Ship of Fools: Clothing Conundrum

Thread: Clothing Conundrum Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027100

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

This might be my problem or it might be a female problem or a UK problem but I'd be interested to hear from others as it is really bugging me.

For all of my adult life (apart from when pregnant)I have been the same clothing size. However in the last couple of years when needing to buy clothes in preparation for coming to live in Kenya I have found that having bought the clothes in my usual size they just don't fit, they are far too big.

I have not lost weight nor have I become a professional athlete so my conclusion is that manufacturers are making the sizes bigger than they used to be: thus a 10 now is what a 12 used to be, a 12 is a 14 etc.

Any thoughts from round the globe and from men's and women's shopping experiences?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

You lucky person!

But, yes, clothing sizes seem to be completely arbitrary these days according to where you shop. The only answer is to try them on.

[Mad]

Annoying - as I much perfer to do ALL my shopping online.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

Clothing sizes in the UK have changed in recent years to reflect that we, as a population, have got bigger. As a dressmaker it is even more obvious when buying vintage patterns as they are approx 2 sizes smaller. But some brands were generous before, IMO, M&S especially.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Mrs. Beaky:

quote:
For all of my adult life (apart from when pregnant)I have been the same clothing size. However in the last couple of years when needing to buy clothes in preparation for coming to live in Kenya I have found that having bought the clothes in my usual size they just don't fit, they are far too big.

Well, at least there is the chance of rescuing some of the purchases. It is easier to take many kinds of clothing in than let things out with the dinky seams clothing have these days.

Good luck!

ETA: grammar burp [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 24. April 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A further data point: I had a neighbor once, who when he was a teen worked in a clothing factory. All the garments were hung on racks by size, so that the size labels could be sewn in. Whenever they ran out of size 12s, they'd roll a rack of spare 10s over to have size 12 labels sewn in.

In other words, the label in the garment is UTTERLY unreliable.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

Memo to self: must buy some clothes next time I'm home - if they're being more generously sized I think it would be therapeutic. [Big Grin]

BC's right though - sizing does seem to be almost arbitrary. I have clothes from the same shop* ranging in size from 12 to 22, all of which fit me.

Admittedly, my lower half is smaller than my upper half, and I like my trousers to be quite tight, and my shirts and jackets to be loose and comfortable, but that's a range of six sizes ...

[Confused]

* a Canadian chain called Tan-Jay, for which I briefly worked, and where I buy a lot of my clothes.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Mine range from 14 to 22. Most are 16 or 18 though. The one pair of jeans I have in size 14 doesn't fit but I have not yet given up hope of wearing it again. The size 22 nightshirt is really too big (bought by mistake) but I wear it anyway. The size 20 winter coat was intentionally too big so I could fit extra jumpers underneath it.

But this is why I don't like shopping for clothes over the Internet; you can't be sure they will fit without trying them on, and if they don't you have all the hassle of sending them back.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

So my suspicions are confirmed...thank you all!
I did wonder when I found an old skirt from when I was 18 and could just about fit into it, yet a similar skirt in the same size (forty years on!)is falling off me....
Same goes with men's clothes as I bought a pair of trousers for my husband in the sale before we came out here which were a size smaller than normal and from the usual shop and they fit fine.
And yes I've learned my lesson and will now try everything on before buying.
If we are right about this size change then I do find it interesting that the manufacturers are sweet-talking us as regards size and I'm not sure how I feel about that as the mother of four daughters who contend with the societal expectations of size and young women in this day and age but that's an aside.
I just wish I was good with a sewing machine, Lyda*rose!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

But this is why I don't like shopping for clothes over the Internet; you can't be sure they will fit without trying them on, and if they don't you have all the hassle of sending them back.

Which is crazy really, because a relatively modest number of measurements is sufficient to describe your body in order to determine whether clothes will fit.

Let's see: neck, bicep, bust, chest, waist, bottom, thigh and calf circumferences. Inside leg, distance from crotch to waist (both front and back), distance from waist to shoulders, height. Arm length. Distance from shoulders to waist in horizontal plane (ie. do you stoop forwards, have an upright stance etc.).

That's probably about it.

