Pants waist size

[Geesie]

Or men's clothing has entered the horrid world of "vanity" sizing that has blighted women's clothing sizing over the years.

bk

Dunno... I recently got pants from LL Bean and Lands End via catalog and they both were spot on by what I ordered from tape measurements.

 

[George A.Bailey]

I'm a 36" waist, yet it's not uncommon for me to find trousers ranging from 34"-40" that fit me perfectly, I think waist sizes probably vary from tailer-to-tailer.

I do find it implausible though that you measure a 40", yet fit into a 33". There are a few possibilities that I have coined which are hopefully helpful:

A) Are you sure you're measuring you're natural waistline, not your hip (which is much wider.)

B) Have the trousers you're wearing been worn by someone else prior to you purchasing them? It's possible that they had the waist expanded, yet the 33" tag still remains.

C) The trousers are very high-waisted.

D) Shoddy tailoring, and the trousers are a 40", only marked a 33". You might want to try measuring the trousers yourself to make sure.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Well, i'm not claiming the trend is universal. But vanity sizing really is insidious. The constant rejigging of women's dress sizing through the years is just the most obvious example.

Dunno... I recently got pants from LL Bean and Lands End via catalog and they both were spot on by what I ordered from tape measurements.

This topic has reminded me of a scene in Century 21 in New York in about 2002-2003 or so. A chap in the upstairs bit where they keep the suits was adamant that he wore 36 waist trousers. The clerk literally had to get a tape measure and show him the actual waist measurement of about 45" or so.


bk

 

[rumblefish]

Well, i'm not claiming the trend is universal. But vanity sizing really is insidious. The constant rejigging of women's dress sizing through the years is just the most obvious example.







bk

Absolutely!
I see it all the time, especially jeans. I think the manufacturers think about like this. A man carries three pairs of jeans to the dressing room; Guess, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein- All are size 32. Since (pick any two of the three) the Ralph Lauren and the Guess are too tight, "Hey! I'm no bigger than a size 32!" the man buys the Calvin Klein. "How dare Lauren and Guess say I'm a 34!"

 

[JimWagner]

I really don't care what the number turns out to be. I just wish that all the pants were standardized on the exact same system. In other words, I'd want a 38 to actually be 38 inches.

I hate having to try on clothes at the store to find out what actually fits. It's even worse when ordering from a catalog or online. Like many, if not most men I only go buy clothes when I need them and want to spend as little time and effort as possible. I don't go "shopping". I go buying.

 

[Boodles]

Orvis

Absolutely!
I see it all the time, especially jeans. I think the manufacturers think about like this. A man carries three pairs of jeans to the dressing room; Guess, Ralph Lauren, and Calvin Klein- All are size 32. Since (pick any two of the three) the Ralph Lauren and the Guess are too tight, "Hey! I'm no bigger than a size 32!" the man buys the Calvin Klein. "How dare Lauren and Guess say I'm a 34!"

I buy things from Orvis, now and then, and find that the jackets are a generous size and the trousers are almost aways about a size bigger than labeled. In the old days I did not notice such a difference. Orvis, I guess, caters to the older and more porky sized men, not unlike myself.

 

[Corky]

A bit of trivia from my days at at Brooks Brothers...

When measuring a person for a suit at Brooks Brothers, the tailors would always carry a little book or notepad to jot down the customer's measurements.

The tailor was silent throughout the measuring process and jotted everything down in his little book.

So when being measured for a suit, the customer would NEVER hear what his waist measurement actually was.

The reasoning behind this is that many adult customers are under the impression that they still wear the same size pants that they did in college.

So if the tailor were to call out to his assistant "Waist size 42.", the customer might freak out and say "Oh, no! I always wear a size 38! Make the waist in my pants a size 38!"

This might result in the customer getting an ill-fitting and uncomfortable pair of pants instead of the properly fitting and comfortable pair that the customer expected for his money.

Much hassle avoided by a simple procedure.

 

[Tailor Tom]

Adding my bit

When measuring a person for a suit at Brooks Brothers, the tailors would always carry a little book or notepad to jot down the customer's measurements.

