Originally Posted by berryblondeboys (Post 4247010)

I can be your comparison right here - you are 40-30-39. I am 40-31-41. Pretty close, right? I wear a 8-10 in Calvin Klein - mostly 10 while you are wearing a 4? We have very little difference in measurements - but... your underbust is 28", mine is 34". You say your girth in your bottom is your butt (which whould mean smaller size) and mine is in my hips and gut (I have a flat butt). So, two girls - weighing about 12 pounds different of similar height and very similar measurements at first glance wear drastically different sizes - all by how our bodies are shaped - how our bones are shaped and where our fat lies.

Originally Posted by berryblondeboys (Post 4246955)

But see, this is what gets me. I read the article that Kaplods is getting her info from and it makes sense - to a point.

I mean, I can understand wanting to make 10 the middle size, but it doesn't work and here's why.

Let's say when the started they made sizes 0-20 with 10 being the average sized woman. And they got this number in 1940. Well, people's nutrition got better. People grew taller. People got more fit, etc and so the sizes creeped up a bit - so now there is a 0-20 and what used to be a 10 is now an 8. The changes in sizes isn't so drastic that they still can have a 0-20 range. Then maybe seeing an untapped market of plus sized people and seeing growing numbers of plus size people, they start making sizes to 26. OK fine.

I'm making this up, but bear with me.

So, people start getting fatter in general. More and more people are needing sizes in 20 and up. So, the designer decides to start expanding their line to accomodate the increasing numbers of plus sized people. Well.... there are still tiny little skinny people. It's not like EVERYONE got fat!

So what happens to the 0 size if the designer decides to shift the rest of the sizes to the left? It becomes a 00. and the new 10 is what used to be a 14.
But can you keep making that shift and WHY????

Wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to just add sizes instead of creating 00s? Kaplods mentioned the average size now is a 14 so it's about time for another shift, but how can they do that? A 00 becomes a 0000? So now our sizes go 0000-30? Wouldn't it make more sense to be 0-36 or so?

And while people can claim it's not vanity sizing - it is. And it is because the designers are playing mind games with us. There is no big announcement saying "Attention everyone - starting today your size 10 dress will now be a size 8!!!) No, the sneakily change it and then if we gainers (which is the majority of Americans, unfortunately) don't really notice that the 10s from before are smaller than the 10s now. We are just happy to be buying a size 10.

And it remains super confusing. I do a lot of searching at consignment shops while on this weight loss journey. One of the designers I like is Talbots. Back in the early 90s I found their sizes ran small. Where I could wear an 18 elsewhere, I needed their 20. Then somewhere along the line they changed - a lot. Now I can wear their 8 when I wear a 10 most other places. In my closet I have a size 16 wool skirt by LLbean. Now I wear a 10 LLbean - so, one day I can be wearing the 17 year old size 16 skirt and next day wear their current day size 10 skirt. So, at these consignment shops I have to eyeball things to get an idea if these are OLD sizes or new sizes - by the same designer. Just last week I grabbed a bunch of size 14 dresses from Talbots at the consignment shop - hoping these were there 'old sizes', but alas, they were too big.

So, it's confusing, it means we need to go to negative sizes practically for the really tiny girls and it allows us to be comfortable with our expanding waistline because we wear the same size as always.

That "I" at 172 pounds can wear anywhere from a 6-12 in clothes (mostly 10s) is ridiculous. I have a large frame. I'm not at my ideal weight and I'm wearing a 10. Two decades ago I was wearing a 16 which was the end of the regular sizes and beginning of the plus sizes. Now I'm nowhere near the plus size line - yet I have the same weight and shape as then. So, I think there is vanity stuff going on. Designers aren't saying it like it is - MOST of us are plus size. Sure, the average might be higher than ever and they should design for who's out there, but we all should get real and realize that MOST of us are plus size and could use to lose some weight.

Originally Posted by berryblondeboys (Post 4246955)

But see, this is what gets me. I read the article that Kaplods is getting her info from and it makes sense - to a point...

Wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to just add sizes instead of creating 00s? Kaplods mentioned the average size now is a 14 so it's about time for another shift, but how can they do that? A 00 becomes a 0000? So now our sizes go 0000-30? Wouldn't it make more sense to be 0-36 or so?

.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247184)

You see some of that in jeans now, with cuts to fit different shapes. I love Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant's "Right Fit" Jeans that came in three lengths, three colors (indicating body shape) and a range of sizes from 1 to 9.

