Vanity Sizing

About the Author

Angie is co-founder of YLF and its resident fashion stylist.

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

Vanity Sizing

— by Angie

on August 6, 2007

“Vanity sizing” is a term for the industry’s practice of inflating the dimensions associated with a particular size tag over time. What was considered an American size 8 a decade ago will pass for a size 4 today. Size inflation becomes more extreme the further back in time we go. Marilyn Monroe’s voluptuous size 12 body would probably fit into the equivalent of what we know as a size 6 today.

How this phenomenon started is anyone’s guess. It is thought that vanity sizing is “designed to satisfy the buyer’s wish to appear thin“. This boosts self esteem and thereby ensures the sale of a garment. Designers and manufacturers were quick to realize that there was money to be made by satisfying perceived insecurities.

The increasing dimensions of garments have subsequently caused retailers to introduce additional size designations at the low end of their size ranges (0, 00, or subzero sizes). This is hilarious! Next thing you know, a healthy size 8 will be wearing a size 0 and a tiny size 0 will be in a size marked “negative 8”. At the end of the day, there is no getting away from the fact that we live in a fashion world in which smaller clothing sizes are an obsession.

If you’d like to learn more about vanity sizing, Wikipedia is a good place to find related articles. What are your thoughts on downsizing size tags as a way of fooling us into a false sense of security?

Industry Insider · Shopping Strategy

30 comments · Add a comment

Sihaya

I really dislike this practice. It keeps me guessing forever as to what my “real” size is – and I have to keep on trying stuff at different stores to figure out what works. So the size actually doesn’t mean anything to me anymore. The only places where I find real sizes these days are occasionally when I go to Europe or when I go to European stores here like Mango. While it’s a bit deflating at Mango when I go up a size or two, it’s also great to have the consistency and more motivating for me to actually work out more to reduce my size rather than bask in a false sense of security.

August 6, 2007 at 8:16 am

Angie

(website)

I dislike the practice as well. Not only is it like pulling the wool over somebody’s eyes, but sizes in America have gotten so large that smaller men and women who should be able to fit into sizes S and XS have no where else to shop. Shopping in the children’s section is not the answer. Where can a person go if the smallest sizes in stores are still too big? This is where European retailers come in ( to your point). There is generally a 2 size difference. When Mango, Zara, Mexx, Morgan or H&M place “American Size 10” on their size tags, it’s usually the equivalent of an Ann Taylor size 6.

August 6, 2007 at 8:30 am

Rebecca

(website)

It’s disgusting, and you named, in my vicinity anyway, the chief offender – Ann Taylor. While it may be flattering to fit nicely into a pair of size 2 tailored trousers, having to ask the saleswoman to bring you a ZERO in the fitting room … well, it’s never been a compliment to be called a zero!

My husband says Ann Taylor is on their way to becoming a plus-size shop. lol

Honestly, I’m not that small! I’d be perfectly content to be known as a 6 or 8.

August 6, 2007 at 8:38 am

Betty

(website)

“Hog wash” for the consumer, but “brilliant” for the industry/designer. It’s disheartening, to say the least. We, as a nation, must come to terms with reality in all of its many guises. Why is it such a crime to wear clothes in the double digits? It should be about how great “I look in this dress” (which happens to be a size 12), not, “This 8 is a wee bit tight.” It’s all in the preception…and self acceptance.

August 6, 2007 at 8:42 am

Wendy

(website)

For what it’s worth, it really doesn’t bother me too much. I see sizes as a guideline, and nothing more. What matters to me is that I buy a garment that fits well and looks good.

The size one takes also varies with cut, style, and fabric.

To give a specific example, I am reliably a medium in Eli Tahari camisoles. I am reliably a small in ET t-shirts (and recently I had to buy a size large t-shirt in another make). Medium blazers in the same line, however, will often not close well over my bust. In a highwaisted relaxed fit jean I am a zero. In a low slung skinny I am a 2, sometimes a 4.

August 6, 2007 at 8:45 am

Angie

(website)

This is a very healthy way of looking at the situation Wendy. I feel for the people that have been “outsized” though. These are the people that cannot shop in mainstream American retailers ( which might be all that they have in their vicinity) because the smallest size doesn’t fit them. It sounds like you still have size options regardless of size inflation which makes you one of the fortunate ones. Good for you!

August 6, 2007 at 8:59 am

Marianna

I agree with you Sabina, it is more motivating to work out to reduce our sizes when we know what that really is. I recently purchased a pr of jeans that are size sixes, I am not a size six. I felt good for about a minute thinking I can get into a pr of size six jeans. But the reality is, I have a ways to go before I am a true size six.

