Vanity Sizing by Region?

christie

Some great conversations have been had on Angie's blog about vanity sizing, with some of us petite-er gals complaining about the difficulties of finding clothes that fit. We are being "sized out" of the market. After a recent visit with two of my cousins, however, I'm wondering if this problem is as widespread as it seems.

Here in the midwest, in one of the most overweight states in the country, I find myself consistently fitting into size 0 and 2 (at the largest). As a young pre-teen/teen, however, I was about the same size (a bit smaller), and I fit into size 4/5. Clearly, the manufacturing has changed, as I have not. (And contrary to the young lady who posted on another conversation about all of us being "old" here, at 28, I am hardly old! But so much has changed only in the last 14 or 15 years).

Anyway, I have two skinny-skinny cousins who live in Santa Monica, and they said they have no problems finding clothes to fit. Now, these gals are tiny by any standards. Yet in SM they wear the same size clothing that I wear here. I guarantee that I outweigh them by at least 15 pounds. They encouraged me to pay a visit, so I can finally find nice clothes to wear. (Of course, who knows what that will do to my self-esteem. In spite of my complaints, after spending the last 4 or 5 years in size 0 or 2, how will I feel when I start pulling on tight size 6s?)

What do you all think--those of you "in the know" and those of you with just opinions? Could vanity sizing vary so much from region to region? Do you think manufacturers take the time to make variations of sizes to send to different regions?

18 years ago

Body Type

16 replies

Latest reply was from malcontent

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

Lovely Christie!

Firstly, I have a hunch that your cousins are shopping at some of the European stores in SM - like Zara, H&M, Mango, French Connection, Benetton and Esprit to name but a few. Getting small clothing in these stores is easy, especially if you are regular height or taller than average. Also, Canadian Club Monaco makes small clothing and the smallest size at Express will also fit a very small frame. And then there all the junior stores where the clothing is small but not always appropriate if you’re older than a teenager or student. I don’t know how old your cousins are but I’d love to know where they shop.

Secondly, the size dimensions for the same item remain the same wherever you shop, but the size curves can differ. Some regions will start their sizes at a size 4 and others will start at a size 0.

18 years ago

pinkcobra

Active Member

Ah, yes, European sizing will get you every time! Wedding dresses are sized European, I guess they're just trying to make sure we really do lose those alst 10 pounds before the walk down the aisle! Lol.

"I'm an 8."
"Ok, you're going to need a 10, maybe even 12."
"No, really, I'm an 8."
"I know, but it's European sizing, so if you want to wear an 8 you're going to have to be a 6, or even a 4."
"Oh."

It reminds me of the part of The Devil Wears Prada where Andy and Nigel are discussing sizes:
Nigel: 0 is the new 2 and 2 is the new 4
Andy: I'm a 6
Nigel: Which is the new 14

I definitely think sizing In America gets larger as the general population gets larger. Marilyn Monroe was a 14, but I think she'd swim in a current 14.

18 years ago

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

Actually wedding dresses are sized in what they call "couture sizes" which aren't actually European sizes. They are measurements that patternmakers use when there is no ease in the garment. Designer wear is often sold in couture sizes as well which is why their fits are usually smaller. Going down about 2 sizes in today’s size dimensions is about right. If you wear a 6, you’re looking at a size 10 couture size etc.

18 years ago

pinkcobra

Active Member

Ohh! Thanks for that very interesting tidbit, Angie! I had no idea, as the lady just kept saying European. So now I know if I want a Dior dress I'm going to have to go bigger. Does that go for all designer clothes, ie: shirts and pants?

18 years ago

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

Sometimes pinkcobra, there is unfortunately no sizing consistency!

18 years ago

SLOBound

(website)

Member

I don't know about region, having only shopped in California. I do know that the more expensive the clothes, the smaller each size actually is. I may be an Old Navy 2 , and a 6 in clothes like DKNY Jeans, an 8 in "mid-priced" fashions like Michael by Michael Kors and probably a 14 in anything "high" fashion. Soooo, your cousins are probably well dressed Los Angeleans.

I like old fashioned sizing, where 28" waist= size 6 or something like that. I think it is an important gauge for many people to monitor their waistline. I understand the marketing perspective that small numbers sell but it is no help to anyone. There should be a national standard based on the actual measurement of the clothes.

