Confused about sizes? Maybe you can help?
 

So, the W on plus sizes has me confused. I fit into a pair of 16 W jeans (major YAY!) but then a pair that was a size 16 without the W was w-a-y too small. How does the order of sizes go? I have seen "W" sizes as low as 14. I assumed it was 14, 14W, 16, 16W, 18, 18W, etc., but now I am wondering if it goes more like 14, 16, 14W, 18, 16 W, 18 W, 20.

Do any of you know the answer? :?:

Hi, doesn't W stand for Wide?

I always thought that the W stood for "Women" on clothes and "Wide" for shoes . . . I imagine that a lot of people would find it rude if it meant "wide" for clothes. :lol:

I'm afraid I don't have the answer of what order the sizes go, I've always just figured that without the "W" or "X" the sizes were considered "juniors" or "misses" while the added letter implied the larger "women" sizes, which would put them in a whole different category.

I thought the W was for women or "more curves" more space in the rear and thighs

Oooh, my favorite rant! :devil: LOL! No, I can't help you at all!

There seems to be some kind of major disconnect between regular sizes and women's sizes. I'm ALMOST out of the nightmare! Your description "14, 16, 14W, 18, 16 W, 18 W, 20" is pretty much exactly the way they fit me. I haven't ever tried on a 14 W though. I've just suffered through from 18 to 16 which is a huge leap. 18's come off easily while buttoned yet 16's are still a bit obscene in public.

The "W" sizes are supposed to be more generous in the thighs and hips. But where they fit along the continuum, I have no idea!

There is no size continuity. Ever. I have tried two pairs of pants in the same style in the same size from Old Navy and had one too big and one too small. WTF? I just try stuff on in the range of sizes that I am and hope for the best, ha.

Generally a 16W is more like a regular size 18. A 14W is like a regular 16. Why they do that, I don't know!

As for the W meaning "Wide"? That cracked me up! :rofl:

Here I thought it stood for Whoops.....as in Whoops, how did you let yourself get here!! LOL!!

As someone who is shaped more straight up and down, I can vouch the W (meaning "women's sizing") is cut more generously in the hips, butt and legs than misses sizes. So while a rough estimate might put a 16W somewhere around a misses size 18, it's still going to vary based on your body shape, and the 16W is cut for women who are more pear shaped.

the W is supposed to be for women's, but I have always thought of it as wide. I think the order the sizes go in depends on the mood of the manufacturers when they run that particular set of items through the factories.

I'm glad to know it isn't just me who's always mentally thought of that 'W' size designation as meaning 'wide.'

Other than that, I got nothin'. Sizing is inconsistent and maddening.

I like the companies that are starting to size women't clothing the same way men's is done. My husband can go buy a 32-32 and know they will fit. I hope eventually all the women's clothes are like that too.

I track my measurements against a chart from Lands End, and noted that 16W (their smallest W size) is 1/2 inch smaller in bust, waist, and hips than their standard size 18 (their largest standard). The 18 and the 18W are 1-1/2 inches different for each of the three areas.

I can't figure them out either lol I know that I can't wear the same in Women's as in Misses. They are different.

I always wondered what the 'W' meant! We don't have it here in the UK, and our sizes are all one bigger than in the US, so a UK 24 is a US 22. It is silly, but that makes shopping in the US just a little bit less painful (the label says 22! I must be skinnier over here!). On my last trip, I was in Lane Bryant (which, btw, rocks compared to the equivalent in the UK) and the sales assistants convinced me to get jeans one size smaller again, because it's a wide cut, and so I am now the proud owner of a single pair of size 20 jeans!!! (when I am a 'real' ie UK size 20 I will be skipping in the streets!!!)

Ws fit me better than misses because my waist is disproportionately small in comparison to the rest of me, small waist, big everything else. A 14W is now too big though...I am kind of SOL. :)

Oh boy! I hear you on the size thing. With the 14s and 16s having regular and women's or plus sizes it adds to the length of time you can spend wearing either particular size number. It seems sizes 0-12 (I've never worn a zero so I am guessing here.) work in a consistent increment. Then sizes 14-20 seem to have both regular and women's versions which leads to inconsistency due to multiple versions of the same sizes. A short term goal of mine has been to get into 12s so I can escape the madness. However, I got a catalogue in the mail yesterday advertising clothing starting at 12 women's size and up, so it looks like I may have to wait until size 10 to escape.

I'm the complete opposite of you; I'd be wearing much smaller sizes than I do now if my stomach wasn't so proportionally bigger than the rest of me, lol. Like when I buy jeans, it's pretty impossible to find something that buttons over my waist unless I'm swimming in the rest of it. :dizzy: I hope that my stomach will shrink proportionally with the rest of me as I lose more weight. :)

Sirenity - I am like you if it wasn't for the waist size I would wear much smaller size. For my work jeans I usually buy the mens then I just fit it at the waist and I don't have all the extra bag around the hips and thighs because they are cut straight instead of curved.

You know, I'd totally forgotten that the last time I was around the size I am now (it's been a few years) that I'd venture into the men's section to look at jeans and track pants. Maybe I should venture forth yet again!