stupid sizing?

[lph]

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.)

[emily_in_nc]

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.

[malkin]

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.

[lph]

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*

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.

[jessmarimba]

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).

[lph]

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.

[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.