Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#71

Post by exmadscientist »

jedberg wrote: post #61
dboreham wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mens sizes have changed over time. Go get a vintage t-shirt from the 80s, medium size, and try it on. It'll be the size of a small or xs today.

I meant more the pants and dress shirts, which are sized in inches.

> pants are sized in inches

I wish! That number is kinda-sorta-related-to inches, but it's not, at least not anymore. I wear a 31 or 32 jean, but my waist is about 34.5 inches. And any jeans which fit my thighs properly (turns out to be about size 34) will fall off my waist.

Measure your own waist and pants, see what you find!

Sizing is chaos.

Re: Sizing chaos

#72

Post by bhk »

zeckalpha wrote: post #6

Almost like we should use, you know, units of length, when measuring lengths/widths/etc.

Funny enough, vanity sizing strikes there too. The purported waist size of a pair of Levi's is off by almost three inches.

One might argue that the size on their label is not supposed to indicate the size of the garment waistband, but the waist size of the wearer who would find it comfortable, but even with that interpretation it doesn't work out right.

Re: Sizing chaos

#73

Post by CGMthrowaway »

choilive wrote: post #66

If we can have mass produced fast fashion from runway to store in weeks... Why not tailored clothing at scale? Have a set of portable body measurements that can be sent to any retailer - make an order and have it sent from factory to door in a week or two. Or get a size that is close enough - bring it to your neighborhood tailor. Most alterations are simple and not very expensive. Unfortunately sizing is just a leaky…

We do. For men it's brands like Proper Cloth and for women it's Eshakti or creators on Etsy

Re: Sizing chaos

#74

Post by eszed »

Men's clothes have gone through the same process over the course of my lifetime. For instance, I wear the same brand and size of jeans that I did in college. The waist size back then was broadly accurate to the actual size in inches, but today, thirty years on, I weigh ~20lbs more, and that waist "measurement" has up-sized along with me. I guess it's meant to flatter me, but is it really fooling anyone? I guess, based on other's comments in this thread, that it does, and vanity sizing works, which is just sad.

(Then there are men's "relaxed" fits, which bear even less relationship to actual measurements. Maybe "slim" sizing is closer to the old system? Even when they fit my waist - like, six nominal inches bigger than standard! I'm not that much wider - they don't fit my legs, so I don't know.)

None of that's anywhere close to as ridiculous as women's sizing, but give 'em time and I'm sure it will be.

Re: Sizing chaos

#75

Post by altairprime »

mcgrath_sh wrote: post #59
uberman wrote: post #41

Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a shoe.

Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I can generally start there and find a shoe plus/minus a half size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10 different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years. I wen…

Anecdotally, I discovered recently that I’m a full three sizes down in Vivobarefoot shoes versus normal shoes — but for a really interesting reason. It turns out that modern runner’s shoes actually are often shaped like a foot, rather than like a spatula, and so now that I don’t have to size up for my toebox width thanks to them creating shoes that are foot shaped in disregard to fashionable propriety, I now fit much better into a 3-sizes smaller shoe than I did into their older shoes at my prior size.

Part of why retailers are afraid to change sizing is that lots of women install their clothing into their ego and brag about it socially. I don’t approve, but I recognize the extrinsic cultural circumstances* that pressure them to do so. It’s a a lot harder to brag about being a size 49-42-48–8-30 than it is to brag about being a 20UK. (The /22 in 20/22 UK, the common size these days, is silent, because size lying is normalized.)

It would make more sense instead for them to choose an anchor measurement and a body type modifier; but that gets into the problems of having to annotate nine different body type letters onto a numeric size, not to mention having to design clothing that looks good on nine different body types, and having to hire models of nine different body types. The modeling industry is unprepared to staff that need, too!