Can you really fool yourself into thinking you are a size smaller than you really are? I have heard of thinking thin, but this is taking it to the extremes.

August 6, 2007 at 9:09 am

Patricia

Thanks for this, Angie. I am 56 years old. In my junior size days I was ten pounds lighter than I am now and wore a size 9. I graduated to an eight in missy sizes. I am now a 2 in tops and a four in bottoms. But the garments are getting larger as we speak. I am finding it harder to fill out xs tops, but had dismissed the idea that I would be altogether shut out in terms of sizing. Too crazy! But it turns out I am not crazy after all.

Is there a Nordstrom Studio 121 equivalent in European retailers?

August 6, 2007 at 9:30 am

Dana

I’m really opposed to vanity sizing. I think it’s another way for women to be obsessed with their body and size (and I’ve been down that road, believe you me). Just when I’ve finally started making peace with it, I find that WAIST sizes are also nebulous. I wanted to try on a pair of Joe Jeans at Nordie’s and the salesgirl told me my regular 29s would be too big as the 29s “ran big” in Joe’s. It’s a 29! If it “runs big”, that’s a 30!

Another thing is remembering that vintage sizes and wedding dress sizes still adhere to the standard dress form. My size 6 is a 10 vintage. When I got married years ago, I was a now-10, which was a wedding dress 14. Big blow to my ego.

August 6, 2007 at 9:32 am

Angie

(website)

Thanks for sharing your experiences with us Dane. Quite right, wedding dresses are in couture fit – sizes. In other words “true sizes”, sizes that have not been inflated over time. In fact this entire occurrence puts a different spin on the skinny model phenomena. It has been argued that models sizes are getting smaller wearing sizes 0-2 today, which are smaller than the sizes 6-8 that supermodels wore in the early “90’s.Remember that sizes in the US 10-15 years ago were also smaller!

August 6, 2007 at 9:51 am

Christie

This is my biggest pet peeve. I “bloomed” early, and, though I was the same size that I am now (except 2 inches shorter) when I was 12, I wore a size 4 or 5 in women’s lines (my favorite back then was the Gap). Now, at places like Gap, JCrew, Banana, and Ann Taylor, I wear size zero, and after one or two wearings of jeans, I can pull them off without unbuttoning my pants. This has only been 16 years. My husband has the exact same problem. Last week we bought him (online) a tailored fit shirt in size small from JCrew and it is huge on him. A shirt he has in his closet (from when he was in high school) that has the same measurements (14in neck, for example) fits him perfectly. The only clothes he fits into anymore are the clothes that he has held onto for the last 12 years since he graduated from high school. Isn’t that pathetic?

I had no idea that the European retailers tended to have different sizing. For the most part I’ve stayed away from those stores because I don’t like ultra-trendy throw-away clothes (and we don’t have a Zara or Mango here), but perhaps I should re-evaluate.

Thanks for the post, Angie.

August 6, 2007 at 10:12 am

Shannon

I have noticed that in more expensive clothes I buy I wear a 4-6. The cheaper (still not cheap) chain stores I wear a 0-2. It really does not bother me either way, but I am afraid of being too big for the smallest size someday. Does the letter or number in the back of your clothes really matter? Who sees this? All that matters is that you look fabulous in everything you wear by buying clothes that fit you well.

August 6, 2007 at 10:15 am

Maya

You know, I used to dislike this practice as well, but actually, since people ARE getting larger, it does make sense in a certain light. I know how much it stinks to be “outsized” and have to run to the kids’ department, as I used to be 00 myself, but the same thing happens to women who are a size 16, so it’s not all that surprising. Perhaps they should have a “minus size” department as well as plus size ;).

I don’t think anyone can argue that the need for this level of sizing up is exaggerated though. Sizing changes happen over decades, not over a few years. I take a size 26 in jeans and I still often end up in a size 0, even though I was a size 4 in 2000 and weighed 15 pounds LESS in the past than I do now.

August 6, 2007 at 10:25 am

Jenn @ Frugal Upstate

(website)

I dislike this practice. I wear an 8 or 10 now, which is larger than the 8-10 I used to wear in my 20’s. If I had to pull on something labeled a 14, you can be that would be more incentive for me to think before I put something in my mouth.

Yes, I know that “knowing” this should be enough, but somehow it is harder. .. .