I keep hearing about stores where you pop your naked self in a body scanner, the computer determines your measurements and tells you which size will fit. I have no idea how well they work, though (and they must only exist at the high-end of off-the-rack clothing).

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I was once advised in a certain chain with a Miss Brodie accent catering for older ladies in touristy places (British readers will recognise this) always to try on, as their sizes are not consistent, even between what is apparently the same item in the same size and colour.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Eek! No way in h*ll would anybody ever persuade me to climb naked into some corporate chain store body scanner. How long before you're confronted with images of yourself in a birthday suit floating across the Internet?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Men's clothing is generally easy because it is based on an actual measurement. I have a 34 inch waist and 32 inch inseam, so I know that a 34/32 pair of pants will generally fit me. Same goes for a 15 1/2 34 shirt.

I had a guy selling me clothing for a while who used to claim that they were doing the same thing with men's clothing sizes, and that while I might be a 34 at the store, for custom pant purposes, I should order 36. Result: several pairs of pants that are two inches too big for me in the waist. (Never complain to anyone that your pants are too big for you unless you really want to get a nasty look.)

But once you get into general sizes that are supposed to fit most people, all bets are off. I am taller than most people, so people sometimes think that I will want an extra large tee shirt. But an XL shirt looks like a nightshirt on me, as I don't have an American gut. And don't get me started on "one size fits most" hats. If you have a 7&3/4 inch head, as I do, that hat is not going to work.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There are variabilities that affect sizing even down to the fiber level.

For instance, if you are a crafty needleworky sort? White wool will not felt as well as wool of other colors. Why? Because wool is not naturally white, and to make it so they have to bleach it. This distorts the fibers enough that they do not hook together so well in the felting process. Thus, a garment of the same make and line and fabric from the same manufacturer, may well fit differently than one of another color.

Another thing that changes a garment is if you launder it, or for that matter wear it. Some fabrics stretch more in the wearing than others, and some shrink or stretch in the wash.

There is nothing to be done about this but to try on before you buy and hope for the best after.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I have not lost weight nor have I become a professional athlete so my conclusion is that manufacturers are making the sizes bigger than they used to be: thus a 10 now is what a 12 used to be, a 12 is a 14 etc.

Yes, this is exactly what's happened. It's also quite annoying when you find the size you thought you were is now hugely baggy, but the size you're now supposed to be is just a little bit too tight.

It's shoe sizes that bug me more, though. In one shop, the size 5 will fit, in another you'll need to buy a 6, in a third there is no happy medium because you really need a 5 and a half (according to them) which they don't do.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

I've kept 3 Laura Ashley dresses that I bought while at college in the '70s. They still fit me well as I still weigh the same.
My dress size is 10/12 but these beautiful souvenirs are all 14.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Let's see: neck, bicep, bust, chest, waist, bottom, thigh and calf circumferences. Inside leg, distance from crotch to waist (both front and back), distance from waist to shoulders, height. Arm length. Distance from shoulders to waist in horizontal plane (ie. do you stoop forwards, have an upright stance etc.).

That's probably about it.

Yes, well you obviously haven't been paying attention, have you. The problem is that women's clothes are usually sold according to dress size (10, 12, 14, etc...) and the measurements you are supposed to take for this are bust, waist and hips. Sometimes you will be told the hem length of skirts, dresses and coats. Arm length is a closely guarded secret to most manufacturers and you can whistle for information about the rest. Many of the cheaper stores do not offer a choice of length for trousers.

And what we are complaining about is that even the inadequate information we are given is not accurate, because a so-called size 14 is not the same everywhere (and sometimes not even consistent in the same shop). I realise this may be difficult for a man to understand; men's clothes seem to be constructed using real measurements.

[ 24. April 2014, 20:41: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tree Bee:
I've kept 3 Laura Ashley dresses that I bought while at college in the '70s. They still fit me well as I still weigh the same.
My dress size is 10/12 but these beautiful souvenirs are all 14.

I collect early 1970s Laura Ashley's, I have about 10 [Smile]

. as you say, the sizes on them do not equate to modern sizes at all.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It's called vanity sizing.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Many of the cheaper stores do not offer a choice of length for trousers.

