Modern sizing

[PattyDuckface]

I recently got an 80's Windsmoor skirt and jacket set from a second hand shop, it's really lovely in a deep green colour.

I am a size 10 to 12 and I saw it was a 14 but thought the jacket would be ok even if the skirt was too big.
The skirt was so tight I couldn't even zip it up, it was a size 8 if I compare it to my other clothes.

It looks like I might be a size 16 if it was the 80's.
Not 10 - 12

What is happening with modern sizing. Have they just moved the goalposts?

What I also noticed is producers being extremely creative about the sizes of actual garments versus their own sizing guidelines. I’ve recently bought a pair of trousers online from M&S. The sizing table says 70 cm waist for size 10 but the actual trousers are 76 cm measured flat! That’s over 2 inches difference. I complained and sent them back as faulty and I’m going to get Medieval if they try to charge me for the return.

The most bizarre thing is that the trousers are reported as “true to size” by other buyers. So my pair was either mislabelled or people have interesting ways of measuring themselves.

Yes, I’ve noticed exactly the same thing. If I go by the measurements on most “size guides” I should be buying size 12s, but they’re too big (and I don’t wear my clothes super tight or anything!)

It’s really strange and I can’t work out why retailers do this.

I think this is very valid, my mum and aunts used to alter their clothes all the time, I cant even hem trousers.

It’s really bad, isn’t it? Imagine the same thing happening to shoe sizes, I buy size 3 and receive anything between 4 and 5.5!

This really happened to me when I went shopping in Singapore 😂 The staff would take one look and lead me to the back of the store, where they kept the Ridiculously Large clothing. Then they'd gather, a little bunch of tiny but perfect women, trying half-heartedly to look as if they weren't all staring in something like horror!

Just watch a throw back Top of the Pops from the 90s and everyone was so much thinner then. The pop stars, the audience, the backing dancers, everyone.

I have a Windsmoor size 14 skirt that fits and my waist is 27" so about a modern 10 (occasionally 8) if that helps.

I might be interested if you were selling it.

This is a nice article about it - AMERICAN SIZES, so the size 12 shown would be a UK size 8. The authors point out that black women were excluded from the original data and ex-service women were added, which skewed the results towards very fit white women.

In the 1950s the average British woman was 5ft 2ins, weighted 9st 10lbs, had size 3 feet and was a dress size 12. Now she's 5ft 5in, weighs 11st, has a shoe size of 6 and wears a dress size 16.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/fashion-beauty/a556302/chart-shows-shocking-change-in-clothing-sizes/

So interesting to read the responses, thanks everyone.

I'm certain it hasn't been altered and I have learnt a lot re sizing. I learnt I'm a size 16 / 18 when I want to buy clothes from the 80's and also it's a useful metric when talking to older relatives about fashion.

Not sure why this post got some heat as if it's some kind of controversy to discuss sizing of clothing. I'm interested in clothing, sizing, fashion and shapes. It's also interesting to me to compare my lifestyle with my Mothers and think about health issues that may occur through a sedentary lifestyle. All valid concerns that changing clothing sizing highlights.

Primark sizing is scary. look at jumpers and tops and there are hardly any sizes 2XS/XS/S left, it's all M,L and XL.

Why? Because the 'smaller' sizes are bloody huge, they fit most of the population. I am no teeny tiny. BMI 23, boobs 34D. Yet 2XS frequently drowns me, especially if it's suposed to be a loose style.

But so what? Sizes like 8, 10, 14 are meaningless, because the numbers don't relate to anything. It's not like a 36 Central European size where it has some rough relation to the size in the bust.

They're not meaningless. People assess themselves against what size they wear. The would rather the label said 10 than 16 for no other reason that the number is smaller. The obesity crisis is real, even though there may be financial and time reasons why that is so. But if a size 2XS or XS fits you you're not gong to feel any reason to change.

Going by the stats given, an average UK woman had a BMI of 24.8 in the 1950s.
The recent stats for the average UK woman gives a BMI of 25.6.

So she's gone from 'normal' to 'overweight'. Not by anything like as much as the obesity catastrophisers would have it, but overweight all the same.

There's less than 1 point in it, though! There's hope for Ms Average yet!

