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?

But you won't get consistency. To repeat myself, I make my own clothes and patterns come with the actual measurements but with vastly different amounts of ease depending on the design.

I think some of the angst is this misunderstanding. Clothes aren't all meant to be body skimming. Obviously it is totally your prerogative to style an item more fitted than the designer intended but that doesn't mean they think a size 8 has a 30 inch waist necessarily it may mean they have deliberately designed it to have it hang very loosely.

Obviously there are also lots of really poorly designed and/or manufactured clothes and they can be all over the place anyway.

I'm about the same size as you. A 12 in old money. I totally agree, it's nuts.

Size 10 in Next can drown me. I I got some size 6 trousers in Oliver Bonas lately. I'm not anywhere close to a size 6, maybe one of my legs is.
I don't know where people who are a 6 in 'old sizes' actually shop!

Of course it matters.

People thinking they are a healthy "average" size 14, in the UK is not doing anyone any favour.

If you are happy as a bigger size, fine, but at least we should be honest about it. I found clothes in mainland Europe must more realistic.

I did a half marathon in Spain recently. The finishers tshirt is teeny tiny, whereas the ones from UK races are always too big.

We’re mostly agreeing here aren’t we? The sizing is arbritrary and meaningless, it’s the consistency that’s the issue.

In terms of future change I think we’ve peaked in terms of height and shoe size. Those are the measures that indicate overall skeletal growth due to better nutrition. Where we haven’t peaked, and need to, is waist and hip size, which is basically fat. So the sooner a standard measure exists to remind people that they are changing shape, the better.

You can see that with kids clothing, our sizes are huge!

Yes, I imagine it is pretty frustrating when the smallest size is too big on you.

We are also taller on average though. I work with elderly people and tower over the vast majority at 5'6 hardly tall. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 inches due to age I mean 5 or 6 and they never grew above 5'2/5'3. The taller you are the slightly wider to be proportion. A modern 10 is pretty slim on someone 5'6 like me but at 5'0 like my mum looks larger.

They actually do - despite it being labelled 32” or whatever, I’ve seen articles where they’ve bought alleged 32” trousers from 10 different shops and they’ve all been wildly different. Vanity sizing happens even with something you wouldn’t think could be fudged!

I was a teenager in the early 80s I weighed 7.5 st and was a size 8 and was considered small by my peers.
The fit of clothes was different then much much tighter with no stretch.

I just shop online and refer to the size guide - the best ones give waist, hips, bust measurements.

But sizing before was created based on the average size - if the average has increased should the sizes be resized.

People shouldn't be using dress sizes to measure their health, that's one thing that needs to stop. BMI is not based on dress size and never has been. You wouldn't look at your clothing labels to assess your blood pressure.

Or is that just poor manufacture?

Can we pause the 'teeny tiny' and 'size 6' bashing, please. I'm neither but it is as bad as insulting people who are larger sizes.

At my previous job there were a number of larger women. The accepted dynamic was that they were allowed to talk at length about their weight issues, trouble getting clothes and so forth, but the time I complained about not being able to get jeans to fit my frame (I'm slim front to back but wide shoulders and hips, with big bones) I was shut down for 'boasting'.

Being tall and a bit thin is an issue clothes wise.

Stretch fabric is brilliant. Also, make stuff for taller folks in regular sizes. There are plenty of us! There are petites ranges in some places, so why not grand ones, if you follow? (Not sure what I'd call a tall range, nothing about as cute as the name petite!)

Oh come on people, stop with the snide comments about smaller size women. It’s not nice. You’re better than that - this is S&B not AIBU.

I’d argue that consistent clothes sizing in a proper range of sizes does matter as so much clothes shopping is now online - particularly as high street stores are closing. Even when they’re open they often have limited sizes in store.
There’s an environmental impact of clothes having to be returned or going to waste at the back of wardrobes.

Demand more and better from retailers - proper size descriptions online etc.

This. I'm 50 and 5'7. When I was a teenager/early 20s I hardly ever saw a woman who was taller than me, it was something I really noticed.

Now a significant percentage of younger women are as tall or noticeably taller than me.

Clothes have increased in length as well width to accommodate this. It used to be that long length trousers were only just long enough, or often a little too short as I really need 32 inch leg and a lot were 31. Now even regular is usually 32/33 inch and long is at least 34 inches, so too long for me.

Crossed posts hurkle!

The idea with clothes sizes is they represent the population - and that's always been the case - and as the population is, generally speaking, larger than 30 plus years ago, that's why sizes are larger. Therefore, if you're the same shape/weight as you were 30 odd years ago, you're actually likely to be a smaller size in clothes now compared to them.

Its the change in manufacturing - the move to cheaper production and fast fashion. Before clothes shops would have less stock, set seasons and only two times of the year the had sales. Then the buyer had longer to decide with to buy each season, work with the manufacturers to get the quality sizing right etc. Clothes would have been tried on but actually people and sent back if any issues. would have taken months to get it right. Now shops including M&S zara etc, want more stock quicker turn around. Sizing is based on a template corners are cut when producing to make it quicker, plus using cheaper materials so it doesn't sit right. All so we can get cheaper clothes

Every one should watch this video its so interesting. The mindset needs to change, i had it with my mother this week, she bought a pair of trousers, she proudly told me cost her 10e, Yet they were too long for her and gaping at the back. 10e with a tailor would have fixed it, but she balked at paying that, she was like i am not spending more money on them they only cost 10e, i was like but you wont wear them now ? She was going to give to charity and buy another pair for like another 10e instead of paying properly for stuff to fit her

Sizing is madness on the uk high street. Yesterday I bought a new denim skirt and a pair of denim shorts. Skirt was a 6 and shorts a 10. Go figure.

I also agree with a pp who said shoes have got bigger. I was a 7 as a teen and am a 6 now. Maybe my feet have shrunk?

That was true when sizing was still regulated, and changes were made by revalorising against population measurements

The vanity sizing outbreak of the 1990s (which was avowed by the industry, and was purely a marketing device) is what really broke the link between the medium size woman and the size that was seen as "medium" (both then and since then)

And as the increase in the proportion of the population who are overweight or obese means that the "middle" (median or mode) size isn't, as it was in the 80s, likely to be towards the middle of a healthy size/weight.

Nothing wrong with being larger.

But the legacy issues about what a size "means" suggests that people aren't really OK with being large. So do we ostrich and obfuscate with sizes, or find better ways to describe people's size when selling clothes, mindful that size is their measurement, not a proxy for worth

I don't care whether they are rolled back or not. What I'd like to see is standardisation of sixing across all retailers. Sizing in measurements (e.g. cms) would sold this.

Am glad you said this about shoes! I was also a 7 as a teenager and I remember worrying how big my feet would get, I’m also a 6 these days! Wish I kept a pair of my old Kickers to compare

I agree too regarding them increasing in length. At 5’5 I often buy petite now and I’m sure the signs used to say 5’3 and under

We haven't 'peaked' in terms of shoe size - I wear a 9 and it's impossible to find women's shoes in that size in almost all retailers...and the brands that do them can't seem to decide whether a size 42 is an 8 or a 9, so at one point I was buying 8s from different retailers and not being able to get them on my feet anymore.

Adidas don't even do their women's styles in a 42 or above. Manufacturers do not believe we exist. The athletic shoe brand, I forget which, that made a big deal about producing shoes that were specially designed for women and their needs when running, with a big splashy campaign on how apparently wearing sports shoes designed for men is damaging to feet and has a greater risk of causing injury for women, did not make them in my size.

Hip size is not necessarily 'basically fat' if you have a larger frame, either. There are big old bones there that have got bigger with nutrition as well.