I think things have improved somewhat on this front compared to the situation in the past.

A while ago, I almost posted on the Ship to extol to heaven (rather than consign to hell) the fact that UK clothes manufacturers do seem to have become more aware of the variations in women's bodies. I'm sure ten years ago, most highstreet retailers did one length of trousers (possibly with some extra long / extra tall options). Nowadays, I notice lots of shops do short, regular and long options on their trousers. The short options are still sometimes too long for my stumpy legs, but New Look do a range of trousers in (I think) up to five different lengths - from 28inch to ?36 inch or so. If I buy the 28inch ones they are about the right length and I don't have to get them taken up or trail the hems in dirt and puddles. It's joyous [Yipee]

Similarly, five years ago, I knew of one shoe supplier in London / Edinburgh where I was confident of being able to find formal shoes which would fit my extra-wide feet reasonably comfortably. For some reason I can't remember, last year I started googling options for buying extra-wide women's shoes and discovered a shop in North Yorkshire and a chain in North East England which both supply a modest collection of extra-wide fit women's formal shoes. Not needing to visit London especially to buy shoes which fit me or to take time out from visits to friends down south in order to go shoe-shopping again is joyous [Yipee]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Indian clothes off the rack bear no relationship to the same sizes in North America. Which is why, after trial and error, I get my clothes custom made.

Indian Large is NA Medium
Indian XL is North American L

UNLESS

You are buying something in a Marks and Spencer in a posh mall. Then the sizing is more Western. I now have some pants (North American underpants) that are a size bigger than what I normally take in Canada

Thank goodness chappal sizes are quoted in European sizes. Size 38 is easily available.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zoey:
For some reason I can't remember, last year I started googling options for buying extra-wide women's shoes and discovered a shop in North Yorkshire and a chain in North East England which both supply a modest collection of extra-wide fit women's formal shoes.

Wider fit shoes. I've been getting my shoes by mail order for years now.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

I highly recommend this nifty website. Set your vital states and it'll give you your size in a variety of high street shops.

My experience is that waist measurements have gone up (so what was a size 10 waist is now a size 6-8)

But a number of shops do not understand the concept of hips and have very small measurements for those (so a size 10 hip is now size 12 +). I frequently try on clothes that are gaping at the waist but will not fit over my hips.

When I buy vintage clothing this is not a problem!

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Waist size has increased over the years (and not just mine!) Witness the furore over Keira Knightley's 23 inch waist - when I were a girl, back in the dark ages, nearly all of us had 22 or 23 or 24 inch waists. Nothing special.

M.

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :

I think what M. says is right, waists have got larger but less defined, on a population level. But that doesn't help if you're on the end of the bell-curve that still has a small waist:hip ratio.

I'm another of those individuals with a range of sizes in the closet - my 30 items for Lent 2014 include clothes in UK sizes 10-16. But I think I've always understood how arbitrary these sizes are. I have friends who get very hung up on the numbers that appear on clothing labels, but they don't really mean much. All you can infer from them is that a given item with a smaller number on should be smaller than the same item with a larger number on, but as stated above, that can't be guaranteed.

I have always believed in the importance of trying on potential purchases, but my extra fit issues - 35" inside leg, long rise, broad hips, short waist, dancer's thighs, no discernible bottom, small ribcage, large-ish bust and wide shoulders - mean that the size a manufacturer puts on their clothing is only one factor I have to consider. When shopping online I always appreciate if they at least tell you the size that their model wears and her height if they're not prepared to divulge the actual measurements of an item. I wonder if the lack of garment measurements available online is because manufacturers don't trust consumers to understand ease. I probably don't really understand ease all that well.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If you want a truly depressing experience, go to China and try on clothing off the rack. All the tourist items (tee shirts) are ginormous, to accommodate fat foreigners, of course. But the regular clothing, that Chinese people buy? It's all fantastically small, designed for hobbits. A garment clearly labeled L is probably a size 6 by American standards; there are no garments in existence that will fit a size 12 woman. And this is borne out by observation; if you are a Westerner and you stand in a crowd in Beijing you can probably stare over the heads of everybody, because you are eight inches taller than the entire population.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, well you obviously haven't been paying attention, have you. The problem is that women's clothes are usually sold according to dress size (10, 12, 14, etc...)

