Women's sizing

[ravenbait]

I have often said that sizing on women's clothes is a Kafkaesque nightmare of absurdity and caprice. It was somewhat explained when I discovered that sizes relate merely to position in the range produced by that manufacturer and have no objective measurement at all. That said, this particular size guide reaches new depths of derangement:

Sizing and Fit
Danniella is 5ft 10" with a 34" inseam and wears a size small. Mercy is 5ft6" with a 26" waist, 41" hips and wears a size 12. True to size, fit to waist.

Sam

[Kim]

That's, erm, no.

[Mrs Pingu]

OTOH it's probably a good thing that different places sizes are different as if they were all standardized all clothes everywhere would only fit a small subset of the population.
At least now most people have the potential to find something that fits them from somewhere...

[nicknack]

I'm not sure the sizing of men's clothes is much better.

[ravenbait]

I'm pretty sure that using "small" and "12" for the same item of clothing (are these different sizes? the same? who knows!), and using different, non-comparable measurements of the models in each as illustration, is less logical than the sizing of any item of man's clothing.

Sam

[Cudzoziemiec]

The sizing of men's clothes does at least relate to actual bodily measurements – waist, chest, legs – in everyday units such as inches and centimetres. There's a great deal of lying in what the manufacturers say, usually in the direction of vanity (if your trousers say 32, the tape measure probably says 35) but there is at least a underlying relationship to the human body, in contrast to the abstract unitless dress sizes. Unless, of course, it's just S, M, L etc, which it so often is.

But the fact that they can say

True to size, fit to waist

even if it is true, indicates that contact with reality is decreasingly expected.

[Regulator]

The sizing of men's clothes does at least relate to actual bodily measurements – waist, chest, legs – in everyday units such as inches and centimetres. There's a great deal of lying in what the manufacturers say, usually in the direction of vanity (if your trousers say 32, the tape measure probably says 35) but there is at least a underlying relationship to the human body, in contrast to the abstract unitless dress sizes. Unless, of course, it's just S, M, L etc, which it so often is.

But the fact that they can say

True to size, fit to waist

even if it is true, indicates that contact with reality is decreasingly expected.

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing.  Both can be found measured in a multitude of ways, without any consistency between manufacturers - or even within some manufacturers. 

We supposedly have some uniformity in shoes - but even that is highly hit and miss.

[Kim]

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing.

Pockets.

[Mr Larrington]

Last time I was in there I stood in front of the changing room mirror in some ruffly blue number that made me look like a sinister, aged, very large doll and suddenly wondered WTF I was doing there. Their sizes range doesn't seem to extend past a ten, IIRC, and queuing with 300 stick thin fourteen year olds made me feel like a sad old wreck.

This is because they only stock clothes in a children's "age 13" size.  Although they reckon they have a variety of sizes, the measurements in the shoulders, bust and hips are exactly the same, and the only difference between a Topshop size 10 and a Topshop size 16 is more room in the tummy.

So your choices are:

Size 6  (translation:  aged 13 and not hit puberty)

Size 8 (translation:  aged 13 and not eating)

Size 10 (translation:  aged 13)

Size 12 (translation:  aged 13 and hit puberty last week)

Size 14 (translation:  aged 13 and a childhood obesity crisis)

Size 16 (translation:  aged 13 and heavily pregnant)

None of these do me any favours...

[Clare]

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing.

Pockets.

This, totally but also quality of fabric used.

[Butterfly]

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing.

Pockets.

This, totally but also quality of fabric used.

With children's clothes:

'Boys' = over-engineered to the point that they take 3 days to dry, available in black, grey, navy, brown or taupe. Shoes available in black.

'Girls' = thin, flimsy, available in pink or mauve, no pockets or pretend pockets, cut to the size below the equivalent 'boys' garment despite there being no difference in size for boys and girls, itchy lace. Shoes with no grip, only available in narrower sizes and mostly open topped, so hopeless in rain etc.

[Regulator]

Sorry - there was a word missing.  It should have read:

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing sizing.

[ian]

Mens' clothes are pretty random. I'm short and skinny, there's no pair of trousers in general population that fits. I take small shirts, which is sometimes ok, but the last couple I bought are too tight around the shoulders (probably because I have swimming shoulders), and medium look like I'm wearing a tent.

It's almost like we're all sorts of weird shapes.

[Polar Bear]

Size labelling across the industry is shite but it worked mainly because folk got used to differences across brands and ranges but also could go into shops.  With lockxown and online shopping the "try before you buy" element has gone so instead people either simply buy what they had before because it fitted or they buy a range of sizes and return most / all of it because it doesn't fit.

I thought that I was safe sticking to one brand but oicking from a different range.  Nope.  No consistency whatsoever.

[mrcharly-YHT]

There's no real difference between between the shittiness of men's and women's clothing.

