Is 'vanity sizing' getting worse?

[LaburnumGrove]

Years ago I was a 10 and my wedding dress was a 10 (very fitted waist) and my waist was 24 inches.

We all know that has changed and some 10s now are 28 inch waist.

But what about tops too?

I've noticed that more and more tops (T shirts etc) are available in a size 6 which was very unusual before.

I'm usually an 8 now in many clothes but some tops I'm verging on needing a 6. I'm petite and 32D bust but size 6 hardly ever existed in most brands years ago.

Wedding dresses have always had different sizing - they come up very small.

I'm a 90s 8 and I can't find clothes in shops that fit me any more! It's a nightmare, so now I only buy vintage. I was over the moon when I bought a vintage dress recently and it fit like a glove. I hate vanity sizing.

It most certainly was. It was fairly recently that I got rid of some jeans I had from Topshop that were that size from when I was 18/19. I got married at 27 and my 25.5" waist needed a size 8, which is consistent with a 10 being 28".

That's not exactly about vanity sizing. More that your size is no longer a large enough demographic for most retailers to cater for.

it does matter if you’re a true size 6 and everything drowns you.

I bought a vintage skirt (St Michael which was M&S clothing). It's marked large, waist 26". I don't know what a large waist size is now but I do know that it's not 26"

When I was a teenager my waist was 22" and that wasn't unusual. I was a size 10.

I'm going back to before you were alive !

In the 1970s -early 1980s, a 24 inch waist was a size 10.
I had dress patterns from that era which show sizes and measurements.

You can't make a call on this by one pair of trousers from Top Shop.

Then you buy a modern 2 or 4. If they don't exist, it's per my previous post about retailers catering only to the majority. Unfortunate for many.

I mean, if you go back 50 years in a huge variety of products, things will have changed, yes

Oh great, it's the weekly "Let's make women feel shit about themselves and their size" thread. These are always catnip to people with disordered eating because it allows them to reassure themselves that they're not really too thin at size 6, it's just everyone else that's too fat. "Vanity sizing" has such a nasty, sneering undertone too, like "Look at all these vain fatties thinking they're slim because they can get into a size 10 when back in the 70s they would have been a 20 and nobody would have even made clothes to fit them".

And before anyone accuses me of having a chip on my (fat) shoulder I'm currently significantly underweight due to an eating disorder, and I can find clothes to fit me just fine. I'm usually a 6, but sometimes an 8, depending on the shop. So I'm afraid I simply don't believe these people who claim that they're perfectly normal-sized but all the clothes on the high street are somehow swamping them and driving them to the children's section. I think it's just a way of announcing that they are The Thinnest.

Btw, I don't expect clothes manufacturers to base their standard sizing around my abnormal proportions because if they did that they would go bankrupt. They have to make clothes that the majority of women will be able to wear so anyone who is an outlier at either end of the spectrum is going to find it harder to buy anything. That's just the way the market economy works, it's got nothing to do with "vanity". But as it happens, I can still shop from standard ranges without much of a problem, especially in European brands like Mango, H&M and Zara. Maybe look there if you're really struggling.

Also, brands aimed at middle-aged women have always come up much bigger than those aimed at a younger market.

I really don't see why this is bothering people. Surely you either just try clothes on in the shop or go by the measurement charts on line? Whatever fits is the size you are who cares what you used to be or might have been in the 1950s!

Also maybe it's vanity sizing but women have gotten bigger over the decades. Meaning taller and wider, not just fatter. So today's small will naturally be larger then a small from decades ago.

I don’t think it is bothering anyone. It just makes a bit of a nonsense of sizing when each shop differs from another. I bought a pair of size 10 Hobbs trousers and found the waist measured 30” - ridiculous in my view.

I find it interesting to see just how big people have become in my own lifetime. It has happened relatively recently too. Most shops used to go from sizes 10 to 18. Now I’ve seen size 32 on the rail.

I still have a size 12 skirt from the 1970s which clearly states it’s a 24 inch waist. I can wear it again now all my current skirts are size 6/8!!

I was a teen in the 80s and had the same thing. My teeny friend was an 8 and not all shops had them. She really was petite and 6.5 stone!

Which rail? Size 32 is clearly not a mainstream size even now

Right!! I can be a size 8 in some shops but a 14 in others!! Madness.

I think lack of consistency in sizing is a whole other issue TBH. Although it's more frustrating when it happens in the same brand, esp when it's really crazy.
For example I recently bought some packs of knicks from the same brand in the same size and somehow the black ones are significantly smaller then the nude ones!🤔

Not just one pair but nevermind.

Totally agree. I’ve put on weight recently and am now the same weight I was in the mid 1990’s. In 1995, I had to wear a size 18 (bordering on 20 at times). I’m now a size 14, and can still squeeze into a lot of size 12.

I made my own clothes for years and the patterns had sizes on them for how much material you bought and cut the fabric.That was more the point - and further back than you experienced.

My very beautiful (fat or thin) late mother used to say ' leave in the label you like. Cut the others out'.

Misses the point!

Not really. She ment all sizes vary. Why get upset about it.

My waist is 24 inches, I’m taking in size 4 clothes if they are fitted trousers. Mostly I’m sticking to tie waist trousers as it’s easier.