The tailor was silent throughout the measuring process and jotted everything down in his little book.

So when being measured for a suit, the customer would NEVER hear what his waist measurement actually was.

The reasoning behind this is that many adult customers are under the impression that they still wear the same size pants that they did in college.

So if the tailor were to call out to his assistant "Waist size 42.", the customer might freak out and say "Oh, no! I always wear a size 38! Make the waist in my pants a size 38!"

This might result in the customer getting an ill-fitting and uncomfortable pair of pants instead of the properly fitting and comfortable pair that the customer expected for his money.

Much hassle avoided by a simple procedure.

A perfect scene, played over and over. Often when fitting clients, they are trying to look at what I write down...and sometimes sneak a peak and are amazed. I usually just assure them that this is "MY" system of doing things and trust me, everything will be fine. And then make the garments to actually fit.

 

[MrBern]

esquire's pants size investigation

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/mens-fashion/pants-size-chart-090710

waistline vs actual waistline

 

[Matt Deckard]

But how close are they to your actual waist when it comes to the rise of the pants?

 

[Lady Day]

Hi gents
Its interesting to hear men talk about vanity sizing as its been going on in women's clothes since the late 40s. Modern women's sizing is just pointless.

That is some chart and an obscene amount of ease added to those pants! Really Old Navy? 5" of ease!? The ease generally for women's waists is 1/2" -1". So I'd think the H&M size is fairly accurate. But Im not too up on men's pants.

LD

 

[WideBrimm]

Vanity sizing for men? Just the other day, for the very first time ever, I heard about this on TV. I think it was on a news program. What's the world coming to? I'm with the crowd that thinks that actual sizing should not change. I like to buy new jeans without ever trying them on. They should however, be "relaxed fit" in the seat.

 

[Undertow]

So, yes, this is a thing I have always wondered. My waist size is 40 inches, but I wear pants with 33 inch waist...Can pant sizes really be that much wrong?

Honestly, sounds like 40W33L, but that would be hard to imagine if you're only 5'7". 33 inseam on a guy that's 5'7" would look like Ed Grimley.

On the other hand, a difference of 7" (40-33) is excessive to have been previously altered. I was under the impression that trousers, even good ones, have about 3" to spare one way or the other.

Another angle may be that you are, truly, a 40" waist - or thereabouts. Perhaps you purchased a pair of pants labeled 34 at some time, and as others have mentioned, those pants were mismarked and actually fit like 38's.

A number of variables are at play here and there are multiple possible combinations. Measure your waist, measure your pants - buy what fits.

 

[acl1]

It's most likely a combination of vanity sizing, as others have mentioned, and the fact that you do wear them slightly high. Waist size is exactly that, the width at the waist. Wearing them higher than the waist requires that the actual size be slightly smaller.

 

[Yeps]

But how close are they to your actual waist when it comes to the rise of the pants?

This is a problem when I try to figure out pants size.

I just had a fitting for a costume (university production, professional costumer), and found out that my waist, while being exactly what I thought it was (32) was about 3 inches higher.

And mind you, I don't wear my pants on the hip (hence the adoption of suspenders instead of belts). As it turns out, I have no torso. If I were to wear my trousers at my waist, they would actually be just at my second floating rib.

That is ridiculous.

edited on account of misstating a measurement. (thanks Tomasso).

 

[Tomasso]

my waist is a full twelve inches above my hips.

What method are you using to determine the location of your waist?

 

[Yeps]

What method are you using to determine the location of your waist?

Where the spine pivots when I tilt sideways. I had never thought of using it until the costumer had me tilt (like I'm a little teapot), and then tied a ribbon for the rest of the measurements.

Also, I realized, the twelve inches was a different measurement. That was actually the distance to my seat (measured by having me sit down and measuring to the chair).

I will go back and get rid of that one.

 

[TrenchGuy]

So, I bought the trousers new from a store. They are normal rise and the pants waistline goes just below my belly button. The area under my belly button is around 40 inches. Pants waistline is supposed to be 33 inches.