To say vanity sizes should be rolled back?

That would be my take. I'm not sure why the measurements in, say, 2004 are the correct ones.

I know others are slating your post, but my bmi is 31, so obese, and I’ve just noticed that a pair of jeans in my wardrobe are an M&S size 12 and they fit me. I’m a 16 - 18 really (or possibly a 20+ in old sizing?)

it is ridiculous how modern sizes differ

My bmi is 19.5, I'm 5'6. I'm a size 12 sometimes. Im definitely not kidding myself about my weight. I just have a wide rib cage, unless I remove one or two of them I'm the size I am and that's just how I'm built.

I would say women in the past were shorter and more petite. Say average 5 foot. Currently what's the average? 5 foot 4/5? The sizes need to grow with the frames of women now. As a 5 foot 8 woman, even when slim my frame only allows me to be a size 14, if the sizes were like they were in the 50s/60s, then nothing would probably fit me!

I suppose if you shop in a country where women are generally short, then you might find their dress sizes similar to sizes from 50s / 60s

The correct measurements are the ones which work for the market as it is right now.

Yes, things probably have got harder for slimmer people, but they've got harder for everyone. Does anybody find clothes shopping easy? Why should we expect something mass produced and off the peg to fit brilliantly anyway?

Yes this. It was a good point about exactly which hallowed correct measurement time we're supposed to be going back to as well. OP suggests the 00s, but the sizes then differed from the 80s, which in their turn differed from the 60s. Because size 10, size 12 etc are so abstract, there isn't a right answer.

I don’t think anyone is digging at people who aren’t waifs. I do think people are kidding themselves about how big they are. And I include myself in that, I gained weight slowly and didn’t notice until I was weighed by my GP. Why? Because I was still wearing a size 12.

We don’t need to go backwards to set the standard but we do need one to help us going forwards.

It absolutely is a fact and I don't think anyone disputes it. It's the reason for it that gets people worked up. It's not a vanity-based conspiracy to lie to fat people. It's pure logistics to keep up with a population of bigger people.

If we didn't ever recalibrate sizes, we would still be using patterns and measurements from 1750.

@SallyWD Same, I'm 5ft 7 and slim at size 12. Smallest I could get down to is size 10 when all my bones were sticking out, periods stopped, always cold etc. I have a wide skeleton.. We're all different.
I remember Samantha Janus in Eastenders was a size 14 and was really slim.

I suppose it depends how far back you want to go for your standard size 10?
1910, 1940, 1960, 1980 ,2000?

People are taller and broader than in 1924.

Tbh that's exactly how I know it's time to rein it in - my waistband gets a bit uncomfortable. I never weigh myself. If I was still wearing size 12s I'd be heavy and unfit.

I see no reason to make sizes smaller tbh. It would be much more useful to have consistency in dress size across different shops/brands.

This.

👏👏👏

Yes it's fact that sizes have increased but it's not true to say that all size 12s are very large, or even large. If you're tall, size 12 can be slim. As I said I'm tall and a size 12. BMI is 22. At my recent health check the doctor said I was the perfect weight.

But shouldn’t we all then be looking to other markers that demonstrate whether we are overweight or not - such as actual weight? Few people are stupid enough to believe that they are healthy if they are (for example) 14 stone but can fit into a size 12 or 14. If someone is a size 12 and with a healthy BMI, then what exactly is the problem - who cares what people weighed/fit into two decades ago!

I think overweight isn't good but think women were also too thin back then due to poor nutrition etc. I'm slimmer than most people I know and see walking around but I would be classed as big back then.

Rubbish! I've found this thread very informative (special thanks to @fc123 !).

It's an issue. We're getting fatter and masking it by changing clothes labels. A size 12 now is much larger than it was 20 years ago. Fact, not spite.

i think it depends on your shape as well.

i am an hourglass. Back in the 80/90’s I learned to stick with certain brands. Topshop and the like were shaped for Kate Moss fashion, straight up and down. So even if you sized up the proportions were wrong- if they fit my hips or bust they’d be massive elsewhere. I’d be a comfortable size 10 in brands cut for hips/waist/boobs.

the style of that era was designed for that shape as well, satins, cross cut skirts that looked shit on me.

nowadays the cuts are less like that, so it it that sizes are bigger, or just cut for women rather than the 90’s size 0 beckham body type.

going back further as pp said women were smaller, possibly due to the post war years and the fenfen years.

i am 10lbs heavier than I was post kids, and I’m only a size bigger than I was in my 20’s.

I find it very irritating that it's not possible to buy a shirt from M&S, for example, because I need a size 8.

You can see here. Model wears a size eight. The shirt is huge! Look how much extra material there is around the waist especially. And she's tall - if I put that shirt on at my height, it would look like I was wearing a nightie.

https://www.marksandspencer.com/pure-cotton-broderie-shirt/p/clp60651508?intid=mobile_app_pdp_share

Classic customer profiling! Dancers tend to be slimmer, so dancewear comes up small. If we had standardised sizing across the board, makers couldn't do this.

Thank you.
Patterns are just flat shapes that create a 3D to go around the body.
Baby wear has its own challenges ( like cute chubby arms, space for nappy etc etc!)

The pattern dept in any large corporation will be aware of their 'target customer ' anyway. Age etc.
M and S ( as an example) do have an older customer base for their ladies wear so I would imagine their fit and size charts reflect that.
I'm 61 but slim yet I'm definitely bigger around my waistline than I was 40 years ago and my bottom isn't so peachy now.
So if I was cutting a dress pattern for myself now ( size 8) it wouldn't fit a 20 yr old the same as she would likely have a smaller waist but more fullness around the bust and hips.

Kind of.
I think sofas and chairs are bigger too now.
I had a popular body con range about 15 years back. Yes, it could have been called 'body fascist' in some ways but it was targeted at dancers, young women etc and I remember after a couple years the size L never sold so I chose to label up as XXS XS S M and omitted the size L
And shifted the sizes down so the M became the old L etc.
Then it sold .
To be honest I never gave it much thought at the time, just reacted to how my customer purchased things.

Exactly this. It's just an excuse to have a dig at people who aren't waifs. "Very large" at a size 12 is just spiteful.