Yes, I know. It's silly. (And also that three numbers are woefully insufficient to describe everyone's bodies.)

But even if you want to persist in selling women's clothing in numbered sizes (and I understood that the standard female templates had been updated recently to account for the average change in female body shape over the last 100 years, so a size 10 now, even if it isn't a vanity size, should be a different shape from a size 10 of 30 years ago) it should be easy enough to quote, in the small print somewhere, the dozen or so measurements of the person that this particular garment is designed to fit.

The website Badger Lady links to isn't sufficient, but it's a reasonable start.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I'm interested in the fact that the shape of the clothing might have changed and not just the size. And I've also noticed that I seem to measure as one size but when I try the things on they are far too big....just bizarre!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Lands End, with American sizing, which is larger than British, used to do trousers with waists much smaller than I would expect from the hip size, so in order to wear them, I would have tremendously clownlike legs. Or sew very long shanks on the buttons. They have changed the sizing since.

I need wide shows, so thanks for that link, Firenze. It used to surprise me that, while I was a child, it was recognised that I would need access to half sizes and various widths, but as an adult, I was expected to fit a standard last. I do have a company I order from, but they have recently extended the range they offer, concurrently reducing the styles available in wide fit, and, in the styles they do offer, reducing the colours. So, dull shoes in dull colours. I go through the catalogue, thinking "I'll get that," only to be cast down when I look at the sizing, or find that the one colour I need is the one I can't have.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you want a truly depressing experience, go to China and try on clothing off the rack. All the tourist items (tee shirts) are ginormous, to accommodate fat foreigners, of course. But the regular clothing, that Chinese people buy? It's all fantastically small, designed for hobbits. A garment clearly labeled L is probably a size 6 by American standards; there are no garments in existence that will fit a size 12 woman. And this is borne out by observation; if you are a Westerner and you stand in a crowd in Beijing you can probably stare over the heads of everybody, because you are eight inches taller than the entire population.

Except that the children of the Chinese and Vietnamese diasporas are returning to the lands of their parents, fully six feet tall...

I can no longer be sure of getting a decent view at church. [Big Grin]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are variabilities that affect sizing even down to the fiber level.

For instance, if you are a crafty needleworky sort? White wool will not felt as well as wool of other colors. Why? Because wool is not naturally white, and to make it so they have to bleach it. This distorts the fibers enough that they do not hook together so well in the felting process. Thus, a garment of the same make and line and fabric from the same manufacturer, may well fit differently than one of another color.

I don;t believe this is the reason, you can't blame the bleach.

I have worked in the dying industry. all pale colours are bleaches back to white before dye is added. Even darker colours are bleached first in order to get a consistent finish - natural fibres are too inconsistent, especially wool. It has to be the presence of the dyestuffs rather than the absence of bleach that makes the difference.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Any thoughts from round the globe

Eat more Pizza.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

wraps

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Wraps are useless if you're over a B cup, only decent if you're prepared to wear a vest top or something underneath.

Breast size is another reason why women's clothes don't fit, standard fit seems to be designed for a B cup, although companies like Bravissimo are beginning to create clothing ranges to fit bigger cup sizes.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

All I can say is, felters know to be careful of white yarn.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All I can say is, felters know to be careful of white yarn.

Aye, many's the sage nod and knowing tap to the side of the nose exchanged over noggins of lambswool and shots of Sheep Dip down at the Blue Ram when the talk turns to white yarn...

Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Wraps are useless if you're over a B cup, only decent if you're prepared to wear a vest top or something underneath.

Breast size is another reason why women's clothes don't fit, standard fit seems to be designed for a B cup, although companies like Bravissimo are beginning to create clothing ranges to fit bigger cup sizes.

This! I'm not complaining about being size 10-12, but the assumption seems to be that I therefore won't have much of a bust in a lot of shops. And the days of buying bargain underwear are long gone - so many ranges think that if you have a 30 back size there's no way you'll have more than a B cup. Buying expensive underwear is obviously worth it, but sometimes it would be nice not to spend quite so much every time!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Try Figleaves sales for bras if you need something less standard or ASOS.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Having discarded several sack-like garments this morning all I can say is that its a miracle that some of us ever manage to leave the house!

