Printable View
Wow, that's really weird! I have to order S or XS from LLBean because their clothes run so large on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by emily_in_nc
It is true that much higher end clothing (not Ann Taylor but more like Ralph Lauren, Carolina Herrera, Chanel, Versace or the like) do run smaller than everyday labels you can buy at the mall. I don't think the sizing difference between Banana Republic and Target is quite as obvious even though there is definitely a price difference.
That's weird. I'm also currently a 4 petite in most brands (sometimes a 2, which is ridiculous) but the clothes I bought in the 80s that I can still wear are 10s and 12s. Wonder why yours were 6s?
Still, my classic Jones New York silk suit that I bought in the mid-90s is a 6, and actually the waist is just a hair tight on me now. That's oblique development, not menopot. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I can't buy at Talbots or LL Bean. The smallest size (2P) is swimming on me. I can still buy at Ann Taylor, and the clothes are sized more like the old days. I just find the styles often not to my liking. I used to buy a lot of stuff there, but I don't wear suits anymore. I wish Gap had xx-small petites. I like their sweaters better than Banana Republic, but the x small petites are too big most of the time. I still buy them if they are shorter styles. Thankfully, the pants fit me. In the past 10 years, I have gone from a size 4-6 at the Loft to a 0. I have lost weight (not more than 7-10 lbs.) and inches, but still.
from my favorite fashion industry blogger, Kathleen Fasanella of The Fashion IncubatorQuote:
Originally Posted by emily_in_nc
The Myth of Vanity Sizing
The Evolution of Sizing
These two articles have links to even more stuff: the history of women's clothing sizing, more on so called vanity sizing, why the fit of jeans sucks so much etc.
I don't know, but I totally disagree with this line: "garments that managed to survive the era were not representative of the population then anymore than the too-small keepsake garments are representative of women today."
My '80s work clothes came from the same department stores I shop at now, were of the same general quality and (inflation-adjusted) price range. They're not "keepsakes," they're clothes that for the most part aren't very fashionable now but that I haven't yet gotten around to giving to Goodwill. One of my suits I was very flattered to see on a character on the show "Designing Women," if you remember that. Totally representative of what a middle-class woman might wear to an office job. That one too is a little tight around the waist now - that's a size 8. Most of what is hanging in my closet from that era, as I said, is 10s or 12s. And most of it still fits this body that now wears a 2 or a 4.
And then there are the T-shirts that I referenced in the other thread. Plain old event T-shirts. Keepsakes, it's true, but for what's printed on them, not for any other reason. They're the same T-shirts you'd buy in 3-packs at Wally World, just with the event information printed on them. Fifteen years ago I could squeeze into a youth XL, and sometimes preferred those for the shorter length and different designs. Other than that, I'd wear an adult Medium. Nowadays, a youth Medium T-shirt is baggy on me, and so is an adult Small.
I'm obviously not involved in the fashion industry at all, but I think the experience of people like me, Crankin and Muirenn IS representative.
ETA: And I dispute the concept that no one would buy a size 40. I wear a 42 in Italian sizes. I don't hesitate a minute to buy something nice in Italy because of the number on the label. (I also wear a 43 European shoe, but my feet actually *are* huge. :rolleyes:)
But it's an eye-opener to remember that 1 generation younger than us or more, meaning born within the last 15 years or less, would have not experienced much the big /noticeable differences between previous sizes 30 years go and vanity sizing of today that we are discussing in this thread.
Or just bigger clothing in the same size now, in a range of manufacturers who have created the same garment for the past 30 years.
Unless they start buying or wearing alot of older secondhand clothing from consignment stores, family attic, etc.
It's like saying I remember what the world was like without the Internet.... For alot of people in certain generation, that's all they've known.
Huh? No one notices until they become an adult and have bought several rounds of clothes over the years. I wasn't personally aware of how sizing changed in the 1950s through 1970s. No one who was born in 90s or later has personally experienced what us 50-something has. We can all still read about it happening in the past, and experience it when it does happen to us, can't we?
I have a huge pile of business clothes from the last 20 years ready for donation but that still fit me. Almost everything is marked one to two sizes larger than what I wear today.
