Thank you! I had to go up two sizes on the Gap coated legging jeans and I thought it was just me!

Hi Angie, no, I haven't lost weight ( I did some but then I regained it). I am currently at one my plumpest weights ever, 112 lb Just checked the tag, and they are 98% cotton, 2% elastane.

This is really interesting! I think the last premium fit jean (Rag & Bone cargo skinny) I bought within the last year, I sized up because I wanted a looser fit. But to obtain a "regular" skinny fit, my normal size (29) would have worked. I used to wear 28 but have bulked up a bit so going up to 29 has been my MO these days.

Then there's nonpremium denim -- I tried on a pair of superstretch jeans from Uniqlo in 29 and they seemed to be loose! Probably has to do with the fabric.

Anyhow, that's only one data point, not enough for me to notice a trend on my side. I'll keep the sizing issues in mind when shopping premium denim.

I have absolutely noticed this during this fall shopping season. I had to size up two sizes in the J.Crew matchstick's, and the sales woman told me everyone is having to do that. The Zara skirt that I just bought is also a size up for me.
I don't care about the size on the label, but it makes it very frustrating when ordering on-ine if you have no idea what size to purchase. At least my arms can get a workout when carrying all those different sizes into the dressing room!

OMG I thought it was just me -- I had to go up to a 31 in a pair of AG jeans recently, even though my old 29s are actually fitting me a little looser these days!

This is fascinating and good to know. I've noticed the sizing difference in non-premium brands and have had a devil of a time trying to buy pants this fall, but I figured it was my problem. (And it IS a problem, because I'm already a 10/12 in the waist but often size up to get pants that fit over my thighs. Bring back the bootcuts, I say, because straight cuts that fit are far and few between.)

The only premium skinny denim I bought recently were R13's and I had to size up to a 30 and even then they were very tight. The 29's I couldn't even get on all the way.

Angie, thank you for asking this question. I'm relieved to know it's not just me. Chico's jeans are one of the few brands that really fit, and I've worn the same size for over a decade. I haven't gained any weight. I had to size up when I bought a new pair about a month ago. They've also gotten shorter, although that doesn't affect me much since I'm short. I asked the SA at my local Chico's boutique whether the sizing had changed, and she said absolutely not. Ha!!!

Why do you think manufacturers are doing this?

@Catnip: I think manufacturers are doing this to give us a complex. Seriously, it seems they're making it more and more difficult to shop.

I am so glad you said something! I used to wear AGs Angel cut, size 30, and could buy them brand new from a retailer without even trying them on. They always fit perfectly.

However, I bought two pairs late last year (in autumn, I think) -same cut, same size- I could barely get them on over my hips. I am still the same weight and size. I was so mad and dumbfounded. I've been buying these for years!

Let's all make sure we understand that the number on the jeans is not the same as your size. Or even your value on earth.

I agree, when the manufacturer shifts their numbering, it can be a really big pain.

This is really interesting to read. I have just lost weight, so I haven't noticed it myself, but it's good to know. Maybe there has been a consumer pushback from all the "vanity sizing" (problematic term I know) and so manufacturers have responded with downsizing their sizes a bit.

I *really* don't want to get back into the uncanny valley between regular and plus, because it makes it so hard to find clothes that fit and suit. *sigh*

Okay. Thanks for chiming in everyone. Most of us are experiencing the same thing - smaller cuts on jeans - so I'm not imagining it. American Eagle seems cut smaller than ever at the moment.

Tanya, thanks for checking. I'm glad you're strong and at a healthy weight.

I echo, Dana. Ignore the number on the label and strive for great fit. Although sizing-inconstancy is highly annoying especially when you purchase online, I fully support it. That way more people have a chance of achieving great fit because body shapes are that different.

It's all well and good to ignore the number on the label. However, if they keep this up, some of us will be sized out of brands we love. I'm not overweight by any standard but I hover in the upper numbers of what's available for premium denim. If a size 6/8 woman can barely fit in your stuff, what's anyone size 10+ supposed to do?

