To say vanity sizes should be rolled back?

[amoreoamicizia]

I bought some vintage St. Michael shorts this weekend in a size 12 which fitted me perfectly. In current sizes I'm an 8 or sometimes- incredibly- a 6 (looking at you, Boden).

As flattering as it is to think of myself as a size 8, it's simply not the truth or a reflection of reality. A small size 12 does seem about right, as that was my size as a slim-ish teenager in the 90s.

Who is this vanity sizing really helping? Who does it serve? Isn't it about time clothing manufacturers were held to account and forced to roll back sizes to what they were in the early 00s, at least?

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.

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?

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

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 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

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

Very large? You don't understand what large means, do you?

(I'm not speaking about my size but generally).

Add in the current oversized trend and you have no hope!

I have a size 6 jacket that Im swimming in....god knows what it would look like on someone actually a size 6 (just a giant walking jacket I imagine).

I mean, there's no objective size 12, is there? I couldn't care less whether a size bigger than it once was, I just wish sizes were the same across different shops.

This thread is fascinating. I'm 5ft 3, 9st 8 and a size 12. Crazy to hear the other weights/heights that are also a size 12. How does that even work?!

I'm actually impressed that with all these different bodies being a size 12, I can walk into most shops and buy that size. Sometimes I get a size 8/10 but that's purely because I want the top but don't want it oversized as it was intended to be.

I have clothes from size 8-20 that all fit well.

I'm with you all with wanting consistent sizing.

Of course I’m not saying everyone is in denial about their size, I’m just making the point that it’s possible for your weight to creep up and not know it because unless you weigh yourself - I don’t - you wouldn’t know from clothing sizes. You might notice your old clothes not fitting I suppose.

fc123’s perspective was really interesting and informative about how sizing is determined but it doesn’t address the variation between different manufacturers.

It's not meant to be tight. The way it fits on the model is how it is meant to fit.

If I got down to BMI 24 I'd be a size 10 in measurements, yes. Currently a size 12 at BMI 27. I have legs like a scrum half, and am a muscular hourglass. Not wide, but dense! 😂

Come off it. Look at one that is supposed to be fitted. Look at the waist of the shirt on its own and on the model. They've pinned that shirt to buggery for the photoshoot so it will fit her.

It would absolutely drown me. I'd have wads of material stuffed down my pants to try and make it look like it fit. As if it's supposed to be for someone with a 25 and a half inch waist!! Ridiculous - it's just not a size 8.

https://www.marksandspencer.com/cotton-collared-long-sleeve-shirt/p/clp60510080?intid=mobile_app_pdp_share

I think this is what a lot of people are missing.

Some very loose fitting items might fit if you buy 3 sizes smaller than what you'd usually wear. But are designed to worn "too big". I have a jumper from Zara which is a size smaller than I'd usually wear and is still massive, because that's the style.

I do think people are kidding themselves about how big they are.

That’s bollocks. Fat people know they are fat. And even if there was a tiny chance they didn’t, there’s plenty of people on Mumsnet to tell them they are.

Yay, another fat bashing thread!

Unless every single item of clothing in M&S is designed to be baggy and loose fitting, this argument doesn't work.

If I wore a pair of size 8 trousers from there, I'd need braces to hold them up. Unless I'm buying clown trousers, it's not the look I'm going for.

It did. She noted how she sized down for a clothing line aimed at people who tend to be slimmer (young women, dancers). Because the customers were slim and the larger size wasn't selling, she recalibrated accordingly, got rid of the L, made the old M the new L and introduced a new size at the smallest end. Hence, a line for a slim demographic that comes up smaller than average because the customers are smaller than average.

Other lines do the same. Lines aimed at middle aged women will come up bigger than ones aimed at teenagers because teenagers tend to be slimmer and the sizing recalibrates accordingly.

That's why standardised sizing isn't the blessing we might think. It prevents makers from sizing to their customer.

And it's one reason why sizing is in the shitter. Shitty fast fashion is being pumped out everywhere, every day, to everyone, and that's creating a benchmark based on nobody as makers stop knowing who their customer is.

No. The L was renamed M. M became S etc.
She didn't get rid of L.

People didn't buy L. But they would buy a M with the L measurements.

Gosh, aren't YOU the most dainty, teeny-tiny person out there! 👏

So much more virtuous and just better than those mahoosive people who wear a size 10 or 12, and as for the size 14 or 16 M&S people, well, they just shouldn't leave the house, should they?

If you don't like M&S's sizing policy then don't shop there. It's not compulsory. But you're doing yourself no favours by making out their size 8 trousers are so ludicrously mahoosive that they are of joke proportions.

Same overall result. The sizing changes to accommodate the customer. In this case, reflecting the fact that the customer is smaller sized.

In most demographics, people are getting bigger so the sizing recalibrates to reflect that. Different lines have different customer profiles. Result: inconsistent sizing between makers, but once you find the store that caters for you, things should be easier. And once you realise size literally is just a number, you can stop being ruled by it and realise it's not the way to calculate your actual dimensions or BMI.

No. The sizing remained the same.
Only the labels changed.
The dancers wouldn't buy a L - they would buy a L renamed as M.

The rest of your post I agree with.

Yes, that's the point. The size name changed, just like a 12 now was a 14 ten years ago or whatever, to reflect the people wearing the line.

Exactly that (!).
It's actually a really interesting thread.
I hope I explained the 'Why' sufficiently but the psychology aspect seems to be the bit that everyone's going crazy over.

As to standardised sizes/ measurements, I do have an answer to that too. I think (!).

We now l