Commercial clothing patterns are drafted for a woman who wears a B cup bra. If you're a D cup or larger you will unfortunately never get a great fit. Unless you're in the plus size range - plus sizes tend to be drafted for a C/D cup.
I have the opposite problem - no matter how fat/thin/fit/flabby I've been in my life, I've always been two sizes bigger in the waist and hips than at the bust. I recently bought a bright orange microfiber jacket off a sale rack at a running store, deeply discounted. It fit in the chest and shoulders but not the hip, so I modified it with contrasting gussets sewn at the sides. It's impossible for mass-produced clothing to be made to fit the entire range of body dimensions, so consider the manufacturers sizing to be a starting point. Buy a jacket that fits your biggest part and have it taken in where it's too big. Any tailor shop or alterationist can do the job quite quickly, and it's not usually very expensive. Unless you're bottom heavy like me - altering around the shoulders is a bit more complicated, so adding fabric is often the answer.
On the subject of vanity sizing, vintage sewing sites like Etsy offer a glimpse of the changes, in the old sewing patterns. A size 14 from the 70s was for a 36" bust, 27" waist, 38" hips. I can remember sewing clothes in high school and using the same size pattern as my off-the-rack clothing size. Some time in the mid-80s, a size 12 pattern became too small while size 12 off the rack was fine. The sizing charts used by the pattern companies remained the same, it was the mass-produced clothing that changed.
Hmmm I think that what the article writer is referring to as vanity sizing may not be what some people mean when they use the term. From my perspective I think there is vanity sizing - why otherwise would we as a population of people who are growing - both getting taller and rounder have added all of the "extra" sizing to the bottom? If the clothing is getting bigger why not add the numbers to the top - I mean numbers actually keep going in that direction and that would also mean if you were a 4, which I was at in high school that you'd still likely be a 4 today instead of being a 00(0!) which is what my mostly the same size body fits in today. I'm just waiting for the day when I have to buy a -4 because adding all those 0's is just getting ridiculous. And why do we do it? IMHO, because as we age and get bigger we don't want to be reminded.
Yeah, in the 70s I would have been a 14...perhaps even a 16. Today I am an 8-10. That's ridiculous. And, as Eden pointed-out, it gets especially crazy for very petite/slim women.Quote:
Originally Posted by nuliajuk
Yep. I am currently a size 6. There is a part of me that is pretty darn cool with that since I once was a size 22, I know I have this apple shape and boobs. I am probably closer to a true size 12, at least before vanity sizing became so popular. I am pleased and perturbed at the same time as I remember what a size 6 looked like in the late 60's/early 70's and I am not there...Quote:
Originally Posted by zoom-zoom
I wear XS at LL Bean too -- you are very small up top, GLC, as I recall, so I am not at all surprised that you would take an XS. I should have clarified -- the bottoms that I have from them that are 4P and fit are quite a bit older (2-5 years) and and they are sized more like a 2P at other places, so they have definitely done the size inflation thing too. Their smallest size used to be 4P. If they have a 2P now, I was not aware, but that's what I'd order from them if I were ordering today. Their petite pants have been too short in the inseam for me after washing (28.5" which would shrink to 27.5") so I stopped ordering pants from them. The only bottoms I've ordered from them in the past year are a skort and a pair of shorts. They were both XS regular (not petite) and were quite large on me, but I like things loose and comfy down here because it's so hot and humid. Form-fitting clothes just aren't very comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by GLC1968
As for the higher-end clothing labels you mention, I don't buy those sorts of labels, so I will take your word for it that they run smaller! To me, "high-end" clothing is Ann Taylor and Talbot's! :D
It's amazing the things you learn at TE. No wonder most regular sized tops/jackets don't fit me if they are based on a B cup. As far as plus sizes, they tend not to fit either as they are to large and baggie around the middle. For years I have been sizing up and then getting the item altered.Quote:
Originally Posted by nuliajuk
I always assumed that smaller framed women had an easier time buying clothing, and I also assumed that it was just me that had fit issues. It's nice to know im not alone and that a lot of women share my frustration.
And yes, I know what happens when one assumes.....it makes an *** outta u and me :)