stupid sizing?

Oh my goodness. So I did the jean shopping thing today. Becky - good suggestion on trying the Gap again. I bought a pair of straight leg that look like skinny jeans on me. And a pair of the long & leans, which run REALLY big. As in, I'm suddenly a size 0. Both pair are a little snug at the fattest part of my leg but fit my butt and my waist ok. Supposedly they'll stretch about half a size.

Shorts are another story...no luck. I just want a pair of khaki shorts that don't make my legs look like sausages.

I was cleaning out the closet a few weeks ago and came across a pair of Calvin Klein jeans I had before I started cycling. Keep in mind I've lost weight since I started cycling. I put those stupid things on and I couldn't help just busting out laughing! It was like someone saran wrapped my things and quads and everything else was dangling! There was enough room int the back of those jeans to store food for a week! I think PI needs to come up with JEANS for cyclists too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malkin

As for sizing, I just pretend the letters mean something else:

L for Lovely
M for aMazing (or Monstrous depending on how the sizes run and if it fits or not)

XL that fits after you have lost weight might mean that item is for a person who is Ex-Large (i.e. formerly large)

---

Late to this one. I came across a lovely and very expensive series of designer dresses in one shop labeled like this :)
S - Smashing
M - Marvellous
L - Luscious
XL - Extra Luscious :)

I've always wondered why manufacturers even want to alienate a whole bunch of women by telling them they're "large", given that the beauty ideal for women has been attached to "small and dainty" for hundreds of years. Why not just size clothes by numbers that state something that can be measured? You're not going to alienate anyone by telling them they need a pair of pants with a hip circumference of x inches or a top that fits a bust of y inches - either it fits or it doesn't, no need to mix in relative judgements like large and small. (Which all go out the window if you're shopping in a country where the population is sized differently anyway.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindingRoad

I was cleaning out the closet a few weeks ago and came across a pair of Calvin Klein jeans I had before I started cycling. Keep in mind I've lost weight since I started cycling. I put those stupid things on and I couldn't help just busting out laughing! It was like someone saran wrapped my things and quads and everything else was dangling! There was enough room int the back of those jeans to store food for a week! I think PI needs to come up with JEANS for cyclists too!

---

I run into that same problem with shirts when I'm lifting regularly, I'll pull on a favorite old shirt and there's too much extra to tuck in, but the upper arms and shoulders are busting at the seams. I enjoy doing a hulk impression at those moments. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lph

I've always wondered why manufacturers even want to alienate a whole bunch of women by telling them they're "large", given that the beauty ideal for women has been attached to "small and dainty" for hundreds of years. Why not just size clothes by numbers that state something that can be measured? You're not going to alienate anyone by telling them they need a pair of pants with a hip circumference of x inches or a top that fits a bust of y inches - either it fits or it doesn't, no need to mix in relative judgements like large and small. (Which all go out the window if you're shopping in a country where the population is sized differently anyway.)

---

Such a wonderful point, lph! Numerical sizes don't imply a judgment. I guess it's easier for a manufacturer, tho, to combine sizes (such as 0-2 = XS, 4-6 = S, and so forth), and that's how this kind of thing got started. Still, that doesn't make it right.

Random sizing allows manufacturers to permit random construction. Since it is meaningless "Small" garments don't all have to be the same size across or within items. If the size were a real measurable number, then the garments would all have to be really that size.

But aren't all clothes (or at least the pattern) at some point originally cut and fitted to a three-dimensional model that actually has real measurements? Or am I showing my naivety here when it comes to factory construction ;)

They have to be based on *something* :confused:

Besides, if I were between sizes it would be a lot easier for me to assess if I want to size up to hip circ. x or down to hip circ y in a pair of pants, rather than trying to guess if I'm somebody's idea of "small" or not.

You just hit on MY pet peeve, lph. I loathe when they actually do have a size chart with numerical measurements of chest, waist, hips, etc...and the numbers on the chart are also vanity-sized. Like per the numbers on Gap's size chart, I should wear a 4-6 in their jeans...in reality, I fit a 0-2.

I am by no means a size 0. And only rarely a 2 (like, maybe for skirts that aren't fitted through the hips).

