Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Attire & Accoutrements' started by Bruce Wayne, Sep 9, 2010.
I heard that. However, did they account for the fact that many of those may be meant to fit on the hips rather then the waist, so are made to fit a person with a waist of 36, even though they sit on the larger hips?
Also, did they account for shrinkage?
That said, I've known this for years simply from trying on "size 30" pants that have 33 inch waistbands.
OMG, I'm FAT! :eusa_doh:
And this is why I still rarely buy clothes without trying them on.
LL Bean and Lands End have been pretty good about accurate measurements, though. I taped myself and ordered that size and they fit.
Oh, I noticed this recently when I lost some weight. My 34-inch waist pants started looking like clown pants on me. But when I pulled out some trousers I purchased about 25 years ago, also with 34-inch waists, they were a little loose, but still wearable. So I broke out the tape measure ...
About a half-dozen pair of trousers from the '80s, (classically styled and cut, thankfully) were honestly sized, but all of the more recent purchases were at least an inch larger than their supposed sizing -- and often much larger.
Hey, it's a big country -- in a lot of ways.
I've definitely noticed this over the years. I've noticed the same thing with shirts too. In all reality, I'm probably an adult medium, yet more often than not, buy adult small shirts.
So that is why 32 inch pants keep being too big... I could have sworn my waist was 33. (Not that anyone other than Levi's makes 32-36)
Size Does Matter
Look at True Religion or Lucky jeans I wear a 32, 33 or 34 inch waist, but for real it's a 35. Who are we kidding? Still looking for a brown Aero jacket guys. Keep me in mind! John
It's called "vanity sizing." It's been around in the woman's clothing industry for years, but only in the last five or ten years has it become as prevalent in menswear.
True for shirts too. I am long and lean. I take a Medium. It's a good thing I like the aesthetic of vintage clothing because that's the only way I can get a decent fit in most OTR shirts. Thirty-plus years ago "Medium" didn't mean 22" across the shoulders, gigantic armholes and enough torso material to use as a bedspread, as it does today. Even when dress shirts are labelled "15-1/2 x 34 35", I find the torso to be humongous and blousy to accommodate the gut I don't have - then again, I don't care for the super-tailored/fitted mod stuff so I have to choose carefully.
I'm skeptical of vanity sizing for men.I think manufacturers (with their 3rd world factories) just can't get their act together. My favorite jeans are an eight year old pair from Burberry (of all places ) which were tagged a 36 but measured a 33 waist. [huh]
1st World people have grown bigger in average over the last decades. As I know the textile industry renews their standard size charts from time to time... so you can e. g. wear medium over the decades even if you´ve gained some weight... and psycholigically it´s a good thing for you to wear the same size for thirty years in face of added some fat
I can see that this makes sense as far as Small/Medium/Large are concerned. These are relative terms. A medium person today is bigger than a medium person 100 years ago.
But measurements are absolute. An inch today is the same size as it ever was...
You beat me to it. Some women take a tape measure with them when they shop for clothes.
You can use incorrect sizing to your advantage when you shop sales. I've found that a lot of clearance clothing is mis-sized.
The problem with reading stuff by people who write for a living is that they frequently make it up to meet deadline and get paid. When they add some dubious statistics about the effects of obesity, one may be doubly forgiven for suspecting the accuracy of the content as well the good sense of the writer.
I wear "36" inch pants from a variety of sources, and they are remarkably consistent. I have no idea what size they may really be, but they are consistent. When I buy suits that have pants marked 38 inches, I tell them to give me a 36 inch waist, and they give me the same size as the rest of my pants.
I'm not saying...
…that there isn’t vanity sizing going on. But I do think there are other forces at work.
Nearly all US clothing manufacturers used the military specification or MIL-SPEC for sizing. For any given size, say a 44 Long, there were an extensive series of measurements that defined that size. When US clothing production went more “offshore” with the advent of the internet, foreign makers related sizes to those closest of their own system. The many systems of sizing in place all over the world means lots of variation. One brand might have inventory made in both Asia and Central America. You really have to try everything on.
I used to be a big time mail order guy. I’m getting off that because I’m tired of sending things back.
Interestingly, Jos A Bank, which went offshore for sewing, but still cuts out the suits here still has sizes that are the same. I have an old suit of theirs that was 100% US made and it fits the same way as a new suit that was sewn up off shore. Their pants fit the same way too.
If I buy pants of the same supposed size from Lands’ End, I have to have them taken in a lot. That used to not be the case with them. I had a pair of Lands’ End pants that was US made and they fit the same way as the Jos A Bank pants did.
This is somewhat problematic for me. I like “long rise” pants and many manufacturers offer them only in even sizes. If they were true sizes, I’d be OK, but a 36 that is really 37½ or 38 can’t be taken in that much without pulling the pants of out of line. That’s always been a problem for me when I bought nested suits. The pants for a 44 jacket are usually a 38. When the pants were taken in 2”, the creases would point out instead of forward.
The advent of “separates” made it possible to get better sizing, but that change also ushered in a great reduction in fabric choices. You are now stuck with about six or so choices (blue pinstripe, grey, etc).
S/M/L/XL seem totally confusing to me these days, 10 years ago I was a L or even an XL now I'm a M in most things yet I haven't lost any weight.
Perhaps 10 years ago I was just badly dressed.
I noticed it with Jeans in Europe too. Ten years ago I needed a jeans with the waist width 30 or 31 and today I need a 29*. I was always wondering why I need now a smaller size than ten years back all the while I never got more on my hips and still weigh the same as ten years ago. Another problem with that is that most shops start with sizes bigger than 30, so getting a 29 is sometimes a problem.
*jap I know that i have the problem with beeing a bit too thin, but I am one of those rarely seen persons who can just eat as much as they want and still don't gain weight.[huh]
I'm amused by the "FATMAX" tape measure being used to measure how fat we are.
I haven't noticed any vanity sizing in the menswear I buy, but then I wear a 48R suit coat, 40x32 trousers and 18x35 dress shirts, all of which are pretty roomy to start with.
But it is strange when it is an actual inch measurement rather than women's sizes which are more arbitrarily related to the number.
On the other hand, while there as only a one time benefit when they revamped women' sizes but men's inch size benefits all the time because men will continually feel better about pants that have a lower inch size, while women will not care if their current size twelve used to be a 16 back in the 50s. But women's may be continuing to change gradually.