That means there were 81 different "sizes."

I was a blue 8 (now a blue 7) in the average length. Blue was for "curvy" (pear shaped) women.

Unfortunatley I've heard that they've discontinuing the line, so I'll be hunting for them at Goodwill and other thrift stores (found my first thrift store pair a couple months ago).

Originally Posted by runningfromfat (Post 4247193)

That's really strange that they're dicontinuing that line! If anything I've seen manufacturers moving more towards extra sizes (Levi's Curve Id jeans, for instance, seem to be doing well). Also, in tops BiuBiu, Aj Rumina, Carissa Rose, Campbell and Kate shirts, Pepperberry and others all have two sizes (bust and waist) and all seem to be doing quite well.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247214)

They're supposedly coming out with a similar line, but they've renamed it and the numbering system is no longer going to be 1 through 9, but rather standard misses sizes (such as 12 through 28).

It's supposed to be "less confusing," because the sizes are consistent with the other clothing sizes in the store, but I had just gotten used to the RightFit system, and there's no gurantee that the new sizes will fit the same way.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247184)

The sizes wouldn't "shift" because the recalibration was supposed to be calculated just like the first ones were - by normal distribution - that is a bell curve. Think of it like grading on the curve in school. When you grade on the curve, the highest score is assigned an A and the losest score is assigned an F, and 50% of the scores (if you're following a true bell curve) should be assigned a C. You don't have to add a grade higher than A or a grade lower than F, you just adjust the grades to fit the curve.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247184)

That IS confusing, and when I said we're "overdue" for a new resizing, I didn't mean it literally. I meant it in the sense that we would be overdue, if sizes were being implemented the way they were originally intended to be.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247184)

And I think the fault lies in lack of foresight. The creators of the system did not realize how much the female figure would change (even among the thinnest women our bust sizes are a full cup or more larger than they were in the 40's), nor did they have any plan for implementing and communicating future changes.

Again, just another way the "system" that was created has been a failure from the very start.

Another aspect of sizing that the original creators didn't account for, is the whole "ready-to-wear" concept. It was generally assumed that women would continue to have their clothing altered, so getting clothes to fit every woman well without the need for alterations was never part of the original goal. The focus was more on creating a garment that could easily be altered (the measurements were always meant to be guidelines for purchase, not guarantees that the garment would fit everyone "off-the-rack."

A good part of the confusion arises because we're using sizes in a way that was never intended. If we want ready-to-wear, no-alterations-needed clothing, we need a lot more sizes than we have, because we have to accomodate more shapes.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247184)

You see some of that in jeans now, with cuts to fit different shapes. I love Fashion Bug and Lane Bryant's "Right Fit" Jeans that came in three lengths, three colors (indicating body shape) and a range of sizes from 1 to 9.

That means there were 81 different "sizes."

I was a blue 8 (now a blue 7) in the average length. Blue was for "curvy" (pear shaped) women.

Unfortunatley I've heard that they've discontinuing the line, so I'll be hunting for them at Goodwill and other thrift stores (found my first thrift store pair a couple months ago).

Originally Posted by berryblondeboys (Post 4247334)

Hmm... I thought the article I read said that they came up with these sizes for the ready to wear items. But I could be totally wrong and of coruse I didn't bookmark that article as per usual me.

Originally Posted by kaplods (Post 4247530)

I was using "ready to wear" in a slightly different context than it was being used "back then."

"Ready to wear" didn't mean that the clothes wouldn't need to be altered (it still doesn't really man that today. If you're very short, or have other figure issues you may have to have your clothing altered to fit properly). Ready to wear meant (and I guess still technically does) that the clothing was mass produced and made without a specific person in mind. That is, the opposite of "tailor made for a single individual person."

The mass produced clothing was called ready-to-wear, even though the hems of skirt, slacks, blouses and sleeve cuffs were often unfinished. So technically, some weren't quite so much "ready to wear" as "ready to try on." Even when more and more of the garments were completely finished and were therefore more literally ready-to-wear (but only if you just happened to fit perfectly into the manufacturer's size), most reputable department stores (not just the higher-end ones) offerred free alterations (or mor accurately, it ws figured in to the purchase price of the garment).

For some reason (maybe because they assumed most women could do the alterations themselves) department stores stopped offering free alterations for women's clothing but continued to offer free alterations for men (and in fact, some still do).