 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004OT: Clothing size in the U.S.
Does anybody have any references to studies that describe clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them over the years? I've been searching but haven't hit on anything that describes what I am looking for. I vaguely recall having read articles related to this but thus far I have failed to unearth them. It won't surprise me to find out this has been previously discussed, ad nauseam, on this and other groups, but I haven't found the right search yet. What I am interested in is whether, over the last 25 years or so, clothing sizes, shirts specifically, have been re-scaled. Is an XL shirt purchased in 1979 the same size as an XL large shirt purchased in 2004? I realize there will be a lot of variables to this. I don't even know if there is, or has ever been, any semblance of a standard when it comes to clothes that are sized S, M, L, XL, XXL, etc. I ask because I am curious as to whether expanding waistlines (and presumably average and median weights) have caused the clothing size scale to move. I became curious when I was going through my older clothes looking for what fit and what did not. All of the shirts (I'm talking collared pullovers, polo type shirts here) which fit me now, which were purchased in the late 70's, early 80's are size XL (eXtra Large). The shirts that I am buying off the rack these days are size M (Medium). If I were to purchase an XL today my wife and I could wear it simultaneously (which might be fun but would be entirely beside the point :-) I suppose that the simple explanation would be that these shirts have just shrunk over the years. Though they are of a non-cotton material and I would not have expected them to shrink, I have no way to prove that they have not shrunk. I do know that when I purchased them that they fit, as they do now. I am also now pretty close to the same size I was then. If anything I am lighter now but still slightly larger. I base this on weight now vs. weight then and on other clothing which is measured in inches (dress shirts, jackets) Probably not too important in the overall scheme of things, but something I am curious about nonetheless.  SignatureJJ. 275/192/183, BMI 27.5 - as of Mar 5, 2004 Atkins since Sep 1, 2003 http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos 69.8% of the man I used to be. I have no references to studies, just the facts presented by my "vintage" clothing. I saved some of my clothers from the late 60's early 70's and my size 13 junior fit my size 9 daughter perfectly. Something has definitely changed! > Does anybody have any references to studies that describe > clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Probably not too important in the overall scheme of things, > but something I am curious about nonetheless. JJ burbled across the ether: > Does anybody have any references to studies that describe > clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > out this has been previously discussed, ad nauseam, on this > and other groups, but I haven't found the right search yet. Here's a short overview. Does this help? http://museum.nist.gov/exhibits/apparel/index.htm I imagine you could direct your questions about studies to the person who created the exhibit. > What I am interested in is whether, over the last 25 years > or so, clothing sizes, shirts specifically, have been > re-scaled. Yes they have. Is an XL shirt purchased in 1979 the same size > as an XL large shirt purchased in 2004? No. I realize there > will be a lot of variables to this. I don't even know if > there is, or has ever been, any semblance of a standard when > it comes to clothes that are sized S, M, L, XL, XXL, etc. I believe so. I think the letter system has cropped up as the first vanity system --replacing those depressing numbers, but still adhering to a system of some kind. > I ask because I am curious as to whether expanding > waistlines (and presumably average and median weights) have > caused the clothing size scale to move. Most definitely. > I became curious when I was going through my older clothes > looking for what fit and what did not. All of the shirts [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a non-cotton material and I would not have expected them to > shrink, I have no way to prove that they have not shrunk. They probably haven't shrunk. If they're old enough, they might have even stretched a bit. I > do know that when I purchased them that they fit, as they do > now. I am also now pretty close to the same size I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Probably not too important in the overall scheme of things, > but something I am curious about nonetheless. The phenomenon you have noticed is called vanity sizing. It's been going on since the eighties at least. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Death was Nature's way of telling you to slow down. {Strata, 1981} > JJ burbled across the ether: >> Does anybody have any references to studies that describe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Here's a short overview. Does this help? > http://museum.nist.gov/exhibits/apparel/index.htm Thank you, that may get me going again. SignatureJJ. >Does anybody have any references to studies that describe >clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them >over the years? Google "vanity sizing study". There are several listed. Em >> Does anybody have any references to studies that describe >> clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them >> over the years? > > Google "vanity sizing study". There are several listed. > > Em Thank you, that phrase could certainly describe what I am looking for. I have, since my first post, found a U.S. study called SizeUSA (which was previously done as SizeUK) which appears to be a textile industry study in this area. Much to read now... SignatureJJ. > Does anybody have any references to studies that describe > clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > there is, or has ever been, any semblance of a standard when > it comes to clothes that are sized S, M, L, XL, XXL, etc. This article suggests that vanity sizing, which is a well known phenomenon in women's clothing, has not been an issue for men's clothing. <http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/northphoenix/articles/ 0114sizes0114Z3.html> I have two caveats about this, however. First, this references men's clothing that is numerically grouped. So, any size 32 should fit one's waist in the same way. But the overlap between these sizes and alphabetic sizes could well have changed so that a M might formerly have been equivalent to a 36-40" chest but now is equivalent to a 40-42" chest. I don't know that that has happened, but it's certainly possible. Second, a