* The phrase “pinup-hourglass male-gaze body-shape imposed-ideal” serves as an excellent starting point for research on that nightmare. For those unfamiliar, ask your friends who are women about that exact phrase, and remember to listen rather than critique their potentially-lengthy reply. I’m focusing on the sizing discussion and leave that topic as an exercise for the reader.

Re: Sizing chaos

#76

Post by exmadscientist »

altairprime wrote: post #32
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #9

> I took stacks upon stacks of jeans with me to the dressing room, searching in vain for that one pair that fit perfectly. Over 20 years later, my hunt for the ideal pair of jeans continues. But now as an adult, I’m stuck with the countless ways that women’s apparel is not made for the average person, like me. I'm a 5'6 145lbs adult male. Y'know how many clothes are made that fit me? T-shirts, size S, fitted; and dre…

This post is about women’s sizing, not men’s sizing. I’d love to see a followup post by someone doing the same analysis for men’s sizing, though!

Women's sizing got bad first, and is worse today, but men's sizing is already moving fast down the same road.

This crap affects all of us and awareness that we're all in the same boat is a good thing.

Re: Sizing chaos

#77

Post by magneticnorth »

steanne wrote: post #63
magneticnorth wrote: post #56

"The average woman’s waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider than it was in the mid-1990s." I assume they mean circumference rather than diameter, but this is still a shocking increase in only 30 years. I knew the obesity epidemic was an ever-increasing problem, but this really puts it into perspective. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand the causes behind this rapid shift.

part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total population would still be up.

Ah, yeah, the aging population is a good point.

I can't find a citation now, but I recall reading at some point that weight gain with age (in adulthood) didn't used to happen very much before the obesity epidemic, though nowadays we take it as a given. I wish I could find a source for/against that idea, I'm curious now if it's true.

Re: Sizing chaos

#78

Post by goodmythical »

fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

I mean, I get that it sucks online, but in person? Who cares what the label says? I'm an adult. I can easily tell by looking at a garment how it's going to fit me.

That said, if we could just get the critical measure online that'd be fantastic. No need for sizes, I know how big inches and centimeters are.

And, as it turns out, my favorite retailers do in fact include measurements, but I'd rather have a few quality items than lots of garbage, which is also why I own a sewing machine because sometimes I really love a dress but the manufacturer doesn't accommodate my specific frame. I developed this practice when I was broke and shopping out of thrift stores. It allowed me to buy almost anything and tailor it to make it fit. Really broadens your fashion horizons.

With regard to why sizing is difficult, I'd guess it's just consumer laziness or cognitive dissonance. Although it's maybe a little bit of efficiency too. How many models should I produce (and how many lines do I have to run) to fit every woman just right instead of lying to all of them? For pants alone, if you really want it to actually fit, you're going to need ankle, calf, knee, thigh, inseam/outseam, glute, hip, and waist (and crotch to waistband if you're offering different rises). So if you've got even just 5 measurements (probably not enough as no way do all women fit tailored within 5 different calf sizes), you've got 5^9 different products (and therefore machine configurations) to cover just that space, because yes there are women with massive calfs and small thighs or same waist/hip or whatever combination you can imagine) and that's all just for literally one style. If you've got five different pants that's immediately 5^9.

Lots of (american) women are perfectly fine with their 36in underbust but would be shamed to admit they need a 46in hip with their 32in waist for all that ass. Much better to just lie and say I need an 8 which will not in any world ever make it over my butt.

Maybe we can compromise on a 'call it' measurement which is on average 2 less than the prevailing standard would suggest. If your countries' system would have you in a 8, you can 'call it a 6', and then we're all happy.

Re: Sizing chaos

#79

Post by ChadNauseam »

malfist wrote: post #21
ChadNauseam wrote: post #3

Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)

Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.

why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?

Re: Sizing chaos

#80

Post by xxxx_xxxx »

altairprime wrote: post #48
Rendello wrote: post #27

Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the thesis is. To me, the conclusion says: 1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary. 2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types. 3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they want.

0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes. The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along wit…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN