Comments on: Vanity sizing: generational edition

By: Fashion Incubator » Sizing evolution

Fashion Incubator » Sizing evolution — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:25:26 +0000

[...] 3 Sizing is a variety problem The birth of size 10? Vanity sizing shoes Tyranny of tiny sizes pt.2 Vanity sizing: generational edition Vanity sizing: generational edition pt.2 Vanity sizing: the consumer spending edition addthis_pub = [...]

By: Thomas Bailey

Thomas Bailey — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:30:27 +0000

Throughout history, the best physiques belonged to people who were well-off. This standard has changed many times, but people who appeared to be either rich or at least having enough resources to live comfortably are considered attractive. When food was scarce, obesity was attractive. When food became plentiful and cheap, obesity became less attractive, eventually ugly. When people worked long hours at sedentary jobs, muscular people were attractive, as they have time to work out. Construction workers are lucky, as their jobs are physically demanding.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:09:25 +0000

I don’t know how much work you’ve already done, how much off web hard copy data you have (to include product samples) or what you’re willing to invest in the project (time and money). What do you intend to do with it?

I’d planned to do some research on related topics at the Smithsonian’s museum of Science & Technology last year but it is closed due to lack of funds for repairs. I had to settle for what could be gleaned on drafting systems from the Library of Congress. There is no word on when the museum will reopen but I plan on being there when (if, at this rate) it does.

By: Bo

Bo — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:02:20 +0000

I have a vaguely related interest and am putting it out there for comments. Am doing research on the history of the dress form. Have looked at a bunch of stuff on the web but want more definitive info. Any ideas where I should start looking?
Thanks

By: sfriedberg

sfriedberg — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:15:59 +0000

Teijo, just a note of reassurance. I find the sort of information you have provided fascinating. Please don’t restrain yourself too rigidly from “rambling”.

By: teijo

teijo — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:21:37 +0000

Yes, individual beauty is irrelevant to height.

Traditionally in Japan a “good physique” meant sheer strength. A strongly built person was considered to have a “good physique” regardless of height or shape. In fact, a kimono looks quite pleasing on a man with a belly, or on a plump woman. This is more difficult to achieve with Western clothes.

The pursuit of “better” – as in taller – physique here comes in part from being steered by the U.S.A. ever since World War II. (The term “country that lost the war” is invoked often when referring to servility to America or just pursuing its trends and ideals in general.)

One concrete change is that as people have grown taller their limb length has increased disproportionately. This is generally perceived as aesthetically pleasing, but whether it is “better” in other ways is another question. (A Korean study found proportionately shorter limb length to be correlated to increased dementia, but those with proportionately shorter limbs were also less educated.)

Weight increase has become a somewhat sensitive matter. While people can be healthy and heavy, the human frame has limits. Sumo wrestlers are a good example of pushing these limits. Their training makes them very fast, strong, agile and heavy. Their weight makes them suffer injuries and health problems, and to die young. The current campaign,..

- but here I am rambling off subject once again…

By: Pocket Venus

Pocket Venus — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:46:29 +0000

What is this “better physiques” nonsense? People come in all shapes and sizes. Some are petite and proud of it. I am 4 feet 10 inches tall and have a proportionate figure. I’m incredibly proud to be petite, and I sew all my own clothes because there’s nowhere here in England where I can buy clothes that fit.

By: teijo

teijo — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:03:11 +0000

Curious, the new European sizing standard EN 13402 aims to do just that. It shows sizing in actual body dimensions appropriate for the garment, so if one knows one's measurements one can easily tell whether the item should fit. Wikipedia has an article on this system at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_13402

By: Curious

Curious — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:42:38 +0000

I always wonder, why don’t they just use measurements for the sizes? I have a 27 waist which really is not all that small, but I have a harder time finding clothes that fit me now then I did when I was 14 and had a 22 waist. Back then I bought “22″, now I have to buy a 1 and they usually don’t have a small enough size for me or I have to buy a zero which I have to say makes me feel extremely self concious and I usually just leave the store

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:13:59 +0000

I’m fascinated by the subject of fit and sizing. There are so many challenges and opportunities for DE to stand out here, particularly in women’s wear. The range of body sizes and shapes seems to be broadening (no pun intended). Yes women are getting larger and many companies need to re-evaluate fit. But there are also a number of us who haven’t and as Kathleen pointed out are wearing sizes smaller than we did 15 years ago. I was in a Club Monaco recently (I’m a pretty regular customer) and they’ve add size 00 to the mix. Think about that in terms of the whole “size shift” discussion. How far can you shift before it seems silly?

The range is too broad and brands can’t be all things to all people yet women complain that nothing fits. Isn’t the answer we DE’s defining our niche with fit, being targeted and consistent, and then finding ways to communicate our “fit philosophy”? Seems rare that a company talks about or defines what “fit” means to them, what segment of the market they’re going after. No wonder we women get frustrated by all the trial and error. Maybe what is needed is some kind of common language to describe where we fall on the sizing spectrum?