And in most women's jeans, the size is a projection of what your waist would be if it fell at your waist, as the rise is usually lower.

yes, Ceit is right - none of my 27's measure 27" at the waistband. Most are 30 - 32" depending on rise. Hips are more accurately the measuement to go with. Ie: the 37" hips that go along with size 27 jeans.

I normally wear a 29, and my True Religion's are a 29 and are a loose fit. My J.Crew Matchsticks, however, are a size 31. I couldn't even pull up the 29's or 30's!

Anna makes a good point about men's pants. Last year, after DH had lost some weight, I ordered some new dress pants for him from a well-known online retailer in his new size. When the new pants arrived in a 32" waist, they were really big on him. I measured the waist and it was actually closer to 34".

When I called them and mentioned this, they said that yes, a 32 isn't REALLY a 32 because "some men like a more generous fit." What?!? I really thought those numbers in men's clothing had a meaning to them, but apparently not.

Vanity sizing by any other name...

Thanks, Angie and Laurinda. You make me feel better

My husband and I have arguments about sizes in the UK. He says men's clothes marked 34 waist eg are definitely that size whereas women's sizes differ from shop to shop.

I have bought three pairs of cheap jeans lately, all in size 10 (UK), and they fit perfectly Yet a pricey size 10 had to be returned as I felt it was just a bit too loose on me. A shop assistant told me that the more expensive garments are given a low size but are actually "big".

Is it my imagination but is Life getting more and more complicated?

It is true, Eirlys, that higher-end brands tend to run bigger. This whole "premium denim" thing is therefore a little baffling, since it runs counter to that general principle.