number of men on this group have reported that in fact the sizing of men's clothes is not consistent and does not correspond to the number on the label. This could be a result of vanity sizing or it could be a reflection that people are wearing their clothes differently than they used to. This relates to the concept of "ease." Lets say you have a 40" chest. If you wear a shirt that measures 40" around, it's going to be snug. So, the designers add a certain amount of ease to the garment's dimensions in order to have it fit properly. If you look at old pictures ('60s and '70s), you'll notice that people's sweaters fit them much more snugly than we'd wear the same garment now. Our clothes have more ease built into them. Therefore, someone making a sweater for someone w/ a 40" chest might have added 2" of ease to the width, but I'd probably add at least 4. (I made these numbers up, off the top of my head I don't really know how much ease I'd add) They would both be size 40 sweaters, 'cause that's the size they're designed to fit, but the modern one would be bigger. In any case, if your perception is that they don't make 'em like they used to, you're almost certainly right. <g> Martha SignatureBegin where you are - but don't end there. "Industry standards set a size 8 at a 35-inch bust, a 27-inch waist, and 37.5-inch hip." I don't know of a single clothing manufacturer that adheres to these standards. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 My measurements are 37 1/2, 27, 37 1/2 and I wear a size 6 now. dot "Industry standards set a size 8 at a 35-inch bust, a 27-inch waist, and 37.5-inch hip." I don't know of a single clothing manufacturer that adheres to these standards. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 I forgot to add that when I was a 36,26,36 I also wore a size 6. Go Figure! dot My measurements are 37 1/2, 27, 37 1/2 and I wear a size 6 now. dot "Industry standards set a size 8 at a 35-inch bust, a 27-inch waist, and 37.5-inch hip." I don't know of a single clothing manufacturer that adheres to these standards. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 That is funny because when I got married in 86, I wore a size 12, generally and my waist was about 27". I made my own skirts, usually, and made them with a 28" waistband. It looks like now I can wear some size 10's and almost all size 12's now fit with 29" waistbands... I'm going to go to the link because that is interesting to me as well. My mom had always told me that if you shopped at a more expensive store, you could generally buy one size smaller than if you shopped at Walmart, etc. She just said that the better designers cut their clothes a little bigger. I'm sure it is vanity sizing. Then, I heard a few years back that they moved everything down one size, so what was a 10 is now an 8, etc... I'll have to go read. I've been wondering about all the sizing things a I've been shopping on ebay for sweaters and it looks if I get too much smaller, it will be just as hard to find the sweaters I like as it was when I was too big. :) Becky P. 199/145.5/135 www.family.solidrockpl.org >I'll have to go read. I've been wondering about all the sizing things a I've >been shopping on ebay for sweaters and it looks if I get too much smaller, it >will be just as hard to find the sweaters I like as it was when I was too >big. :) Most good e-bay sellers will list measurements too. Which is the only 'constant'. Sizes have rapidly been shrinking. I was in high school in the 80s and we never heard of anything being a size 0, or even 2! What next? Negative sizes? LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 > Does anybody have any references to studies that describe > clothing sizes in the US and possible modifications to them > over the years? Here's a recent article that is related Survey: Americans Have Super-Sized Bodies http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/8015/376609.html Signaturejmk in NC > What I am interested in is whether, over the last 25 years > or so, clothing sizes, shirts specifically, have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there is, or has ever been, any semblance of a standard when > it comes to clothes that are sized S, M, L, XL, XXL, etc There is no standard, and these things vary tremendously. Even within the same brand at the same store there is a lot of variation. An XL Gap Sweatshirt from one rack might not even be the same as a different XL Gap Sweatshirt of a different style in the same store. At least that is my experience. > There is no standard, and these things vary tremendously. Even > within the same brand at the same store there is a lot of variation. > An XL Gap Sweatshirt from one rack might not even be the same as a > different XL Gap Sweatshirt of a different style in the same store. > At least that is my experience. I absolutely agree with that. Thanks to all who responded to this request for resources. I have now found and read much information and a handful of studies. Most everything, at least on the web, pertains to women's clothing. I've found little to nothing with regard to men's clothing. There does seem to have been a number of efforts in the past to produce standardized sizing but what is in place appears to be adhered to on a voluntary basis only. There are clearly some trends...upscale clothing manufacturers subscribing, apparently, to the vanity sizing school of marketing. I'm not sure yet if this is good or bad, but I do see how it can make it very difficult to purchase clothing that fits. It is clear that the weight of an average adult has increased significantly over the past 40 years. I've not yet found a comprehensive study which captures weights and heights and publishes averages and medians. I've not looked too hard for this informatin yet, but I know such studies exist as they are necessary for capacity planning for everything from airplanes to cars, and trains to roller coasters. I guess I have to go pull on my engineer's cap for a bit and figure some of this stuff out. Don't ask me why, but I am just darn curious about this at the moment and one never knows where such things lead. I am going to be looking into this SizeUSA project to find out more of what it is all about. SignatureJJ. 275/192/183, BMI 27.5 - as of Mar 5, 2004 Atkins since Sep 1, 2003 http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos 69.8% of the man I used to be. I recently saw a story on CNN where Levi was to begin making all 501? Jeans larger with a different 'cut' becuase of 'growing' america. > > There is no standard, and these things vary tremendously. > Even [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > looking into this SizeUSA project to find out more of what > it is all about. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.