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I need wide shoes, so thanks for that link, Firenze. It used to surprise me that, while I was a child, it was recognised that I would need access to half sizes and various widths, but as an adult, I was expected to fit a standard last. I do have a company I order from, but they have recently extended the range they offer, concurrently reducing the styles available in wide fit, and, in the styles they do offer, reducing the colours. So, dull shoes in dull colours. I go through the catalogue, thinking "I'll get that," only to be cast down when I look at the sizing, or find that the one colour I need is the one I can't have.

The sudden decrease in available sizing increments on hitting adulthood has always puzzled me too, and I should by now know which retailers to avoid when shopping in person but I often see something I like the look of and feel compelled to give it a try on the off chance that this one style is cut generously. Makes for rather depressing shoe shopping trips. I appreciate that the dull colours are the ones that will sell in larger volumes, but when that means that those of us with larger feet are consigned to only black (and in general I DO NOT WEAR black, so only own one pair of black flats that are trotted out on costumed occasions) that is deeply disheartening. My feet aren't the widest, but nor are they narrow (although I used to take a D width fitting in the UK and a double-wide in the US, I don't know any more because so few retailers offer different width fittings in the same shoe). I've had fairly good luck for sandals in Deichmann and am deeply relieved (although sceptical of the ethics) not to have to shell out and arm and a leg.

Is anyone aware of vanity sizing going on in shoes too? When I was a teenager I resorted to going to specialist shoe shops in London to get hold of size 9s (even though one of these shops was a Clarks store) but once I left home I found I could often take a size 8 in more generously sizing makes. These days I find that the combination of UK and European sizing gives the best indication of whether a shoe will fit: Size 8/41 - not a chance; size 8/42 - probably (and my best bet most places that don't do a 9 at all); size 9/42 probably; size 9/43 might be too big, but will be a good fit if the 8/42 is too narrow.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, my daughter who was a size 5 at school was commenting that she's buying size 4s and sometimes size 3s now.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

OK, no idea why that one repeated itself - sorry.

Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :

It's just as bad if you make your own - I find it depressing to have to use a pattern size that is 4 sizes bigger than I buy in shops.

It's even more challenging when using true vintage patterns because body shapes have changed over the last 50 or 60 years. I've finally found here where I can get vintage style patterns but to current sizings and shapes.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

Each clothing company seems to have its own meaning for a size. What has helped me as I live in a small town and often shop on line is to limit my purchases to one or two brands that I have learned fit me. For example I order a size 12 in x brand but know I must oder a size 10 if I order from z brand.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I love vintage patterns, especially 50s. My favourite source always gives the chest measurement, which is the only thing you can really rely on. I usually end up with a vintage size 14 or occasionally 16 (in modern sizes I wear a 10-12).

OTOH, following the chest measurement in vintage sizes works for me because 50s clothes were cut for women my shape. I am fairly hourglass shaped, and these older styles are usually quite pinched in the waist. Modern styles seem to be meant for women who are much more straight up and down (cue rant about why I can never get trousers that fit in the hips AND the waist).

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My Dad used to comment that he could not understand what had happened to women's shapes, as they seemed either stick thin, and straight up and down, or obese. Women used to be, he said, shapely. Lovely word.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
My Dad used to comment that he could not understand what had happened to women's shapes, as they seemed either stick thin, and straight up and down, or obese. Women used to be, he said, shapely. Lovely word.

Women used to wear constricting under garments.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Not so much in my Dad's youth in the late 20s and 30s. I guess he didn't know many flappers.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
OK, no idea why that one repeated itself - sorry.

Once for the left shoe, once for the right? [Razz]

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I usually wear skirts and trousers in size 10/12. Inspired by the
Great British Sewing Bee I decided to make a skirt. It ended up being a size 18. OK, it is a bit big, so a 16 might have done, but FOUR sizes bigger?!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

This is probably why they now sell patterns covering a range of sizes, so you buy for what you thought you were, and then have to cut the largest size on the sheet. Not helpful, of course, if you thought you were a larger fit on the smaller size packet.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0