Changes to the length of Marks and Spencer trousers (reduced length)

[Britpopbaby]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/25428082/marks-spencer-huge-change-clothing-let-down/amp/

Ì have a short leg, and over the years have bought trousers from all over the place where I needed to take up the bottoms - you can't add to trousers which aren't long enough, though. (Also, I do have the sewing skills for it, which not everyone does.)

@Bagthepaperandshred M&S Outlet York was awash with size 8 jeans in different styles last weekend. Might be worth seeing if your nearest is the same.

I think part of the issue is that as customers have grown bigger, just providing all the widthways sizes needed is becoming harder - trying to multiply all that by a whole bunch of different leg lengths is going to result in an infeasible number of variations.

Do British towns etc. not have places where you can get things altered? In my country, minor alterations can be paid for at many dry cleaners for a modest fee, if you hate sewing.

To give an idea of the difference, because I could rarely get anything short enough, in the old (before they made everything longer) system, 7/8 trousers in standard length would be around a half an inch off the ground at my heels.

Their revised Standard length is 31". Which makes you at least a 33".

My 6'5" ex only took a 34" inside leg! He was always pleased about that, because it meant he didn't have to worry too much about finding trousers to fit, but the idea that women have legs as long as men almost a foot taller seems so incongruent to me. Maybe it's an expectation to be wearing high heels all the time?

@NeverDropYourMooncup
Women do have longer legs for their height. I can wear regular length mens jeans at 5ft 5.

Some do - but it appears that not enough do, which is why M&S are rolling back their length standards to their tried and tested sizes; they aren't doing this for fun, it has to be because they've seen a huge drop in sales of trousers in their new 'standard' length, leaving them with unsold stock.

It must be cost cutting … 🥲

I agree about the petition though!

I am not that tall, I’m between 5 ft ‘8 and ‘9 but I have disproportionately long legs and a short body. My inside leg measurement is 33 inches which is longer than the leg length of my husband who is well over 6 ft!

M&S and Next are the only place where I can buy decent length trousers and I never wear skirts ever.

It's weird because I'm 5,4 and bought short length by mistake in some quite thick leggings. They shrink with every wash and now sit above my ankle boots. While walking around like in public yesterday I was thinking even normal length would be too short on me.

In leggings they could be extra long they won't drag on the floor

@NeverDropYourMooncup ah. My understanding was:

Sh: 27, reg 29, long 31; which they changed to: Sht 29, reg 31, long 33? But now they have changed back again? I haven't bought many trousers in the last few years, so may have missed this.

FWIW DH is 6', and a 31.5" inside leg.

It would be far more helpful if they sold trousers by inch length rather than category.

Our local dry cleaner is also a tailor and does fab alterations. Don't get me on the subject of Whistles sleeve lengths, but it's £15 well spent.

I've not RTFT but good... M&S short length jeans were always the right length for me, I bought a pair last year and they're too long. I didn't have time to return them and haven't got round to taking them up yet (straight leg fortunately so possible but still a nuisance).

I’m 5'11" and have a 34" inside leg so I was really pleased when M&S trousers got longer! It's incredibly frustrating buying trousers as so few shops stock longer lengths in store - I basically get everything online, which is a faff if it doesn't fit/suit and I have to send it back.

I agree with the posters who suggest that women's trousers should be labelled in inches (waist and leg): Topshop jeans, which you can get on ASOS, are labelled this way and they're my go-to.

If they only have capacity to stock 3 lengths wouldn't it be better to do a wider range between sizes so 25", 29" and 33" rather than just having 2" increments and only serving the narrow range of women in the 4" range they choose.

Taking up trousers is only quick and easy if (a) the trousers are a perfectly straight-leg style with no taper or widening at all (b) it's an easy fabric to work with - many modern fabrics aren't (c) you don't have any hand flexibility or eyesight problems. Long legged women please don't dismiss the problems of short legged women as easy to deal with.

I've have a longer inside seam than my nearly 6 foot DP. I'm 5"8. I think it's about proportions. I've got long legs and a short body. I think women's hips and waist also make a difference to how trousers sit and the length required.

If they only have capacity to stock 3 lengths wouldn't it be better to do a wider range between sizes so 25", 29" and 33" rather than just having 2" increments and only serving the narrow range of women in the 4" range they choose.

I don't think that would work as the proportion of women needing a 25 inch would be very low. It makes more sense financially to stock sizes to cater to the 95% in the middle.

It won't just be complaints that made they change their sizing, it must have hit them in the bank account as well.

Average height for UK women is 5 ft 4 and a lot of older people shop in m&s, who are on average shorter.

I know they're trying to appeal to younger market, they can't afford to piss of their current customers at the same time.

My legs aren't especially long. I have a 29" inside leg and that's pushing it.

I found the Winter wide legged trousers in short still too long

I'm about 5'3"

Why was i not sympathetic?

I suggested extra long as well.

They do but it'd often not worth it to pay, eg £15 alterations charge on a pair of £25 trousers.

I had a dress from next shortened and the alterations cost the same as the dress, luckily the dress was inexpensive and I loved it enough for it to be (just) worth it

A man of 5ft 3 is likely to have shorter legs than you though. A woman, on average, will have the leg length of a man a few inches taller. A male friend my height wears short length jeans turned up while I can wear a men's regular.

Yes you could be right

DH is around 5'11 and wears a short length Jean ideally 29-30"

I'm more long waisted so prefer a high rise style

They've never got anything in stock anyway and then they discontinue it. I wanted the cotton cuffed joggers as they came in leg lengths, only 17.50 but they dont do these any more and now only do ones which are more expensive and dont have the range of leg lengths

My inside leg is 28 if its to be on the shoe but I like my trousers short so want a 27 inch where I can

Im 5'5

Of course, thanks. But they are now making xl 34 inches which will be too short for proper tall people!! I would rather they just left it as it was but I suppose they could add in xxl as the longer length.

They should add in another
I wear 34 inside leg and am 5ft 10 so it is pushing out anyone taller than me and I'm not ridiculously tall

Was that the one they didn't tell customers about and you had to find out that the long trousers that previously were an ideal length were now sweeping on the floor?