August 6, 2007 at 10:59 am

pam

(website)

As a short woman with a less-than-conventional body type, I have long since thrown all sizing considerations to the winds! I have small sizes in my wardrobe and large ones! It depends on the cut and the fit. As I have a sort of barrel chest (great for my singing voice) I have trouble getting into all the narrowly cut shirts of today, whereas more traditional cuts of shirts fit me fine! I also have short arms, and frequently have to take up the sleeves of my jackets or roll up the sleeves. (3/4 sleeves are practically the right length for me.) For years I wore men’s pants/jeans, because I could get them to fit better, as I didn’t have a wasp waist….altho now as the boomers age, the waists seem to be loosening…

So, I frankly have given up caring what the sizes are, as they so rarely have any bearing on the garment itself! I even have shoes that are up to a size, size 1/2 larger than my “normal” one – and I find shoes from Asia in the lower prices ranges run very small. (Ditto, inexpensive garments!)

So my best advice is to just try to get clothes that FIT, that’s hard enough, and cut the size labels out if they bother you!

August 6, 2007 at 11:18 am

Susan

I say vanity sizing NO THANK YOU

Clothes with spandex or anything that stretches a bit – YES – that’s that vanity control I need.

August 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Angie

(website)

Thanks for your comment Shannon. You have hit the nail on the head. Being “afraid of being too small for the smallest size one day” is precisely my point of concern. As an ex-fashion buyer, I have bought clothing for stores across all kinds of size specifications and sizes and have seen clothing proportions get bigger over time. While the general American population peaks at a size 12 (the most bought size in America), there are at least sizes available for women who wear sizes 14 to 34. This is not the case for women who are on the other side of the size spectrum. It is my belief that retailers need to try and clothe all sizes (big and small) and vanity sizing is not the answer. It’s a given that you need to feel fabulous in everything that you wear regardless of the size on the size tag. The fact still remains that if somebody is smaller than a regular size zero in a mainstream American clothing retailer today, that person needs to be able to find clothing that they can wear.

August 6, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Stephanie

I strongly dislike this practice because it doubles the amount of time of my shopping trip. I can’t just grab an 8 and know that it will probably fit. Instead I have to take an 8 or a 6 or sometimes a 4 or 10 into the dressing room.

At this point, I have no idea what size I am so I don’t really shop as much as I used to. It’s too frustrating. I buy much less now, which isn’t a great solution because I actually do need new clothes, but don’t want to try on 25 things and have none of them fit; it makes me feel terrible. I’m fairly height/weight proportional so this shouldn’t much much of a problem but it is.

August 6, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Leah

(website)

I am from this little known country in Asia called the Philippines. We’re just lucky that we have a lot of Zara, Mango, Marks & Spencer and other European stores here. Sizes are real so it’s easy to just grab something from the rack and head straight to the cashier.

Let me say that I love this site so much… thanks for all the fabulous tips.

August 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm

lori

well, for what it’s worth – i really can’t stand this practice! I am virtually “sized out” of most departments ( as i am a true old-fashioned 2 or 4) – or the few sizes they have in my size are already sold. Why can’t we just go back to the way it was? Do we really have to keep lying to ourselves?! Or is this just the new way it is?

August 6, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Meg

(website)

My mother-in-law is a catalogue clothes shopper. I normally run a large to extra large in juniors and a medium in clothes marketed towards 20-somethings. In my mom-in-law’s catalogues though there weren’t even clothes that would fit me since a small was huge on me (that was after we returned a medium that was even worse).

On my recent trip to London with my high school’s band I was required to buy a shirt that was already ordered for me in a XL (I guess because that was somewhat the size I wore as a student before my breast reduction). Well, I don’t think an XS would have fit me since I could have worn the XL as a dress. Everyone looked awful. There seems to be an unwritten rule that those sort of unisex, bulk-ordered shirts must be huge.

Even the clothes I buy for myself differ widely in size. Many of my dresses are size 8 – which seems small. While I’m not fat, I’m not petit either. I’m 5’10 and have hips and shoulders to match (and fortunately a waist that I am proud of).

August 6, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Kathleen

(website)

“Vanity sizing” is a term for the industry’s practice of inflating the dimensions associated with a particular size tag over time. What was considered an American size 8 a decade ago will pass for a size 4 today. Size inflation becomes more extreme the further back in time we go.

I’m a pattern maker. The pattern maker is the person most intimate with sizing in the clothing factory; we work in production. Now, because we’re not big names or famous, people don’t bother consulting with us so you never hear our side of it. Not only have I never “vanity sized” anything in my 27 year career, I don’t know another pattern maker who has either. Bear with me here.