I'm actually just griping, because even online clothing stores that do have numerical measurements just confuse me. According to Patagonia I can fit anything from extra small to medium, depending on whether I measure around my hips or my waist. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing, actually - thanks for the genes, mom and grandma.

Vanity sized NUMBERS? How bizarre.

Jess--
The first time I bought jeans from Gap, the woman working there told that they run big and stretchy, so that your best bet would be buying a size smaller than you usually wear (or than the numbers on the size chart would indicate.)
They do run big and stretchy (the only time size 8s fit me is straight out of the dryer), but it's probably vanity sizing anyway.

i never even heard of a woman's size 0 or 2 when i was young in the 60's and 70's. Did they have those sizes back then, or is this a recent invention? I seem to recall that anything smaller than 6 was in the 'juniors', 'junior Miss', or 'petites' section. In the 60's I remember hearing the term 'a perfect size 8' a lot. And no, this was well after the whalebone corset era! :cool:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...ZuHszBdj0SQhkg

They did have size 1 and 3 in the junior's department. When I was in my late twenties/early thirties I still bought my clothes in juniors, as there were no petite sizes. I wore a perfect size 5 or 7, but everything was too long. I never wore pants. Thankfully, petites came into being around the time I decided I needed to dress more like a grown up.
You are right, though, Lisa. My mom, who was 5 ft. nothing and weighed between 90 and 100 lbs. wore a size 6. And it's funny that European sizes seem to have stuck to this. Their size 6 is an equivalent to our 2... I found this out when I went into H and M to buy a basic black skirt when I was in Vienna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owlie

Jess--
The first time I bought jeans from Gap, the woman working there told that they run big and stretchy, so that your best bet would be buying a size smaller than you usually wear (or than the numbers on the size chart would indicate.)
They do run big and stretchy (the only time size 8s fit me is straight out of the dryer), but it's probably vanity sizing anyway.

---

'

They may run big, but so does just about everywhere else, so I don't think they run big in comparison to other stores, necessarily. I wear a size 2 (short) at Gap, and I also wear a 2 (Petite) just about everywhere else I've bought pants in the last several years -- Loft, Talbot's, Lands End, American Eagle, and others. Size inflation is rampant just about everywhere.

I wore a 6P in high school, and I weigh the same now as I do then.

I ran head first into vanity sizing this weekend. I'm starting a new job and I needed some non-engineer clothing. I went to the Ann Taylor outlet and it was an exercise in frustration. Let me start by applauding companies for finally getting on the 'curvy' train and offering pants that are built for ladies with butts. That part is a very nice change from 15 years ago when I was in retail.

And not that it's the stores' fault, but I clearly need to retrain my brain as I selected all the wrong sizes. Let me be clear, I don't really care what size is on the tag and I recognize that with my shape, I'll likely be in different sizes depending on style. Nothing new there. But when I held up the size 8 pants, they looked too small for me, so I grabbed 10's too. Then I did the same for tops - 6's usually fit me at AT, but they looked small, so I took 8's into the dressing room.

ALL of it was too big. That is just wrong. It's wrong that I can't eyeball my own size anymore (my own issue!) but it's even more wrong that a woman who is 5'4" and 150 lbs is wearing a size 6 in anything. And the tops I bought that were s,m,l? Yeah, I bought smalls but some of them were too big. That's insane. What in the world to the small people wear if I'm wearing XS in some things? And what the hell am I going to do when I get down to my goal? Kids clothing? Not with these hips, baby! Ugh.

I bought a bunch of skorts and shorts at Eddie Bauer the other day. (Expensive, yes, but my parents have the discount thing, and it seems to be the only place I could get shorts that were more than 2cm long and didn't look ridiculous.) I came out with sizes 4 (the skorts) and 6 (shorts). I wear a 6 in some jeans, so that wasn't surprising. I could sit down in a size 2, and I could not find a pair of capris that I wasn't swimming in. I'm not exactly small.

I'm aware that the size inflation is crazy--I have a pair of size 10 jeans that I bought in high school (so...probably six or seven years ago) that fit perfectly. The same numerical size jeans (same company), bought a few years later, fall off. And DBF wonders why I hate shopping for clothes. :rolleyes: