Have retailers made the sizes bigger again?

I think they did it about 6 or 7 years. The first time was about 25 years ago from my estimations. It’s ridiculous! I know sometimes fit in a medium top, which shouldn’t be the case. I’ve been a large top for a long time. I bought a tank top a year ago in medium because the large looked so big, and it was floating on me. I need a small??? I am a size 8–10 on top. Well, not anymore. More like a 6–8, and I am bigger than I was 10 years ago.

Vanity sizing. Giving the customer the illusion they want.

Clothing, yes I bought a size18 swim suit last year and it’s too big. I’m thinking I’ll try size 16 this year.

Ugh… When I was in high school I wore a size 12… now many many years later, I am about 10 lbs heavier, and I wear size 8. It’s a pain in the butt. And with S-M-L sizing, who knows. I hate having to take two(or more!) of everything to try on. Listen up, clothing manufacturers- you’re not fooling us!!

I’ve repeatedly heard that vanity sizing is a myth, and that it doesn’t make any sense for clothing manufacturers to secretly give customers more fabric for their money just to make them feel good. Rather, that all stores operate on a mean customer base, they find out what size their average customer is, which becomes their version of a “medium” and go from there. That’s why a dress in a “medium” at Walmart would likely be cut a bit larger than a “medium” in Macy’s. Your average Walmart shopper is likely poorer and larger than your average Macy’s customer.

It makes the most sense to me, but who knows. If the stores want me to feel better about myself and then buy more, how about throwing some decent mirrors and flattering lighting into dressing rooms? Making me not want to jump off a cliff might improve the odds of me buying something before a lower number on the tag. heh.

@DigitalBlue It is true some brands cut larger than others, and it does seem to be based on their target market. Higher end designers like Armani and Chanel tend to cut smaller than say Liz Claiborne. But, also, the higher end designers tend to cut less boxy, a much more tailored cut that fits a woman’s figure better if she is slimmer. Also, junior sizes are in a whole other category. Again, because of their target market.

In the U.S., vanity sizing has gone completely out of control.

For anyone who sews, however, dress pattern sizes have stayed the same over the years. Check out these dimensions: http://butterick.mccall.com/misses-misses-petites-pages-459.php.

Does anyone remember when a U.S. size 10 was flatteringly called a “perfect size 10”? That’s because a 10 was for someone very trim and slender. What was once a size 16 is probably today’s size 10.

I used to be a size 8, and I was quite happy about that. I haven’t changed, but I often wear a size 2. I mean, really?!?!

Note that the Butterick size chart doesn’t include sizes 2, 0, or 00.

@DigitalBlue “It is true some brands cut larger than others, and it does seem to be based on their target market.”

Very true. For some brands, I’m still a good ol’ size 8. But, those 8’s are no larger than the 2’s manufactured by other companies.

I recently told my brother that I’d bought a size 8 suit. We live on opposite sides of the country, so we hadn’t seen each other in a while. His reaction—“Wow! Size 8? You must be getting really porky.” Yes, even men are starting to believe that size 0 is average and size 10 is obese.

@SadieMartinPaul I’m curious where the dress patterns measure for the waist? Is it at the belly button? Or, up higher at the usual smallest part of a woman’s torso? Those measurements are very interesting. I’m really getting sick of the average dress having the waist at the bottom of the rib cage. I wish that fashion trend would change.

I just checked the Butterick website, which also gives instructions for taking measurements. It says that the waist is “around the body at natural waistline.” That description’s not very helpful, but there’s a drawing as well. In the illustration, the waist is, as you say, the smallest part of a woman’s torso.

I like the look of a long torso. All these dresses with the higher waist are easier for designers because basically the dress can fit more women. Short waisted and long wasted, and various sizes of stomach. But often the dresses look like they are made for a doll, or too short in porportion, especially if the skirt is on the short side. Empire waist right below the breast in dresses and shirts almost never fit me either, whether they blouse out below the seem or not, although that look I like I sometimes. Usually the seem below the breast is up on the middle of my breast. Everything is made for shorter people, which makes no sense since we have petites for that. I wish I knew how to sew and was good at it.

@JLeslie “I wish I knew how to sew and was good at it.”

Wouldn’t that be wonderful? I’ve known women who could create coats, tailored suits, men’s shirts…all sorts of very detailed and complicated garments. I’m amazed by that level of skill. (By the way, I don’t say “women” as a sexist remark. Except for hiring professional tailors, I’ve never met a man who could sew.)

I agree with you about some dress styles. I’m a big fan of shirtwaist dresses. They’re very pretty and feminine, and they define a waistline so nicely.

I wear a size 5. I have noticed that it seems a little big, but a size 3 is too small.
It’s kind of ridiculous.

Ladies I love this discussion.

Everyone has made such salient points. Would I be going too far to say sizing could be much improved if they used real (in or cm) measurements as opposed to the subjective ones? After all we all do have to look at sizing charts at some point. Wouldn’t it be more efficient?

Well even if I am overstepping to say it for us all, I think I am for it. It is so odd that I couldn’t tell you present or past the measurements of my body in any meaningful way and I find that disturbing.

Well, I do have one friend who loves vanity sizing. We debated about it one day. So, I assume her vote for actual sizing in inches or cm would be a big fat no. But, I would be ok with it, I hate thesizes getting larger and larger. The problem is, for a dress, what size do you list? The bustline? Bust, waist, and hips? I thnk maybe it might deter some people from trying on a garment if one measurement is off. It might be less practical for the dress manufacturers and retailers. Maybe 2,4,6 is already vanity sizing from the start? Maybe they used those numbers way back in the day so women felt good about their size. With bras we use inches and we don’t even buy the real back size we have to add 4 or 5 inches to our measure depending on the brand. I assume that was so the measurement sounded like the full size around our breasts, but I don’t know for sure the history. A woman who wears a 34, actually measure 30 where the band goes, but saying 30 sounds small for a bust size when we think hour glass shape.

I am willing to bet that 50 years ago, there was no such thing as size 0 or 00.

The true test of whether or not retailers are doing vanity sizing would be to look at a sizing chart from 50 years ago (meaning the 1960’s) and see what the measurements were for each size, then.