I’m glad you’re interested in this topic and intelligent because this is very complicated to explain which is why we can’t explain it readily or easily to the average consumer which is why this vanity sizing myth is so rampant. I’m glad you’re bright because you’ll understand what “normalizing to the population” means because that’s what we’re doing. Now, if sizing didn’t normalize to the population, we’d still be making clothes designed for people in the 1800’s. If manufacturers didn’t adjust the sizing of their products (to include buildings, furniture etc) you wouldn’t be able to get in the door without ducking. So, with everybody from architects to industrial engineers “vanity sizing” (“normalizing”) products in your environment, how come you’re not complaining to them that the size of their products haven’t remained static? Rather, it’s the opposite usually; one specific example is the size of airplane seats, those aren’t big enough but guess what, they won’t be “normalizing” seat sizes because they have to redesign the entire PLANE!

Sizing evolves, just like people do. Sizing is not a fixed mathematical construct, but a social one (it used to be mathematical but meaning was wrested from pattern engineers before my time) -so there’s even a social history component (I also wrote three entries about that). And an economical one, and a buyer one. Sizing is even dependent upon how a manufacturer organizes and employs their product development system in accordance with the dictates of their retail partners. But most of all, sizing is related to efficient material utilization, which doesn’t mean cutting smaller to save fabric when we’re obviously discussing the opposite. I’ll explain.

Consider: most manufacturers cut a size range of 6-14, nearly all do, if not, 8-16. Now, sales wise, the vast majority of orders are in the center of the size spread. Now, as the average person gets heavier, over time, sales begin to weigh in (excuse the pun) on the upper end of the size range so the size spread is off kilter. Now why does this matter? It matters because of marker design and allocation (arcane as I said). To make an efficient marker (keep fabric waste to a minimum) you need balance. For every size 6, you need a size 14. For every size 8, you need a size 12. The 6/14 and 8/12 balance each other in a marker. So, if you have orders for too many of the larger sizes and not enough of the smaller sizes because people are getting fatter, you don’t have balance because now you need 3 size 12’s for every size 8 or 2 size 14s for every size 6. So, you change the sizing structure. This way it rebalances. Otherwise, if they didn’t do this and the given measures that constitute a given size remained static, the smaller sizes would drop out of the size range altogether. A manufacturer would be cutting lots of 12’s and 14’s -with pressures on the upper end of the size range, in sizes they don’t even offer! If they added those sizes (dropping the smaller sizes, the sales of which are too few to cut in production), they’d end up in plus sizes which means a whole new market, whole new stores, whole new sales reps and even assuming that not “normalizing” to the population would work (in theory) it is just too costly to contemplate if you have established distribution.

Also consider retail. If a manufacturer didn’t normalize to the population, their sizes would -over time- “run small”. Retailers won’t like that, buyers would have to know the line intimately and they just don’t. They’d be putting static size 10’s on a rack that were in effect, two sizes smaller than the competitor’s size 10s. That confuses customers too. For better or worse, they want size 10’s across manufacturers to bear some resemblance of consistency. Two sizes smaller isn’t.

How this phenomenon started is anyone’s guess. It is thought that vanity sizing is “designed to satisfy the buyer’s wish to appear thin“.

Actually, there’s no guessing except by the average consumer.

This boosts self esteem and thereby ensures the sale of a garment. Designers and manufacturers were quick to realize that there was money to be made by satisfying perceived insecurities.

What amazes me is that you think sizing is about *you* -consumers- your head games that we’re trying to make you feel better about yourselves. I don’t know who started that myth but it’s not! It has nothing to do with *you*. Since when have large manufacturers cared about the consumer?  (as you can imagine, I’m not real popular with manufacturers either but assign sins where they belong). Rather, it has everything to do with internal material utilization processes within the limitations of the manufacturing industry. Iow, what we call “allocation” based on the derivation of sizes with regard to our respective markets.

If you’d like to learn more about vanity sizing, Wikipedia is a good place to find related articles. What are your thoughts on downsizing size tags as a way of fooling us into a false sense of security? The increasing dimensions of garments have subsequently caused retailers to introduce additional size designations at the low end of their size ranges (0, 00, or subzero sizes).

See, right here your POV is questionable. As prosecutor, judge and jury, you’ve pronounced us guilty without considering alternatives. It has nothing to do with how you feel about yourself. IMO, manufacturers are doing a poor job of meeting consumers needs, so why would they go to the bother of catering to your self esteem? I notice you linked to wiki’s vanity sizing entry which is pov questionable, error-rife and mis-cites their own source material. It’s a pity you didn’t read all their references, particularly the only one written by the “fashion industry” called, The Myth of Vanity Sizing. I mean, if you’re going to say we do all of this stuff, you should at least hear what we have to say for ourselves. Here’s other entries on the topic, not included are three additional articles on the history of women’s sizes.
Fit and sizing entropy
Push manufacturing, subverting the fit feedback loop.
Sizing Evolution.

