Author Topic: Women's sizing  (Read 3366 times)

Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #25 on: 17 August, 2021, 08:10:21 am »
I have always found it baffling that a woman's size is reduced to one number, as if they're all uniformly-proportioned.  Mind you, cycling kit in S/M/L is equally daft, especially when a UK or US M is two sizes bigger than an Italian M.
Through the angel rain, through the dust and the gasoline, through the cruelty of strangers, to the neon dream

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #26 on: 17 August, 2021, 09:01:58 am »
No, that just reflects the difference between the average UK and Italian. Or at least the perception.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #27 on: 17 August, 2021, 01:47:29 pm »
I have always found it baffling that a woman's size is reduced to one number, as if they're all uniformly-proportioned.

I suspect it has its origins in relatively shapeless dresses.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #28 on: 17 August, 2021, 02:02:10 pm »
I have always found it baffling that a woman's size is reduced to one number, as if they're all uniformly-proportioned.

I suspect it has its origins in relatively shapeless dresses.

Except "relatively shapeless dresses" have not been fashion in the west for nearly 800 years. Until relatively recently (in the grand scheme of things), clothes were not something one bought off the peg, but rather something that was made to measure by your wife, or by yourself. As fashion got more complicated and the technology evolved, printed patterns started to exist. But even here, in the first instances that was in the form of instructions on how to make a sloper. This is a fundamental building block that is used to make clothes, usually you have a skirt sloper and a bodice sloper. This would then be adapted to fit the individual. But it relied on the standardisation of a unit of measure, which really only started to happen at a national level in the 18th century.

The idea of clothes sizes has largely come about as a mixture of off the peg modernised production, and from war. Men's clothing could be relatively standardised as trousers and a shirt, that could be given to soldiers. In the napoleonic wars, the boots were not made as a left and a right, but were straight lasted in various sizes, and you would basically make your boots fit your feet by wearing them in. As the west exited the big international conflict of the 1940's, there was a mass increase in industrial clothing output, and a corresponding attempt to define sizes for people. There's some great research into this by various organisations, trying to find the average person. Only to discover it doesn't exist. So the sizes we get now are based a bit on guess work, a little bit of vitruvian man, and quite a bit of luck.

In theory a fit and healthy person should have the same ratio of chest to hips to waist. And large people are just the same ratios, but with bigger numbers. The reality is of course, that this is utter bollocks . Sizes are not standard, and noone is average, meaning that it's hard to work out what does fit.

What I don't quite get is how I can't goto a shop on say Oxford Street, or Leidseplien, I strip to my underwear and go into a booth, and it scans my body from all sides, makes a 3d model. I can then get dressed and wander into the main shop to talk to the helpful staff, who shows me on a tablet the things they have that would work well with my body shape. I can then pick the colours, and the styles, pay by card, and then 2-3 weeks later they arrive in the mail, custom made, to perfectly fit my body. The technology is all there. It just hasn't been made to happen by anyone yet...

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #29 on: 17 August, 2021, 02:10:16 pm »
Interesting.

Would you be happy to pay the slight premium for "custom" tailoring as oppose to the off the peg prices?   I suspect that the extra cost including packaging and individual shipping might well double the cost of clothing.

I'm getting annoyed at the moment as my gradual weight loss over the past two years has left me with trousers and shirts which are too big.  A shirt can be baggy but there is a tipping point for trousers where a bunched waistband under a belt becomes uncomfortable.

I was hoping to put off shopping for fair weather clothing until next year and just concern myself with my winter attire but this may prove difficult.  🤔

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #30 on: 17 August, 2021, 02:28:53 pm »
Interesting.

Would you be happy to pay the slight premium for "custom" tailoring as oppose to the off the peg prices?   I suspect that the extra cost including packaging and individual shipping might well double the cost of clothing.

Yes. But then a) I follow the teachings of Sam Vimes and b) I am at that stage of my life I'd rather spend a bit more on a skirt I can wear for 10 years, than have to go shopping every year...

However, your question makes some assumptions. While the stitching of clothing is still a manual process performed by humans, the cutting out is now at a point where it can be done by CNC. So in theory, when I place my order, a cut list is compiled, and the CAM software fires up the CNC machine to cut all the bits, they are bundled up and handed to the next stage. And from that point, it makes no difference, as long as you have a way to track the item, which could be just a barcode label. It would be more expensive than the fast fashion we get in many places, but it's hard to put value on good fit. And if it meant I had a shirt or a skirt that fits properly, and lasts, I'm happy to pay.

Quote
I'm getting annoyed at the moment as my gradual weight loss over the past two years has left me with trousers and shirts which are too big.  A shirt can be baggy but there is a tipping point for trousers where a bunched waistband under a belt becomes uncomfortable.

I was hoping to put off shopping for fair weather clothing until next year and just concern myself with my winter attire but this may prove difficult.  🤔

Autumn has already arrived here in .nl...

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

fboab

  • Getting fatter every day
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #31 on: 17 August, 2021, 03:14:03 pm »
Why don't you make your own?

I don't now but I used to. I didn't have a job outside the house then though. It's not an arcane art, it's fairly straightforward.
TSS is not Total Sex Score, Chris!

