-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Dumb Question About Measuring Pants Size
- Thread starter Seb Lucas
- Start date
Baron Kurtz
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 12,784
Yes, measure around the waistband/belt area.
The waist measurement of the trousers for a given waist size will be dependent on the rise. The further it sits down towards the hips, the bigger the waist will be. So, a pair of rtw trousers made to fit a size 34 waist will have a waistband measurement bigger than 34" if they're to sit on the hipbones, for instance. If they're made to sit on the natural waist, they'll measure a fraction over 34".
The waist measurement of the trousers for a given waist size will be dependent on the rise. The further it sits down towards the hips, the bigger the waist will be. So, a pair of rtw trousers made to fit a size 34 waist will have a waistband measurement bigger than 34" if they're to sit on the hipbones, for instance. If they're made to sit on the natural waist, they'll measure a fraction over 34".
Freddies 1950's style. Phil said they were true to size but that other jeans although labeled certain sizes were often larger. I fit Wrangler and Levis as a 34 same for 80% fo suit pants.
But now I can't get my paypal to work so C****t knows....
- Messages
- 10,181
- Location
- Pasadena, CA
Modern marketing - prolly due to fat people. Measure your actual waist. I'd wager it's 4" larger than the pants labels. That's why the numbers and not the tags matter. Most of mine that are perfect are 38.5-39". My actual real waist is a 40". It's dopey.
It a marketing ploy called Vanity Sizing . It's been common in womens wear for decades and has now found its way to mens wear.
Baron Kurtz
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 12,784
Ah. These are pretty high waisted then. As people say above: vanity sizing. It's a real problem. I was in a store (was it Century 21??) in New York a looooonnnggg time ago and a guy was arguing with the staff that he was a "size 36 in pants". The chap with the measuring tape measured him to a 44" waist, but lo!, and behold! his jeans had a 36 on the label.
Soon we'll be into the kind of absurd sizing system the women have to contend with. My wife was off scale on the zeros before we left the US. (At least double zero, maybe even into triple zero. How dare you be short!)
Soon we'll be into the kind of absurd sizing system the women have to contend with. My wife was off scale on the zeros before we left the US. (At least double zero, maybe even into triple zero. How dare you be short!)
Two Types
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,456
- Location
- London, UK
My wife insists she is a size 12 and always buys size 12. I've tried to convince her she's actually a size 10 but she keeps buying stuff that doesn't fit because that always used to be her size!
Baron Kurtz
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 12,784
Yes, the insidious (or is it invidious?) downwards creep of the women's sizing. I've never understood why they don't just base it on actual measurements. All this made up numerical bullshit would just get me down, having to keep track of it all. Some might argue it's just a way of making sure people keep feeling bad about themselves.
Wow, I had no idea that pants size wasn't a standardized measurement. Jackets I get - there are so many angles and lengths with a torso, but pants are just a waist width and leg length... Okay, so does this mean that some companies actually sell 34 inches in the waist when they label them as a 34 inch size? Who are these purists?
Iron Heart.....is pretty accurate...
Seb, your best bet is to mail freddies and ask for the rear and front rise meas. and waist meas. of said jeans.
Then compare with existing pair with similar propertie, or measure yourself and figure it out
Seb, your best bet is to mail freddies and ask for the rear and front rise meas. and waist meas. of said jeans.
Then compare with existing pair with similar propertie, or measure yourself and figure it out
- Messages
- 16,917
- Location
- New York City
My girlfriend and I (she is a size 8 when it meant something, which today means she buys size 4, 6, 8 or 10 depending on, not only the brand, but the garment within the brand) knew complete stupidity had taken over when we first (I think it was in the late 1990s) started to see size zero for women. As opposed to the negative connotation that being "a zero" should have, we've been told by store clerks that some women love being a zero or simply buying a smaller size than they normally buy - even if they know it is all a game.
The industry could do itself a favor if it got together and put some parameters on sizing, but that won't happen. but here is something each brand could do. Make its own sizing as consistent as possible. I own size 33 and 34 waist pants (my waist never changes size) and size 32 and 34 inseam (since one rarely finds a 33) from Brooks Brothers as its sizing is all over the map. BB is so bad, that I will take several pairs of pants of the exact same "size" based on the label into the dressing room as I know that there is enough various from pair to pair that I might find a better fit if I try several on - that is really bad quality control. And at BB, once you go to a different style, all bets are completely off.
Away from BB (not my favorite company) and on to one I love - Alden - even it has some silliness going on based on which last you shoe / boot comes from. Hence I have both 11 and 11.5 Ds from Alden and both fit perfectly because they come from a different last. Couldn't they just keep the different lasts, but base the size on an objective measure not the last?
- Messages
- 10,524
- Location
- DnD Ranch, Cherokee County, GA
It a marketing ploy called Vanity Sizing . It's been common in womens wear for decades and has now found its way to mens wear.
This explains why I had to send back Old Navy khakis that I ordered based on my Dockers that fit....
- Messages
- 16,917
- Location
- New York City
I had the same experience with Old Navy. I bought a pair of pants just to do chores in, but they were 4 inches too big. I bought the pants on an end-of-season sale and, since Old Navy clothes start very low in price, I think I paid about $12 on sale. But proving that nothing is a bargain, I then paid the same to have the waist taken in and they still don't fit really right. That said, this is my second year of wearing them around the house etc., so I have no real complaints other than that it is simply stupid to be that off in measurements (and they aren't even saving money since they are giving you more material than you need).
- Messages
- 16,917
- Location
- New York City
I had the same experience with Old Navy. I bought a pair of pants just to do chores in, but they were 4 inches too big. I bought the pants on an end-of-season sale and, since Old Navy clothes start very low in price, I think I paid about $12 on sale. But proving that nothing is a bargain, I then paid the same to have the waist taken in and they still don't fit really right. That said, this is my second year of wearing them around the house etc., so I have no real complaints other than that it is simply stupid to be that off in measurements (and they aren't even saving money since they are giving you more material than you need).
I've found that the sizing of most men's US and Italian tailored suit trousers and odd trousers are pretty accurate. These are the trousers you will find with unfinished cuffs. Seems that the trousers that come with the length already sized and cuffed are the ones that get wonky.
BladeOfAnduril
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 145
- Location
- Pennsylvania
A related question for you gents... generally, how much can the waist be taken in without taking in the seat or completely messing up the proportions? I require extra seat in my trousers and as a result end up buying a waist thats several inches larger than my actual waist.
