Thanks Angie. I have been buying BR pants for the past 10-15 years. In my closet I have sizes 0, 2, and 4 and all of them still fit. I can hold them up and they are exactly the same size, except for the size label. The 0's are the most recent and the size 4's are older.
Taylor, I have a B-C chest and (if you don't count the recent 5 lb weight gain, which is putting me firmly in size 2's), usually around 108. I can certainly understand you having to shop in juniors section in the 80s!! In high school, when I was 103 lbs and an A cup I had to do the same. They did not even have petites back when I was in high school. I remember shopping a lot at the 5-7-9 shop. Today there's been size evolution in juniors too, because now we have 1's and 3's!
I graduated college at my current weight and measurements (except my waist was an inch or two slimmer). I am thinking about the clothes I wore to my first job. I bought a lot of Ann Klein back then. Size 4p. I loved that label back then! Ann Klein may have run differently than Ann Taylor; I did not shop there... was it even around? ... if it was, it may have been that it simply didn't fit me?
Let's see, what else did I wear? Jones New York, Liz Claiborne. Both in petites. And Petite Sophisticate! Liz Claiborne I know for sure is too large on me now. It is also not to my taste. It used to be trendier and younger. Talbots, I also shopped there. I was in there about a month or two ago, trying on raincoats and their smallest size 0p raincoat was absolutely HUGE on me. Talbots and Liz have definitely undergone size evolution - and I am guessing a big part of that is that they've tried to keep up with their aging demographic?
When I go into vintage stores, I always check out the stuff from the 1940s. For those, I would take an 8! I leave empty handed though because my waist is just not small enough. But, based on the clothes from that era, it does seem people were shorter.
I do understand what Maya and Chris are saying. It does seem weird asking for a size 0. I also don't think I look like a size 0. I don't even like that number. It seems to imply that there's no place else to go, but into the negative zone. And it makes me worry that size evolution will continue and soon I will have no options left. It's not like I'm going to grow any taller. Sure I could gain weight but that doesn't solve anything, because as the sizes go up, it's not just the width that increases, it's also the length.
Take my measurements and apply them to someone 8 or 9 or 10 inches taller than me and you have a svelte model. That is the image of "size 0" in my mind. For me to look that thin, my proportions would have to decrease accordingly - let's say 26-16-26. Which isn't going to happen (nor would I want it to - I'm just saying).
I've been checking out the sample sales on gilt (haven't bought a thing, probably won't) and I have to chuckle when the description says "the model's measurements are 5'10" 32 chest, 24 waist, 34 hips and she is wearing a size 2." That seems to suggest that the size 4, which would fit my chest, would be best on someone who's 6'0"?? Or at least, definitely not 5'0.
If you go on over to the Fashion Incubator blog and search through the archives, there's a lot there about history of sizing and sizing evolution. One point she makes is that a medium represents the average person in the retailer's demographic, and the size that they will make more of. So if the average person is growing both taller and wider, then the medium gets taller and wider. The fact that retailers are even offering XS and XXS and XXXS, and petite versions, and tall versions, and plus size versions.... well, it's mind-boggling when you think about it!
