Spin-off thread: vanity sizing or going with the flow? - YouLookFab Forum

Category

General

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

Spin-off thread: vanity sizing or going with the flow?

catgirl

Veteran

Anyone want to discuss the difference? If there is no standard sizing between brands, then who's to say which one is "true" and which one is "vanity", especially if sizes change over time to reflect the actual girth of the population? Why am I an 8 in designer sizes, a 4 in department stores, and a 12 in vintage?

Or are sizes relational (i.e. the difference between a vintage 4 and a vintage 10 is equivalent to the difference between a modern 4 and a modern 10)? That might make more sense to me.

Do you feel better in a smaller size, or do you feel like the sizes have been falsely deflated?

General

16 replies

Latest reply was from Maya

Kate

Veteran

I don't always feel better in a smaller size. In fact I recently bought a skirt at Loft in a size 2, and am still wondering if I should have tried it on in a size 0. But I didn't try it on in a size 0 because I'm not a size 0. I'm a size 2 or 4. I would be more willing to go up in size, just because the idea of being thinner than I already am doesn't sit well with me.

Mo

(website)

Veteran

I would like my dress size to stay as standard as my shoe or bra size. I don't want to have to figure it out every year or with every different designer.

Isabel

Veteran

I can't answer your question except to say that as nutrition got better in this country, we got larger and that is why vintage clothing is typically smaller.

Truthfully, it has never bothered me. I just want to avoid the "sausage" size ; )

annagybe

(website)

Veteran

Sizes have changed. I was cleaning out my bedroom closet at my father's house. I found a pair of pink and grey acid wash jeans with lacing at the waist, baggy and tapered hem size 13. Can't get more 80's than that. I fit into them. I weigh less now than what I weighed in high school. I wear a size 8 pants now.
Of course the real question is should I wear those jeans now, and be ahead of the trend curve.

Maya

Veteran

Isabel, I'm surprised you would say nutrition is better! Sizes have expanded at a much faster rate since we started consuming all this processed junk and stopped cooking as much. We're not eating more nutritious foods--just a lot more junk. It's not good!

But I'm with you on one thing: The changes in sizing don't bother me.

Beth

Veteran

You know, I don't care what size I am. I just wish sizing was more standardized. I stopped shopping JCrew online as their sizes varied so widely I couldn't begin to guess what size to order.

As for sizing changes over time, all I can say is at age 25, I was 5'5" and 95lbs and I wore a size 2. At age 42 and nearly 30lbs heavier, I'm now wearing a size 4. Riiiight.

shana

Veteran

I find it really odd that I have stayed generally the same size over the years though I am heavier. I have a pair of size 8 pants that my mother wore in the late 70's and I swear they must be equivalent to a contemporary 0 - they are miniscule!!

I will be the first one to admit that I much prefer to be a 6 than a 12! But I am happy as long as I can find clothing that fits.

However, there is no such thing as standard sizing - even in bras or shoes, Mo!! I'm always having to try stuff on since there is so much variation - from brand to brand and even within a brand!

Isabel

Veteran

Maya - you are absolutely right !!!!! I totally misspoke. It is not nutrition. It is access to food which has improved drastically, but not necessarily for the better. I stand corrected !

Maya

Veteran

Be careful what you wish for. Who should "standard sizing" be based on, anyway? Women are not standardized, so why should their clothes be?

Thanks for clarifying Isabel!

Mamapicklejuice

Veteran

Vanity sizing annoys me to no end. My husband actually mentioned a report where even mens clothing is affected by this. In the article they went around measuring pant waists and the size could be off by as much as 4 inches (maybe more?). Ridiculous.

I sew and I'm a 12 in sewing patterns (modern) and a 14 in the more recent vintage styles (and a 16 from "way back")...the numbers don't bother me, but the inconsistancy in store sizing does.

Maya

Veteran

Do your pants sit directly at your waist though, MPJ? Mine sit quite a bit below. If my pants actually had a 25-26 inch waist, I wouldn't be able to get them on unless the rise was about 12"...

Mamapicklejuice

Veteran

Maya, I was referring to mens pants, which are done by waist size. IOW, a pair of pants that was labeled for a 44" waist actually measured 48" or something...I'd have to ask my husband about the size discrepancy again, I can't quite remember.

Maya

Veteran

It's the same for womens' sizes though. Most of my jeans are 29-30 inches but are a 26-27.

It makes sense. I get my jeans by my waist size (approximately), but they don't sit directly AT the waist so the waistband measurement doesn't match up.

Michelle

(website)

Veteran

I'm at a loss to explain the difference between sizes at different labels, but will confess that I do get a kick out of wearing garments with a lower number on the back label. The size will never sway my purchase and I've been known to size up if it looks best, but wardrobe items may earn bonus points if their size number gives me a boost.
I will say this -- in my plus-size range, there seems to be less variation than I've observed in straight sizes. Part of this may be because the size ranges are more limited (1x, 2x etc each cover at least two numerical sizes), but otherwise I'm not sure how to explain it. The consistency even holds true on both sides of the Canada-US border, which is not always the case (Canadian stores often seem to run smaller than their U.S. counterparts).

Mamapicklejuice

Veteran

Other than "grandpa style," I wouldn't think there would be much variation in where mens waists are located.

I always check a company's size chart to see if they give tips on where to measure your waist. Sometimes it's at the natural waist, and sometimes it's clearly marked as several inches below. I love those companies!

Maya

Veteran

Michelle, I read an article recently about the trickiness and complexities of making plus size patterns because the variation in measurements/weight distribution is more exaggerated in plus sizes than straight sizes. Marianna seemed to describe this in the past--how plus sizes tend to always be cut generously through the bust, even though not all plus sizes are busty. Some might not gain weight in their arms, yet plus sizes are always cut fuller in the arms.

Obviously, these variations exist in straight sizes too, but different brands and cuts seem to be made for people who are more hourglassy or more appley, etc.

The same thing happens in petite sizes. They are always cut narrower through the bust, shorter in the rise, sleeves and pretty much all over--even though not all petites are petite everywhere. I sometimes wear petites but generally don't have much success for that reason.

I don't get upset or frustrated about it though. It surely can't be easy to make clothes for every body type in existence...

I don't know about that MPJ. If women's jeans vary so much in where the waistband sits, why not men's? Even so I still don't think they sit at the waist...