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

351–360 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#351

Post by MezzoDelCammin »

egorfine wrote: post #347
MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #342

For everyone struggling with clothes sizing and having a hacker mindset, I can't recommend enough buying a sewing machine (~100EUR on a used market, ~150 new gets you a reasonable starter one you won't outgrow any time soon) and giving clothes alterations a try. Finding a tailor that understands you / you agree with is an option too, if time is a hard limit (though I'm not sure it's altogrther that much quicker). In…

Is overlock a necessity?

TLDR : "nice to have, but not a necessity"

For some basic jerseys (think T-shirts) a basic zigzag is fine to begin with. That 100EUR sewing machine will have some fancier stretch stitch options that are slow, but "good enough" to look like an overlock (but can't do the cut of course).

If you have the space / money, overlock is definitely what I'd get as a second / third machine. It's much quicker / cleaner if you're working on jerseys or shirts.

But I still keep wearing the T-shirts I did when I was starting. On my list the first thing to do is to understand how to alter something to fit you. It can be done by hand (needle and thread), but to be reasonably efficient, the BOM would be "sewing machine, box of pins, scissors, piece of chalk / ruler and something to press / iron".

Re: Sizing chaos

#352

Post by belZaah »

What ticks me off in this is the statement, that a certain body shape is “unattainable for most”. I’m pretty sure the author does not have the data to back this up. Difficult? Yes. Requiring commitment? Absolutely. Unattainable? No. I really don’t care what body shape anyone is comfortable with. But as someone, who has struggled hard all his life not to be obese, I find it irresponsible to outright declare something that’s absolutely doable by anyone as “unattainable”. Being able to attain it might be someone’s only hope and it’s just wrong to take it away.

Re: Sizing chaos

#353

Post by wooger »

orbisvicis wrote: post #271
roenxi wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Respond how? By destandardising sizes. It isn't that hard to standardise if an industry thinks it'll help them; the article suggests there is already a relevant standards body. These companies are probably doing it for a reason. My guess would be maybe someone doesn't want to be an XXL 18 at J Crew so they can go to Reformation where they are more of a Regular 14. > Signal what? Age, health and status for women. Gr…

> By destandardising sizes Oh. I thought there was an outside chance you intended a positive response. Ah well. > Age, health and status I can understand age. But wouldn't everyone want to signal good health and high status?

People with bad health, low status being able to wear the same clothes as young women with good health and status removes the signalling benefit of those clothes.

Re: Sizing chaos

#354

Post by Shywim »

belZaah wrote: post #352

What ticks me off in this is the statement, that a certain body shape is “unattainable for most”. I’m pretty sure the author does not have the data to back this up. Difficult? Yes. Requiring commitment? Absolutely. Unattainable? No. I really don’t care what body shape anyone is comfortable with. But as someone, who has struggled hard all his life not to be obese, I find it irresponsible to outright declare something…

Body shape is not only about obesity, or fat, and I think it's obvious the author don't talk about this when speaking of body shape.

Re: Sizing chaos

#355

Post by Freak_NL »

echelon wrote: post #238
coldtea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 brands? Because - in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme th…

> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only". This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia. You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear. This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one: https://en.wikiped…

Lululemon famously had that 'incident' where they flat out stated their brand just wasn't suitable for fat people. Given their brand identity this makes complete sense, whilst also excluding a large group of people. Expect more of this type of edgy marketing — it is in line with the zeitgeist (consider that eugenic jeans ad).

Re: Sizing chaos

#356

Post by wooger »

iamacyborg wrote: post #294
jcims wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up repeat purchases.

Speaking for myself as a bloke, yes, 100%. If I know stuff from a particular brand fits me well, I’m going to buy more from that brand.

100%. For a time whoever the gap shirt designers measured up for their XL size must've exactly matched my build and height, and had extra long arms the same length as mine. So it was an easy way to get a shirt that fit right, for me.

Re: Sizing chaos

#358

Post by wooger »

spockz wrote: post #55
lotsofpulp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not. I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenien…

So much this for consistency. I remember one particular bad occasion I went shopping for trousers in a store. I tried five, each had something wrong in relation with the size numbers. First didn’t fit because it was too tight, so I tried one size larger. This one was even smaller than the previous one. So I tried an even bigger one which was only taller. Tried a bigger number now it was way too big. So for fun I trie…

Used to know someone who worked for a mass production company, outsourcing big clothing orders for UK supermarkets.

It's common for clothing producers (Designers were in the UK in this case, clothes made in china or otherwise) to just pick whoever is in the design office that's about the right size and use them as the basis of all sizing measurements for a given size.

I've even heard of a petite woman being used as the size model for boys 11-12 age supermarket clothes. There's very little thought involved, it's just convenience to be able to tailor the template garment to a real person who's nearby.

Re: Sizing chaos

#359

Post by wooger »

Shywim wrote: post #354
belZaah wrote: post #352

What ticks me off in this is the statement, that a certain body shape is “unattainable for most”. I’m pretty sure the author does not have the data to back this up. Difficult? Yes. Requiring commitment? Absolutely. Unattainable? No. I really don’t care what body shape anyone is comfortable with. But as someone, who has struggled hard all his life not to be obese, I find it irresponsible to outright declare something…

Body shape is not only about obesity, or fat, and I think it's obvious the author don't talk about this when speaking of body shape.

Maybe, but for sure the range of total size would be very different if everyone in the study was in shape.

It'd be interesting to see this study repeated after a decade of GLP-1 drugs being available (and cheaper).

Post reply on HN