18 years ago

Itari

(website)

Active Member

That's an old thread, but I've noticed the same thing! US 14 is EU 44, right? Whenever I'm looking for clothes on American websites, the right size for me is usually 12 - but all my clothes come in European sizes and 44 seems to be the right one; sometimes I have to wear 46. EU 44 is: ca. 100 cm bust, ca. 83 cm waist, ca. 108 cm hips - that's equal to 39-32,5-42,5 in inches. That's the beginning of plus-size.

15 years ago

Maya

Veteran

Ok, first of all, vanity sizing is a myth and a conspiracy theory. The fact is Americans have grown exponentially since the 70's. We have more people who are overweight and obese than not. Whether this is bad or not whatever is not really relevant. Of course clothing sizes need to grow as well to accomodate growing waistlines. As a current size 2/4 I thank my stars that most clothes are in fact NOT representative of the average size. If they were, a medium would be equal to a 12/14. That is the average size here in the US so it would absolutely make sense.

I agree with Angie. You probably do not have the same variety that your cousins do in a more hip, urban area. I would expect sizing to differ by nation but not within the same country. Based on my YesStyle experience, I am average size in Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea. I'll bet a Marc Jacobs dress from HK would fit differently than a MJ dress from New York. It would have to wouldn't it? Otherwise I guess most HK natives just have really great tailors, which is also very possible I suppose.

15 years ago

malcontent

Active Member

Interesting topic. I recall reading an investigative article in a British newspaper that found vanity sizing to be very prevalent in England with smaller, single-digit sizes but not so much with larger sizes like a British 14 or 16. The reporter went out and measured clothes from various lines and compared them to the size charts. In smaller sizes, there were sometimes six inches or more of ease while larger sizes were often cut fairly close to what the size charts claimed. I'm not sure if vanity sizing would be the same in the U.S.

My grandmother was married in the 1940s in a size 10 dress. It's so tiny that I was compelled to measure it. The bust was about 31 inches and the waist was 20 inches. The dress fit her loosely, even though she was a tall woman. It rather fascinates me that a size 00 of today wouldn't have a prayer of fitting into a 1940s size 10 dress.

Not all of our current larger average size is due to fatness though. The average shoe size has gone up quite a bit too, because some women are taller and larger-framed than their grandmothers were. Breast size has increased as well. My own frame is much larger than my grandmother's was. Even as a thin child, I couldn't get her wristwatch to fit around my wrist. And while it's true that women's waistlines have become relatively thicker, this has happened both for women who wear large and small sizes. A .7 waist to hip ratio is currently rare both in slim and heavy women.

15 years ago

AnneL

Active Member

Sadly, it's so long since I could get into a UK size 10, never mind an 8 (my size in jeans when I was a skinny sixteen-year-old) that I can't comment on whether the smaller sizes have become more generous in recent years. I do know that the shops rarely carry anything smaller than an 8, but maybe today's teenagers are a heavier build than we were back in the 70s. There are certainly plenty of "fat lasses" roaming the city centre every Saturday!

It does seem to vary by designer and cut, though. I generally need a UK 16 in shirts at the moment (broad shoulders + big bust), but in some ranges the 16 is definitely too small whilst the 18 (if I can even find one) swamps me

15 years ago

chewyspaghetti

Veteran

I don't think it's that the same manufacturers make variations in sizes for different regions, but that different regions have different stores. Santa Monica is a high end market, and as discussed the higher end sizes run smaller.

15 years ago

Ele

(website)

Active Member

I'm always hesitant to comment on a very old thread (even if it's been revived), and even more hesitant to contribute time and energy to a topic that annoys me as much as this concept of "vanity" sizing does. BUT, I have no self-control at all (hee), so I'm going to chime in here to agree with Maya: vanity sizing does not exist. It's a misleading term that seems to have become so embedded in the popular conscience that it's now widely accepted as fact- which irks me to no end.

As someone who's worked in fashion design and production, trust me when I say that manufacturers and retailers have much more important things to worry about than the "vanity" of their customers. Things like fabric widths, marker layouts, consumer profiling, their bottom line.

No, sizing is never going to be standardized across the industry and no, it's never going to stop evolving, either. That's because WE as consumers don't stop evolving, and clothing is designed to fit (or at least sell to) us. I totally understand the frustration of being one size in this shop and another size in that shop, and also the frustration of being "sized out" of a shop you'd like to buy from. But in order to remain profitable, retailers have to target their wares at a specific market, and cater to a size range. Sometimes you just don't fit the profile, and sometimes you're bigger or smaller in relation to it.

