|
Vanity Sizing
|
Posted By:
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
May 16, 2005
|
Find you're getting smaller without losing weight?
<a href="http://www.wordspy.com/words/vanitysizing.asp" title="null">Vanity Sizing</a>
|
Comments
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 | 06:28 PM
Why doesn't that surprise me? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 07:48 AM
Not suprised in the least. I got a pattern to make a costume for myself one year, and I thought, Hmm, this should be about right. My mom had to figure out how to expand it by about 5 inches. I felt REALLY fat the whole time I had to wear it. |
Nettie
in Perth, Western Australia
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 08:07 AM
It's annoying when you want to buy clothes because you can never get the right size straight away. I vary by about three sizes because they aren't all the same. I just wish it was universal. |
Thomas Bailey
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 | 06:20 PM
I have read about BS-EN 13402, a new clothing size label calling for a pictogram and actual body measurements in centimeters. This is done mainly to deal with the multiple size number designations throughout Europe. I have been ready for this since 1983, when I began recording my body measurements in centimeters. This new standard was drafted in late 2003/early 2004. I was ready for this 20 years earlier. You can see my growth chart at<a href="BayAreaBiker1.blogspot.com">Growth chart</a> |
Thomas Bailey
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 06:40 PM
You can see my <a href="http://BayAreaBiker1.blogspot.com">Growth Chart in metric</a> This goes back to 1980, that's 25 years. |
Lisa
|
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 | 01:15 PM
i figured this out recently when i pulled out a pair of pants from the attic sized 7. i had bought these in 1995 and saved them. since then been through a couple pregnancies and finally lost all the weight (over 75 pounds) and can now fit in "today's" size 4 (size 2 in some stores). i knew something was way off when the ones in the attic which were 7's fit me fine like the new one's i just got that are a size 4. back in the early 90's when i was so weight concious i was never able to squeeze into anything smaller than a 5 and my weight was less then than it is now! |
Mary
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 | 05:28 PM
Lisa I too have a pair of size 7 jeans that i bought in the mid 1990's. They fit like a charm. When I go to buy jeans now I usually have to get a 2 or 4. If you are ever in a resale shop or thrift store, check out a soze 0 or 2 from the early 1990's, and they are absolutely tiny. Back then you had to be under 100lbs or just at to fit these sizes. I have read that what was a size 12 in the 1950's would be a size 6 now. Anyone know when sizes such as 0 and 3 started to show up? |
Lisa
|
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 | 02:39 PM
yes mary i know what you mean! actually those 7's from the attic are a bit big now, but not too big that i cant wear them. i am 5'5" and currently around 111-112. like i said in my previous post, even at my lowest weight in the early 90's of 104, i was NOT able to fit into anything smaller than a 5. (i wore junior sizes then) finally i decided my bone structure (wide hips, large frame) would just never allow me to squeeze into anything smaller. i will never forget the first time i went out to buy jeans after having lost all this weight.(was so used to being fat, i was still in the "fat" frame of mind)i told the girl who was waiting on me in the gap store that i was too fat for their clothes and she laughed and said, "your smaller than me! i wish i could fit in a size 2!" some people are saying there is no such thing as "vanity sizing", that sizes have just evolved like people do and that we are just noticing it because it happened within the span of our lifetime. well what the heck am i supposed to do when it happens again? buy my clothes from the childrens department? they are going to have to start making smaller sizes than 0 and 00 to accomodate us folks! |
mary
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 | 10:41 PM
Vanity sizing makes me hate shopping, simply because I have to try everything on. I recently made a trip to target for some new pants. I tried on three sizes, a 3, 5, 7. I could not even pull the 3's up, the 5's would not zip, but the 7 fit well. the pants wee made in veitnem, but are from a british designer. The sizes ran pretty close to those of a few years back. Also I read about a woman with a vintage shop who frequently cuts the tags out of the vintage clothes she sells because the sizing was so different. |
Thomas Bailey
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 | 04:41 PM
I think the reason why men have logical clothing sizes and women have illogical sizes is due to the place of manufacture before the 1920's. Men's clothes were made by tailors working from actual measurements. The sizing scheme was developed in preparation of the Civil War, when soldiers needed uniforms. The obvious way to label the sizes is with actual measurements. Women's clothes were originally made by seamstresses working from graded patterns. These patterns were developed somewhat later. Each country had its own size numbering pattern due to limited international trade. Today, products routinely cross national borders. BS-EN-13402 was drafted to deal with this. Parts 1 and 2 are already established and can be applied to existing products either at the distributor or at the point of sale. Part 3 is being drafted, and part 4, which calls for a 4-digit code, needs to be worked on. |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