I think you only have to watch old films from the fifties & sixties to see how much thinner people were then. You hardly ever used to see a fat person. My DM used to be forever on a diet as she thought she was overweight, she’d be about a size 14 now. In my late teens & twenties I weighed just under 7 stone & took a size 12 in clothes, this was the late sixties,early seventies.

Christ remind me not to visit Singapore!

The sizing table says 70 cm waist for size 10 but the actual trousers are 76 cm measured flat!

But the item has to have a larger width than the body, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get it on! If you measure 70 cm, your trousers need to have a bit more, same with tops regarding the measurement in the bust. Maybe not 6cm, but I don't know what the give is.

But I don't find size guides that give body sizes useful; garment measurements give a much better indication and don't rely on the manufacturer's undisclosed imaginings of fit. Sometimes the relation between supposed body size and item measurements is very strange. If the woman has a bust measurement of 36 inches, the top should be 18 inches across lying flat, but sometimes the manufacturers seem to think 15 or 16 inches across sufficient, despite the fact that this doesn't add up to the necessary circumference.

I remember struggling to do the waist up kn a size 16 pair of MandS jeans when I was at my adult thinnest at 9st age 18 in 1995.

Now I'm 3 stone heavier and doubt they'd git around one thigh

And I'm a 14 in m and s now

Strangely, I've always been a size 40 / 7shoe but lately I'm consistently finding them too tight especially on one foot. I haven't gained a significant amount of weight but can't figure out why this is.

Mid 80s I remember going into top shop or similar (Tammy Girl maybe?) and being horrified that i had to buy the largest size on the racks in there in a denim skirt. It was a 14 and i felt awful about it!

I was 5' 5'' and about 8 stone.

I'm still a 14 ... but a loooooong bloody way from 8 stone!

I've been a 7 (40) for 30 years, but about 10 years ago a 7 became a 41. Last year I found a 42 was a better fit, but only on one foot. Had to put a stretcher in the other.

I remember that several of my (really not fat) friends couldn’t shop in Top Shop back when were teenagers in the 90s, as they were tall and broad and TS sizes were clearly based on much smaller women. Plus it was that whole ‘heroin chic’ era.

Size and weight don’t necessarily correlate though. In the 90s I weighed just over 7 stone, wore a size 8 (or my mum’s size 10 clothes from the 70s). I was fit and muscular. Now I weigh less, but have lost my muscularity along with the weight, and those clothes are all too small for me around the waist, but too big on the hips / chest.

Also weight doesn’t necessarily equate to health. Nor does clothing size. You need to consider your height (I’m a titch), build (ditto), muscle mass, and overall activity level and diet. My mum is older than me (obvs!), and whilst we’re the same height she weighs more, wears a bigger clothes size etc, but she is a damned sight healthier and fitter than me!

Absolutely- I am a 12 in designer 90's fashion and an 8 in now days

@Laiste I swear that none of those shops allowed for the fact that post-puberty, girls have actual hips that actually go out!

True! I stressed about my blossoming hour glass figure back then.

I love how these days the ... how do we say ... 'generous bum' is so in fashion 😃

I guess nowadays when young women ask ''does my bum look big in this?'' they're hoping for a yes!

As to shoe size, my DH who knows about these things, says it’s because they are mostly made abroad these days & not just the far east but even Europe use a narrower last than the British ones did. So because they’re narrower you need to go up a size to be comfortable. I used to be a 3 :1/2 but am now a 4 :1/2 or even a 5 in some makes.

That’s interesting. My shoe size is 36, that’s 3 or 3.5 depending on the brand in the UK. It’s always been 36 since my feet stopped growing. That includes pregnancies when I obviously gained weight. A pair of shoes that’s too narrow for me is too narrow no matter what. I cannot size up in Unisa, for instance, because their shoes size 37 will be falling off my feet but still too narrow. I only size up my trail running shoes (4.5 in Innov8)

7 is always a difficult shoe size because some are 40 and some 41, I'm a 41 which is sometimes 7 or 7 and half or even sometimes 8. I usually just look for size 41.

Though in M&S I have a couple of their wider fit pairs and they are 6 and half, judging by the reviews everyone finds them big.