, I wore a size 9, which was considered average/fit. I've been thinking I might get somewhere in the 11/12 - 13/14 area. I guess this is saying that I should expect a much lower size number to be the same size I used to be. Yuck!

My perception of women when I hear (not seeing) that they are smaller than a 9 is still that they are too thin or they are short/petite. And this also explains when I see women who say they are wearing a 2 or 4 and thought they couldn't possibly be, that they really are. :rolleyes:

My sister-in-law was 4'9" tall and weighed around 90 pounds in 1972 when she was 20 . She wore a size 1 and sometimes had to shop in the children's department. I shudder to think where she shops now (she hasn't gained a pound). Infants wear?

Great observations!
 

Yeah! Has anyone noticed that clothing from the 1940's and mid 1960's (thrift shops and such) it's hard to find a really big range of sizes in vintage wear?
Tells ya' something about the eating habits and how active were then!

I mean, I tried on a vintage size 10 dress and it was loose. I put on my size 12 dress back on it fit!?!

The mythical sz. 0 stills baffles me. 0 mean nothing, so a person is does not exist?!? In the fashion business a size 6 or 8 is the model sample size (kinda).

I have yet to come across a sz. 0 model since there is no such thing as a 0 person!?!
Unhealthy number, yes. It's really a freak number since there are a very, very, very tiny portion of healthy adult people who can wear this sz. Some of those people who wear 0-4 sz. clothing find it appalling that the size can only suggest 'sick and fragile' or misconceptions of 'anorexia and bulimia'.

Same with the word 'petite'.
It only means shorter length in arms, torso, and pant/skirt length not waist size or hip size. Petite sizes can range to a size 20 as well.

My sister wore a size 0-2 and she wanted to be a 6 or 8 (muscle) b/c she was the thinist of her diving team and it made her feel self-conscious in a bathing suit!

Goes to show sz's are not always right.

I wear petites when I can find them and have found them in 26-28 when I was up there at my largest. As you said, it's only an indication of height and limb-length (and waist-length for me). I have short legs and a high waist, even when I'm thin. Unfortunately, plus-size manufacturers don't seem to think short people can get fat :rolleyes: so there's a dearth of large-size petites available.

I wanted to make SURE I wore a six when I went shopping recently so I ended up with jeans from three completely different manufacturers. One is rather loose on me, so in that brand maybe I can try a four :). The other two fit just fine, but not loose enough to go down another size. So for my ego, I know which brand to get now. :)

FWIW, my waist at my current weight is 26, hips are 35.

Forgot to mention, I could be wrong here, but the odd numbered sizes are 'juniors' and have narrower hips. I don't have any of my old 5 and 7 jeans from when I was a teen, but I doubt I could get into em because of the more 'hourglass' figure I have now. :)

This happens in men's clothing as well, but I think its the opposite for high end.

The cheaper the clothes, the larger the 'size'. The more expensive the clothes, the smaller the 'size'.

I bought a pair of Levi's jeans that were size 36. They fit real well. I tried on a pair of Calvin Klein size 36 pants, couldn't even get the button closed on them.

My problem with plus sizes is always the front of pants....the belly area. I carry most of my weight in my hips and thighs....and the waist is always too high and the front too loose!

I know most people carry their weight in their abdominal area....but when you don't, it's almost impossible to find pants you don't have to alter.

On the other hand, "Regulars" fit me now....but when I was a kid I always had to find "Talls". I'm 5'8" tall and when I was a teenager all you could find in tall were old lady pants. LOL