Are you saying that the use of scale is arcane and not useful today? I think you are saying that it meant something once and still does, but no one uses it.

Forgive me for not re-reading this particular entry before responding but I’ve rattled off on this topic quite a few times. Generally, I’m saying both. Scale is arcane -which isn’t the same thing as saying it’s not useful today. I still use it occasionally. Particularly as it relates to finding different length points for drafting. And yes, I’m saying it meant something once but very few use it. They do in remote places. A variation of it is used in Asia in made to measure and I’ve known Mexican tailors to use it, almost exclusively, amended with client measures as needed. My thinking is that people who learned to draft using the modern drafting methods (post 1968) do not use scale.

I have a “mystery book” (no front cover) from the 50s or 60s that has standard measurements for misses, misses petite, women, half-size, junior, junior petite. It can be useful, except that most of the sizes represented are “too small” for today’s “average” women. But it is useful as a starting point. I wish I knew the scale used to create that chart.

If you can send me a scan of a few pages, I can likely tell you which book it is.

I believe that vanity sizing is an issue of whose convenience is served. As the essay explains, manufacturers tend to use these designations, whether alpha-based (XS-S-M-L-XL) or numeric-based (sizes 00 to 20 or larger) largely *for their own benefit only* — a size M is the “average” size of their desired clientele, with larger and smaller sizes based on that size Medium average. This may work very well for the manufacturers, but it really doesn’t give consumers — the customers — any useful information at all as to what size may fit their bodies.

I think many consumers would agree that where we are dealing with specific numbers, i.e. sizes 00-20, it would make far more sense if a size number represented an objective and predictable set of measurements from manufacturer to manufacturer, much as they do in sewing patterns, and that from this, the S-M-L-XL sizes could be made to correlate with numeric sizes (i.e., an S would equate to numeric sizes 6-8, M to 10-12, L to 14-16, and so on both up and down in size).

What I am trying to say here is that it would be far less frustrating for consumers if a blouse from Manufacturer A in a size 10 was at least close to the same size as a similarly-styled blouse from Manufacturer B in the same size.

The “companion problem” to this — that of dirt-poor quality control *within* sizes, means that even within a specific brand, I have to try on each garment before I make a purchase. I’ve had this problem for years with buying RTW pants, but I suspect others probably have the same issue with other garments as well.

I recognize that styling and ease in a garment will affect how a given size fits, and that looser-fitting styles will fit a much broader range of shapes than will a closer-fitting style. I understand that we will still need to use designations like “petites”, “womens” and “juniors” to represent different body types. Since pants seem to be universally troublesome (I have chatted with salespeople in higher-end stores about the difficulty fitting pants, and many of them agree it really *is* a big issue for them and their customers), I believe all women’s pants should be *required* to be labeled with waist measurements and inseam lengths — just like the men’s — since in this way, we would have the ability to skip trying on those pants that will be either too loose or too tight in the waist, or too short or too long for the look we wish to achieve.

I have read the essays on “The Myth of Vanity Sizing,” “Fit and Sizing Entropy,” and “Sizing Evolution,” and understand that sizing changes and evolves as humans change. My point is that sizing should not just represent a convenience for manufacturers — it should convey objective information to consumers as well. I believe great deal of frustration and dissatisfaction among consumers could be cleared up if sizes had uniform meaning across the board. Yes, sizes can change over time, but when they do, *please* let the consumer know what the sizing criteria *are* in terms of objective, measurable information!

I’ve always had a curvy figure — not fat, but hourglass. In my younger days, i was a 37-24-37. I could not find clothing that fit me properly in the 1970s — not the size, but the shape. Everything was too big in the waist. The standard waist-hip difference back then was 9″

I’m older now, and 2 pregnancies and 40 pounds later. My waist has thickened so my waist-hip difference is now only 9-10″. But, along with the “obesity sizing”, the shape of clothing has changed, so the standard waist-hip difference is a lot less. I’m still too X-shaped for off the rack clothing.

My 13 year old daughter, whose figure is much like mine was at her age, is having the same problem in her size 0-2 range that I’m having in the 12-14 range. It’s good that I’m teaching her to sew!

–Liz

I’m not sure if the blog is active because the last post I see was from July 9, 2009 and today is Sept. 10, 2009. The basis for this blog interests me very much.

My personal situation is this: I am a 57 year old woman. I am a bit under 5′ 4″ and weigh about 94 pounds, fluctuating between 92-96 which is just enough to make some of my smallest pants feel a bit tighter but not too tight to wear. These pants are from Dillard’s and are Antonio Melani brand in a size 0. It is the only size 0 I find that actually is consistently sized.

I have some health issues on top of just always having been a small framed person since childhood.
Over the past quarter century, my weight has fallen several times as low as 85 pounds (not anorexia) and I didn’t expect to find women’s clothing on the rack ready to wear, of course. But in the times when my weight is stable at about 94 pounds, I don’t *feel* like I am so “skinny” that I am alone on the planet. But when I go shopping, it sure seems as though I am.

Even when I was pregnant with my children, the sales people would look at me and sort of laugh at my request for small maternity wear (back in the 70’s and early 80’s). And to paraphrase, they said things such as, “just buy the next size in regular clothes. You don’t need maternity clothes!”

It is so easy for people to say, “why don’t you just get your clothes custom made for you?” As much as I have fought the good fight wanting to believe that the problem was just a passing trend, I am sure that I have been wrong all this time. I can’t wait for manufacturers and retailers to decide they should carry smaller sized and regular length clothing. Petite sizes are just a little bit too short in all lengths to give me a proper fit so I can’t really make use of that ready-made sizing option.

I can sew but I am not a tailor. Maybe I need to learn how to do what I need for myself because it just doesn’t seem there is any other solution.

Nan

and as for the post before me; women not wearing their size because of their insecurity fears.. HUMPH!.. amen!

Also just love now reading on clothing sites where they allow people to comment and women saying of size smalls that “these run too small.” Then get your real size: MEDIUM.

I have also wrestled with my own issues with clothing, and over time have discovered which stores/brands/labels do and don’t fit me. Yes, it takes time, effort and a lot of trial and error to figure out that Old Navy pants never fit my body type (gap too much at the waist, too tight in the thighs, and too short), while everything at The Gap does fit, even length. I’ve saved myself a lot of frustration (and money) by investing the time to figure out what doesn’t fit, and I don’t go into those stores anymore. I’m not even tempted. I’ve also stopped complaining about vanity sizing after working for a large department store and coming to understand the differences in target market between brands. Do the research, it’s worth it!

If I see a style that I really like in a brand that doesn’t fit me, I’m also fortunate enough to figure out what I like about the style, adapt it to my body type and make my own pattern based on it at home. I may like some styles at Forever 21 (don’t shoot me), but I am certainly *not* their target market, and that’s OK.

On the professional end, I don’t like for my clients to see their measurements or what “size” I pattern them as, because “size” is the most irrelevant thing about clothing. I only use measurements as a technical way to help me achieve good fit, not to brand them with a size. Fit -vs- size is the most difficult distinction to make (and explain) even to professionals.

If I found a genie in a bottle, my wishes would be:
-World peace (a given)
-Global understanding of fit
-World peace