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
Clothing sizes aren't what they used to be
Linear Mode