Pockets.

The 'wear this dress for 100days' dress that my wife bought has pockets!

Two of them, big enough to take a modern smartphone!

Shocking, isn't it.

[ravenbait]

My point was the preposterousness of the original quote:

Sizing and Fit
Danniella is 5ft 10" with a 34" inseam and wears a size small. Mercy is 5ft6" with a 26" waist, 41" hips and wears a size 12. True to size, fit to waist.

Inconsistent units.
Two sets of different, therefore non-comparable measurements.
For the same item.

Sam

[Jasmine]

Looking at general size guide on their website, it appears that they are attempting to move from small/medium/large sizing to women's dress sizes. There's a table with "old size - new size" in the main guide. They would have been better off removing the meaningless rubbish and just linking to the actual sizing chart.

The listing about Daniella doesn't appear to tell us anything at all about the sizing of the clothes - we know how tall she is, and her inside leg measurement. How on earth do we infer any sort of width size from that?

To be honest, this is the sort of shit that would make me just look somewhere else.

[Cudzoziemiec]

My point was the preposterousness of the original quote:

Sizing and Fit
Danniella is 5ft 10" with a 34" inseam and wears a size small. Mercy is 5ft6" with a 26" waist, 41" hips and wears a size 12. True to size, fit to waist.

Inconsistent units.
Two sets of different, therefore non-comparable measurements.
For the same item.

Sam

That was an actual quote from the website? I'd thought you'd mashed bits together for illustration, precisely because it's too silly.

I can't see the inconsistent units though, only feeterninches. Are you considering "small" and "size 12" as units? I thought the whole point of them is that they are unitless.

[arabella]

I fell of my chair reading the thread title.  There is no such thing.  Fortunately I like my clothes baggy and buy new stuff so rarely that I pay no attention.  Generally I rely on 2nd hand and hand-me-downs, I start with no expectation of fit and so ain't ever disappointed.

Family tradition is to buy secondary school uniform with room for growth, whereat child stops growing...

As I've said already, I've given up on women's trousers as they don't fit.  Men's trousers don't fit either but they do have pockets.  Sadly the pockets need mending after a few months of wear, but better than no pockets.

It used to be sizing was based on some mythical 1950's average persons.  Since when labour saving devices have proliferated and we've all become rounder, flabbier and less muscly [speak for yourself - ed].

(Goes back to wondering whether 1970 knitting pattern neck will make it over my big head.  Photo does show snug fit.)

[ravenbait]

My point was the preposterousness of the original quote:

Sizing and Fit
Danniella is 5ft 10" with a 34" inseam and wears a size small. Mercy is 5ft6" with a 26" waist, 41" hips and wears a size 12. True to size, fit to waist.

Inconsistent units.
Two sets of different, therefore non-comparable measurements.
For the same item.

Sam

That was an actual quote from the website? I'd thought you'd mashed bits together for illustration, precisely because it's too silly.

I can't see the inconsistent units though, only feeterninches. Are you considering "small" and "size 12" as units? I thought the whole point of them is that they are unitless.

It was a direct quote.

Some women's clothes come in XS-S-M-L-XL-XXL etc.

Some women's clothes come in numeric sizes that are basically the number of the template used. Usually 8-22 in increments of 2.

These two series of size labels bear little resemblance to one another, although some manufacturers would have you believe that L is 14-16 or whatever. Both require you to look at the size chart and determine where on their particular scale for this particular garment your various measurements might fit. This is more arcane wizardry and luck than maths.

It is normal to expect them to use one or the other for a specific garment.

Sam

[Morat]

Why do Men's trousers come in two leg lengths? Usually Regular and Long.
Regular being about 30" and Long being 34"
There are sometimes extra long options at 36" but that doesn't help someone with a 35" inseam a huge amount

If there's a joke about Odd Sizes in there, I'm too grumpy to make it

[Kim]

Surely you can shorten the extra long ones, if you can find them...

[cygnet]

Why do Men's trousers come in two leg lengths? Usually Regular and Long.
Regular being about 30" and Long being 34"
There are sometimes extra long options at 36" but that doesn't help someone with a 35" inseam a huge amount

If there's a joke about Odd Sizes in there, I'm too grumpy to make it

Free yourself from Victorian values and shown a little bit of ankle. 

[Jaded]

What is  "inseam"?

[Mr Larrington]

Why do Men's trousers come in two leg lengths? Usually Regular and Long.
Regular being about 30" and Long being 34"
There are sometimes extra long options at 36" but that doesn't help someone with a 35" inseam a huge amount

If there's a joke about Odd Sizes in there, I'm too grumpy to make it

IIRC some of Prentice's distant cousins in Iain Banks' “The Crow Road” made their fortune from making jeans with odd-length legs.