found this article just now while trying to wade through all the confusing information about clothing sizes and size conversions that is out there

http://www.rodcollins.com/wordpress/...ze-am-i-really

OMG how deceptive! Now I am gonna start wondering when I drop a size if the brand has made it bigger.

This proves that bmi and waist measurements are much more important.

Oh this is pretty worrying. Though I guess when trying to lose weight if you go DOWN clothe sizes it's still a weight loss and you can still measure weight loss that way. If I'm wearing a 'larger' 14 and go down to a 'larger' 12 im still down a size...

Ah now that's rubbish. I've been making clothes for years and of course, if you were making a certain size something for say a 30" waist, if you lay it out and measure it, it will be a good couple of inches (or even more, depending on the cut/style) bigger - always has been. Why? Because of ease. If you made it precisely 30" waist it wouldn't fit/be comfortable.

And when my waist has been the same size as her's (and she's claiming to buy size 10 trousers) I might well need a 16. So dunno where she gets that from. If anything I've often found clothes (esp jeans) to be much smaller than the label size - a few years back, I was a size 10-12 according to measurements (26" waist I remember but forget my hips - maybe something like 37") but could only ever get in size 14 jeans, although I wore size 10-12 everything else, with ease. And it's always been that way for me! So not sure where she gets that from. I've NEVER found them to be cut too generously.

That said, I've noticed supermarket brand clothes are usually huge for the stated size - I'm always a size down from my 'real' (ie: measurement) size in Tescos.

Nother reason that's all hogwash - I just checked my measurements against her table of'real' sizes - and according to her I'm a perfect size 12. That's a load of rowlocks. I'm actually a BIG 14. And buying a big 14. No manufacturer is flattering me I'm a 12, at my current measurements. So where on earth does she get that from?

As for her point about men - again, it's a load of rubbish. Have you ever seen a man measure himself? They measure UNDER the gut, not round the waist. They also wear trousers under the beer gut. (Except Simon Cowell). So they don;t know their waist size anyway, do they? They buy what fits under their belly, not what goes over it, like women. If they're at risk of something, their own fault for being vain not manufacturers' fault, surely?

LOL - vanity sizing is very real. I have clothes from 10 and 20 years ago and they are a size 10 and 12 respectively. Now - they equate to a size 6.

Ironically, I have started sewing again, and patterns haven't been vanity sized. I wear either a 10 or 12 pattern garment. This trend can also be seen in bridal shops where dresses are made to order. Most women will wear a much larger size (similar to the sizes of 10-20 years ago).

I have learned to not get hung up on sizes. I take a tape measure with me wherever I shop in stores where I can't try on the garment. I buy a lot of vintage clothing, so sizes can't be trusted. The tape never lies

My niece and I sometimes buy vintage clothes - and we noticed a lot of 60s and 70s dresses are much more sensibly sized as they will just have a bust measurement on the label, so you were buying a 34" or a 36" or whatever, rather than a 12 or 14. Now that makes more sense to me, as a way of sizing something.

Also my niece often wears things a good size or two down from her 'real' size in vintage, although generally the sizes are meant to have gone up - but that said, the original sizes were based on a 1940's ideal and women have changed a lot in the past 60 years so it might be reasonable to up the sizes anyway?

The way they sell vintage clothes on ebay is good because they often give you the actual measurement of something 'across'.

I think we should revert to selling things on the measurements but I spose the problem with that is, people my age still think in inches (although i was taught metric as well as imperial, right from infant school, I still automatically think in imperial!) and younger people only know metric. So saying something is 98cm means booger all to me, and saying something is 34" might mean booger all to someone younger!

I'm an American and I'm all for the metric system. When the mechanic I'm working with wants a socket, it is so much easier for him to ask for a 10 and for me to know that it is 1 size larger that the 9 I have in my hand. I really hate it when he asks for a 5/8 and have to calculate that it is 1 size larger than the 1/2" I'm holding. OMG my head hurts.

BTW. When we are setting road grade, we use "engineer's measure". That means it is calculated on 10ths of a foot(12 inches). WHAT THE HECK IS THAT ABOUT. Either go metric or don't, but this half way BS is for the birds. I graduated from high school in 1985 and this discussion was back and forth, so I had to learn both.

METRIC IS BETTER AND EASIER FOLKS!!! Any dumb a** can calculate by 10ths. Even the douche's at the fast food restaurants can do it. You just have to move the damned decimal point.

Can we please get over our Americentric attitude and admit the Europeans got it right with the metric system and move on.

I agree with PhatPhoenix having also done dressmaking that you need some 'ease' on a garment. I certainly don't wish my clothes to be skin tight, I'd not be comfortable.

Also with regard to trouser waist measurements how many of us these days can buy trousers which rest on natural waist? The fashion is for these to be lower rise and can fall 2 or more inches below the natural waistline. Many of us have a gradual curve from the waist to the hips and where the waist of the garment lies may be 2, 3 or more inches larger than our actual waist measurement. I consider the waist measurement to be more of a guide to what size we should be starting at than the actual size of the garment itself.

Kitty

Seriously her table of calculations is completely out of whack.

I take my measurements and based on her measurements and the clothes I wear the 'should measure' and label size I wear do actually match (ergo no vanity sizing?) There's no way I'm wearing size 18's anymore even with my measurements!

I like your comments phatphoenix; ironic thing is I find my tesco clothes are the tighter of the sizes than the looser... I guess that's down to differences in body build?

(I also find jeans are a beast to find size wise!)

I'm a bad pear shape so I'm often technically 3 sizes, one for my bust, next up for waist and next up for my hips! Also carry a lot of my weight on my thighs. Whatever size I am, I have a 10" difference between waist and hips so jeans NEVER fit me - shame cos I love them! To get them to be wide enough for my thighs and go over my hips, I have to have a massive gaping waistband - and it's so bad that even a belt doesn't look good.

Tell you where else has generous sizes - Monsoon. Never buy trousers but all the skirts and dresses I buy in there are a 12 (even when I'm a 14) and they fit perfectly.

But yes that article is hogwash - according to her even at over a stone over my normal weight as I am now, I'd be a 12 which I so obviously aren't! So she's accusing manufacturers of vanity sizing then doing it worse herself.