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #32 on: 17 August, 2021, 03:15:22 pm »
Why don't you make your own?

I don't now but I used to. I didn't have a job outside the house then though. It's not an arcane art, it's fairly straightforward.

I do, but it is slow, and I am time poor. I am happy to pay someone a descent amount for them to make something that fits me properly.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #33 on: 17 August, 2021, 03:20:35 pm »
I'd guess the standardized sizing and shaping of clothing, whether expresses as numbers from 2 to 22 or letters from S to L, originated at a time when it became increasingly difficult to go to a local tailor or a shop and increasingly easy to manufacture clothing in bulk in factories, and at a time when delivery came to be possible on a national scale. I'm thinking most of the catalogue mail order business of the American West in the nineteenth century. This created a large but dispersed market, far too remote to be addressable by shop-based retail and not necessarily having the skills or time for home sewing. At the same time, railways and post services meant they weren't totally disconnected from the manufacturing centres on the coasts. A standardized sizing system made it easier to order and both cheaper and quicker to manufacture.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

ravenbait

  • Someone's imaginary friend
  • Pudge controls the weather.
    • Someone's imaginary friend
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #34 on: 17 August, 2021, 03:29:16 pm »
Why don't you make your own?

I don't now but I used to. I didn't have a job outside the house then though. It's not an arcane art, it's fairly straightforward.

I am a creature of many talents. My expertise and ability in a relatively broad range of things is compensated for by some sort of eldritch anti-skill when it comes to fabric and sewing. It's like when they used to argue that there was such a thing as anti-psychic -- results lower than predicted by chance were also claimed as evidence of paranormal abilities. I am an anti-sewer. My utter inability to handle needle and thread is inadequately explained by simple incompetency. Simple incompetency would not involve one stitching a button to one's thigh.

Sam
https://ravenbait.com
"Created something? Hah! But that would be irresponsible! And unethical! I would never, ever make... more than one."

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #35 on: 17 August, 2021, 03:43:43 pm »
I am a creature of many talents. My expertise and ability in a relatively broad range of things is compensated for by some sort of eldritch anti-skill when it comes to fabric and sewing. It's like when they used to argue that there was such a thing as anti-psychic -- results lower than predicted by chance were also claimed as evidence of paranormal abilities. I am an anti-sewer. My utter inability to handle needle and thread is inadequately explained by simple incompetency. Simple incompetency would not involve one stitching a button to one's thigh.

I have made clothes for myself, and for others, including reasonably accurate recreations of medieval clothing. I have even made my own shoes. But it is very time intensive at the scale I am at.

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #36 on: 17 August, 2021, 05:27:44 pm »
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 :(

Shorts.

Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #37 on: 17 August, 2021, 05:32:41 pm »
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 :(

Shorts.

I regularly see short (29 inch in trousers and 30 in jeans), regular (31 inch in trousers and 32 in jeans) and long (33 inch in trousers and 34 in jeans).   

I have no clue as to why jeans are different to trousers but they seem to be.

I'm a regular guy.  😇

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #38 on: 17 August, 2021, 05:38:52 pm »
Maybe people are less inclined to fettle jeans?  I'm not sure, it doesn't seem significantly more difficult [unless you've broken all the appropriate needles again - Ed].

arabella

  • no se porque yo no lo se
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #39 on: 18 August, 2021, 12:39:43 pm »
I think that's it - fabric not compatible with domestic sewing machines.

Meanwhile, although the upside of making your own clothes is that they fit, the concommittant prerequisite is a pattern that's your actual size (see: rest of this thread) or the knowledge of how/where to adapt the pattern (yes, there are crib sheets and how-tos available).
After that you need the time and the space.  The subsequent advantage is you have some matching fabric for when the elbows wear through etc.
(I did make my own face masks from dead shirts)
In the dark, all views are the same.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #40 on: 18 August, 2021, 01:02:14 pm »
I don't see why the thicker fabric, making it difficult to turn up or let down jeans, means they are longer than other trousers. Puzzled.  ???
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Clare

  • Is in NZ
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #41 on: 18 August, 2021, 01:15:45 pm »
Denim seizes up more than some other fabrics so if you buy a pair of 33" leg jeans they will probably become 32" within the first three months of ownership.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Моя планета голубая, я люблю тебя и обнимаю
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #42 on: 18 August, 2021, 02:04:30 pm »
Of course! The old sit in the bath to become a supermodel trick. "Seizes up" is a new phrase to me  :thumbsup: (hope I haven't misunderstood it).
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Clare

  • Is in NZ
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #43 on: 18 August, 2021, 02:10:41 pm »
Yeah, shrink to fit was what they used to be called. That is why, back in the day before most fabrics got a bit of stretch added in, jeans wearers used to pull their jeans on standing up then lie down to do them up. With wear the seizing loosened to make jeans bearable (and nearly wearable) but that didn't apply to the length of the legs as there was nothing encouraging them to stretch out.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Women's sizing
« Reply #44 on: 23 October, 2021, 11:51:57 am »
If you can actually visit a branch of M&S, look at the labels.

Sizes given for   .ru clothing give a size range in cm for chest, waist, hip and height.

Such handy information is withheld from shoppers of other nationalities...