I agree with Janet, and I also find it a huge pain as someone who has to order online. The amount of exchanging is horrible. Why shouldn't I be able to walk into Gap and pick up a pair of legging jeans in my normal size and have them fit the way I expect them to fit? I've already gone through the whole painful process once!

I don't see why they don't just go from 24 up to 34. That should hit most of the target market I would think. Then 35 and up would be plus?
I mean, men's pants go from 28 to at least 42, right?

Re. I'm with Janet there. I'm on the verge of getting sized out over here. I had to go to a 31 on a pair of Helmut Lang skinnies, when I got some others from Century 21, sized 29, same style. I am a size out from kaput.

The more reasons to lose some weight here, agh. I can definitely relate with those on the other size of the spectrum.

Janet and Zap, no one likes to be sized out. Slight and extra small people are sized out when widely cut size 0s are still too big for for them. It does not make sense when my size 8/10 client is wearing an XS or even a S. Nor does it make sense when my size 4 client is wearing an L. I do hear you though, and empathize with your concerns. There needs to be some level of consistency in sizing, and striking the right balance is key, yet at this point deemed near impossible.

To Mo's point, providing a large size assortment over a single item is not efficient or practical - which is why retailers don't do it. I'm not agreeing with their strategy - I merely understand the implications from a manufacturing and retail point of view. I want everyone to find clothes that fit well and that they love wearing.

Late to the discussion here but I have been noticing "weirdness in fit" as well.

I had to size up hugely in J. Crew toothpick and I have experienced the opposite in my beloved brand, James Jeans. Latest pair was 27 vs 30 on the J. Crews and 29 on previous James Jeans. Makes me grumpy although I never obsess over number, just size and fit. My BF's are DKNY and they are sold by dress size which I thought was a nice change.

I like to order online occasionally so when brands fiddle with fit it can be frustrating.

I am not sure about premium denim, because I've all but given up hope after a few bad runs at the Gap and Banana Republic for denim. I have always had gripes with Gap denim anyway, but the past year it's been ridiculous. Their cuts are off, and very narrow in the thighs - even in bootcut and boyfriend jeans. In their largest sizes in store, which is about two sizes larger than my usual size, I can't get them past the thigh.

This summer, I took up running in a club and everything, I felt like my thighs were actually starting to slim down...until I went denim shopping! I could not figure how I had been so deluded in thinking I had actually lost weight, when I couldn't pull up my normal size in any denim.

FWIW, I've noticed some premium brands making size 34 now -- Paige and Hudson specifically. I recently bought both as I've lost some weight and wanted to give premium denim a whirl. The Hudson fit me well, while the Paige are still a little tight. I'd say the 34s fit true to size and it's really great to see a larger size in premium denim.

This is so interesting. I don't often buy new jeans so I can't chime in about that, but in my world it is the oldest jeans that I can never fit into - the old Levi's that are cut small in the waist. I find today's styles tend to fit my relatively big waist and small hips much more easily. But by today I mean this century.

My theory is that the US market isn't doing so hot, so retailers are focusing instead on the rest of the world, like Japan for example, where people are smaller & thinner. I know my girlfriend in Japan absolutely loves J Crew, and all of the premium denim brands you've mentioned.

Agreeing with everyone. Last year I bought some JCrew matchsticks as BF jeans. This year the same size was too tight. Go figure. However, I recently discovered BR jeans and am very happy with them and they fit TTS.

I can't say I've noticed premium denim to be smaller. But I am noticing sizing to be all over the map. Actually as a daily denim wearer I am surprised that I can't contribute more eloquently to the conversation. Maybe I'm not updating my denim wardrobe enough?

My most recent purchase has been a pair of Textile Elizabeth & James. I tried them in two sizes, two styles. I feel they ran big. Still deciding if I want to keep them, I got them a few weeks ago.

Oh right! Chiming in to agree that J. Crew's matchsticks are unbelievably tiny (in the waist). Could barely do them up. Gave me a complex, they did!