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?

I didn't vote but I think as others have said we should have more constant sizing as it really varies a lot from brand to brand. I never know if I should order the 10 or the 12. I care about constant sizing as opposed to vintage sizing.

Drives me nuts. I’ve dropped a ton of weight (not sick) and went from a size 26 to a 14, so I bought size 14 trousers from PLT, they’re ridiculous. I’m already out of the jeans I bought from them. At least I know to buy size 12, very flattering, but completely unreal.

It would be useful if we went to inches/centimetres across the board as opposed to size 14 etc. I’ve got clothes, probably American imports, that say 16, so a 20? But another item says 10, so you’d think a 14, but they literally fall down on me. I either need to try on everything and send it back or buy from known brands that don’t use vanity sizing. Haven’t been into big shops eg M&S/Next because I’m still losing and don’t want to spend £40 on jeans that will only last a few months.

You are not obliged to read any thread.

If you consider a thread to be 'absolutely tedious and pathetic', feel free to click on to something that does interest you and let the people who are interested in discussing the thread subject crack on.

Ugh posted too soon sorry.
We now live in a global world and manufacturing has shifted to other parts over the past 3 decades.
A brand can retail their product globally if they choose too.

But different races have different body shapes/ proportions just because humans are all different all over the world.

Each country will have set size grade for the majority of people who purchase from them.

In Asia, humans are just more petite all over ( not all of course but you get my jist) so their pattern blocks will be smaller.

I remember buying in Italian brands in the early noughties for my shops and the sizes were definitely a size down to those my UK customer were used to. So we advised accordingly on the swing ticket .
Size 38. = 10 for example.

Standardised sizing has been a hot topic in all 4 decades I've done this but will never happen.

Ultimately, a brand will create their products to fit their target demographic and will size it how they choose to.

I do recall Biden at the start and how their clothes were but generously but I always thought it was due to them wanting to creat that Italian, body skimming look whereby a pair of crepe trousers ( lined too!) would hang on the body rather than be snug. A sort of 'designer feel' rather than any other reason.

It bothers me that mens jeans etc are in inches. That would make more sense.

Also, if you want vanity sizing, I have found that F&F at Tesco, New Look, ASDA living and Matalan you need to go down a size as they measure big.

If there are any shoe manufacturers about, I'd love to hear their view as shoes are now my nemesis.
I'm a size 41 or 9.5 US size but skinny long b

Ugh I keep posting g too soon.
Shoes have definitely changed and it's a nightmare for me.
Long skinny feet . Italian lasts fitted me perfectly until Italian shoes became too difficult to find and are now super expensive.

Something that really annoyed me lately was I bought an expensive(for me) dress, it was €260 so I made sure to measure myself before buying it. Using their size guide I should have comfortably fit into the size I bought. I had to pay to send it back lose out on the customs duty I paid because their sizes don't match up to their own size chart. I should have done research on the brand before buying because this was a common complaint. Silly me thought they would at least know their own sizing.

It's ridiculous, it shouldn't be pot luck whether or not something will fit.

You've highlighted the biggest issue now we all face when shopping.
All the choice is online.
We can access anything in a way we couldn't years ago.

In the olden days, difference in sizing/ fit was exactly the same but we would trawl around a high st or shopping centre and try on loads of stuff to find that perfect item,
Now, we select online and it's so much harder. Also not made easier by all the fake stuff that's very cheap whereby the retailer uses a brand's photo ( with the models head cut off) and then retails a total piece of rubbish that one would never buy if you saw it in real life.

It's worse in America. Sizes there tend to fit two sizes bigger than they do here in Canada. I'm usually an 8 here, but a 4 in US sizes. Then you have the Asian sizes, which are smaller. If you buy off Amazon, you'll often get Chinese goods, so you have to order 1-3 sizes up.

This is why I don’t buy clothes online. I have to try everything on. I wore a size 14 in my 20s and can wear a modern size 14 even though I’m 3 stone heavier. It’s not just the sizing but a lot of material is so thin that you need to see/feel it.