So sizing will definitely differ by country, just as people do. (Which is why conversions of Euro sizes to American ones are always going to be tricky, at best.) But it wouldn't make financial sense for a retailer to make different sizes for regions of one country. I agree with Khris that the difference is likely just different shops in different regions (again, influenced by the companies' target markets).

In an ideal world, none of us would be bothered by the number on a label and we'd all be happy to just try things on to determine fit- not rely on a size. For all my ranting though, I'll admit that I'm still working on it

15 years ago

Maya

Veteran

Well, as we get larger, of course our shoe sizes, wrist sizes, bust sizes, and everything else grows bigger too...otherwise we'd be horrifically disproportionate. I think Khris mentioned losing shoe sizes/widths as she has lost weight. Frame size means the size of your bones. I imagine that is primarily determined by genetics, so I don't know how that would change over generations. Correct me if I am wrong. My mom has a small frame like me, but she is overweight. That mother of pearl bracelet she gave me fit me, but not her. Weight affects your entire body.

I won't go into detail, but I strongly believe dramatic changes in food standards and practices, coupled with decreased mobility over the course of several decades have caused a rapid collective weight gain, and consequently everything from clothes to airplane seats to medical equipment are being affected.

15 years ago

chewyspaghetti

Veteran

I have lost both width and length in my feet with weight loss. Quite a bit, actually- about a full size in length, and two widths. My wrists have also shrunk- and that's the measurement that most people use to gauge frame size. People in general have become taller than past generations (due to better healthcare and diet)- which would generally mean a larger bone structure, but now we're at a point where I think height has been maximized and we are going in a different direction. And I totally agree with Maya about the changes and causes.

15 years ago

anne

Veteran

I am pretty sure that frame size could increase over generations as a result of increased nutrition and a diminution in the level of childhood diseases.

With reference to Mac's point about a 1940's dress. I was always fascinated by a description of herself at age 20 in Helen Forresters Liverpool book as having a 20 inch waist at 5'4, the result of malnutrition and semi starvation throughout her teens. I find it difficult to comprehend a frame of that size on that height.

Incidentally before I got married I tried on both my mother and grandmothers wedding dresses and fitted both, though they were a little tight around the rib cage - but I have an unusually large rib cage. But Australians in general were better nourished for some generations.

15 years ago

malcontent

Active Member

Of course, some people will can change their shoe size or their wrist size as their weight changes. But unless their weight change is extreme, the size changes to feet, wrists, or ankles will be small. For example, I have known obese women who still take a size 4 or 5 ring because their bone structure is small. At my thinnest, I took a size seven ring. At the time, several doctors remarked on how slim I was and pointed out that I had almost no abdominal fat. This is what I mean about some women having a larger frame. And I do mean only some. Most women still have smallish frames, but they are not usually as extremely small as my grandmother's was. Regarding shoe size, I recall reading that the average lady's shoe size was about a 3 at the turn of the twentieth century. It's not merely obesity that has pushed the average shoe size closer to an 8 or 9. That doesn't mean obesity isn't a factor.

The reason that frame size was traditionally judged by wrist circumference or elbow breadth is that even obese people do not usually carry much of their excess weight at these bony points, unless their obesity is extreme. I've been wearing the same watch for 16 years and it was fitted to me when I originally bought it. I was slim at the time and I've gained a fair amount of weight, but the fit has changed only slightly. Of course, every body is different and there may be some people who are more prone to fat deposits or swelling around the wrists and feet. On average though, these are the areas of the body that tend to be more consistent in size with weight gain and loss.

None of this negates the fact that, on average, we are getting fatter. That is why waist sizes are getting (on average) thicker, even in women who wear smaller sizes. I agree that there are many negative trends that have led to increased weight. I do believe that vanity sizing exists in the sense that clothing is often larger than the manufacturer indicates it should be on the fit chart. For example, if a size whatever says it is intended for a woman with a 26-inch waist, and the waistline of the garment easily fits a woman with a 30-inch waist, that may be "vanity" sizing. It could also be a miscalculation of ease or sloppy cutting or that the lady with the 30-inch waist isn't wearing the garment as intended. However, I know a lot of my friends have gone down in size over the last 10-15 years without losing weight, so it seems that cuts have become a bit more generous. It may also be that stretchier fabrics are increasingly popular and that adding a tiny amount of stretch to supposedly unforgiving items like jeans is more common now.

To put my grandmother's frame size in perspective, she was 5'7". I am taller than her and have much thicker bones. I'm also fatter than she was. There are several factors at work.

15 years ago

Category