Consumers are getting bent out of shape over a non-issue when they should be holding manufacturers responsible for producing poorly fitting apparel. Many of them (mostly big box store labels and importers) just don’t give a da_n. Many big brands think you only care about the label, the name, the logo, the “brand” and their spending priorities reflect that. Manufacturers are spending less than half what they used to on product development, the savings they’ve thrown into advertising, marketing, selling you on their image. Imo, clothing should be about YOU, not about the brand.

August 7, 2007 at 6:18 am

Becky

Ugh, I hate vanity sizing so much — like others, I am one more shift away from being sized out of Ann Taylor (and as it is, many of their XS tops are too big on me). Department stores in my area rarely go below a size 6. And going to juniors departments doesn’t help — although I’m proportionally small, I do have a butt and thighs and stomach, which a junior cut doesn’t allow for. My husband has a similar problem, in that he’s a 31 waist, and many stores here don’t carry odd sizes below 33 in the store (*cough* J. Crew). We’re moving to California, though, and have high hopes of finding pants there.

However, I have also noticed that many stores have started introducing “curvy” cuts for their pants — curvy cuts have caused me to drop down a size, because instead of finding pants that fit in the hips and are too big in the waist, a given pair of pants will fit me in the waist and hips. So it’s not all due to vanity sizing.

August 7, 2007 at 6:53 am

budget babe

(website)

the discrepancies in sizes between various brands and retailers makes it much more difficult to successfully shop online. it would be nice to have across-the-board standards dictated by a higher authority…kinda like the FDA but for fashion (although the FDA ain’t all that effective either…)

August 7, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Jenn @ Frugal Upstate

(website)

hmmm, I understand some of what Kathleen is saying-but when she refers to things like the height of doors changing etc, isn’t that a change that has taken place slowly over a great amount of time? Sizes have changed DRASTICALLY over the last 10 years. . . .

August 9, 2007 at 9:25 am

Vibeke

Well, it seems people have changed drastically over those last 10 yrs as well. I won’t link it as you can’t read it, but Norwegian newspapers are full of reports on how the average army recruit (universal draft here) have become heavier and less fit. And that a larger and larger percentage of the population are becoming “clinically” overweight.

On the other hand I remember shopping for a coat (for her) with my sister last year. We found a really nice wool coat; the price what right, it seemed sturdy and warm, it was in a very flattering shade of blue, har a really nice feminine cut and so on. A perfect coat for my blue eyed, feminine and clothes-loving sister. The only problem. I was a teensie bit too tight all over – in “her” size – so I suggested she needed the next size up. Wich she wouldn’t hear of. “If I have to buy sz 42(EUR), I won’t have the coat”, she said. And turned up later in a black (unflattering color, shows every speck of lint or dust) coat. But in “her” size.

August 9, 2007 at 2:05 pm

youlookfab » Blog Archive » Vanity sizing: more efficiency than ego

(website)

[…] recent post on vanity sizing generated a lot of discussion. I talked about the popular interpretation of this trend, which is […]

August 16, 2007 at 8:05 am

Thomas Bailey

(website)

The British Standards Institute is attempting to correct this problem with BS-EN13402, which calls for a pictogram with actual measurements in centimeters. One manufacturer has already adopted this standard for distribution in some countries in Europe. I have been ready for the new labelling since 1983, when my measurements went metric.

October 11, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Kaitlyn

Does anybody have a list of the measurements for women’s wear from back in the 1960s? Or the 1970s, etc.? It would be interesting to compare.

By the way, I reviewed the measurements on the Wikipedia website… I wear a comfortable size 4 or 6 in slacks but am a good 4-5″ larger than the sizes they posted for size 6. Explanation, anyone?

November 18, 2007 at 5:22 pm

nicola

I am a size US 6, always have been and I have not lost /gained weight since college. Today size 0 at stores like Jcrew, Gap, Banana Republic fall off me – im convinced a size 0 today is the equivalent of a true size 6/8. I have to buy juniors (in my 30s). Im 5’5″ and 120 pounds (in the middle of average weight for my height.) This is insane!!! Im stuck in sweats and wrap dresses. I emailed JCrew and they told me that ‘clothes have been designed to fit an American Silhouette’ and basically sorry – they dont carry anything under a true size 8 (size 0).

June 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm

About the Author

Vanity Sizing

Recent Ensembles

Recent Trends

About the Author

Share this Post

Recent Ensembles

Recent Trends