Re reading this , someone earlier mentioned when dress making, to not make it to fit the body exactly as we need 'ease' . Sorry I can't remember the posters name.
When we sit, flesh folds and needs somewhere to go.
So when buying clothes online if the waist of the garment measures, say, 71cm and your waist measures 71cm, you'd need to buy the next size up so there is some space for your body to move within the garment

I don't find vanity sizing so much an issue as just plain inconsistency

In my wardrobe I have 2 jersey dresses of a similar style
One is a size 14 from asos range
One is a size 24 from asos curve
I mean what does the actual size 24 do if they wanted that dress?!

Or buying M&S jeans. If I buy one light denim and one dark denim both in a size 16L in the SAME STYLE, they shouldn't be totally different fits and leg lengths

This is why is was so annoying my hips and bust should have fit into the size down, the waist measurement was 28-30.5 inches and mine is 28.5. The dress barely did up on my dd who is a size 4, and should have fit into the dress two sizes down according to their measurements. This was a British brand, who according to their socials count themselves as a luxury brand. So I really expected their size chart to be accurate.

I have to admit I love the longer clothes. I'm in my 50s and 5'10, For years getting clothes long enough was a trial, but now I have lots of choice, even fit regular in some brands. Dresses are still an issue as the shaping is in the wrong places, but I don't wear them anyway and prefer mens shirts and jackets.

I can't shop in M&S because the clothes they sell in my size aren't made for a size eight woman. That's my entire point.

I didn't bring value judgements based on size into this. You decided to do that.

Speaking of vanity labels, I was looking at skirts in M&S last week and noticed lots of “size 16” “and size 16 petite”. I automatically disregarded the ones labelled petite, but when I looked at them again, I noticed that they were shorter than the regular size 16’s. Looking around at other rails I realised that they’ve renamed “short” lengths to “petite” lengths. I am a short-arse but I’m definitely not petite, I think this will confuse people.

Why is it ok to be just plain nasty to smaller women??

I thought petite had always meant short - both in overall length and where the waist sits

Petite has always meant short range. Short only works as a descriptor for skirts/trousers, for dresses, it’s to show the hem isn’t just shorter, but where the waist has been put is higher, the drop to cleavage is higher, arms are shorter etc.

its “smaller frame overall” not just “short legs” (short leg trousers often have the same waist to crotch length whereas petite it’s less)

Actually @Greyrockin - thinking about it more, I’m pretty sure “petite” was used for small person ranges to be a polite thing as calling a woman short wasn’t nice!

if all your bones are a bit shorter than the average, you need to buy the 16 petite not 16 regular. (The waist/chest measurements will be the same as the 16 regular but the whole thing will be designed for a smaller in height woman)

Petite ranges have existed for years!

Apart from Marks&Spencer which you dropped a size and anything in Laura Ashley that was a top or dress which was way always way too small (size 10 dress had 28” bust. Sizing did actually mean something

I could say to anyone to go out and buy me a size 10 skirt or jacket or dress or trousers from any shop and I would be guaranteed that it would fit because clothes were made to the fact a size 10 was 32” bust
22” waist and 34” hips going up or down the sizing meant adding or taking away 2” from those measurements

Now I couldn’t tell you what size I am because it depends not only on the store but also what the design is. So in the same store I could pick 4 similar styles of trousers and they would fit the same but the sizing would read 12, 14, 16 and 18

I have tried on 2 of the exact same size, and exact same style of clothing and found one was too big and one was too small

I'm not kidding myself about anything. BMI 20, have always been a size 12 on top (even when ill and slightly underweight). Amused to know I'm 'very large'.

Agree that some consistency would be great and also accurate size charts. Have frequently consulted charts very carefully and ended up with too big garments.

I understood petite ranges to be slightly smaller all over (and usually having their own section), the skirts and trousers labelled petite in M&S just appear to be shorter rather than smaller all over. Happy to stand corrected though.