This happens in women’s clothing but also men’s. The only piece of men’s clothing which doesn’t reinterpret measurements is belts. Which is why they tell you if you’re an X waist, get an X+2 belt. It’s much worse with letter sizes. There is no consensus. —even within brands.
Unfortunately, due to vanity sizing, most people don't actually know their real waist measurement either.
IME the only places that actually stick to proper sizes on belts are places that cater more toward "working belts" - selling to people who carry guns or gear - not for fashion or "just" to hold up their pants.
Vanity sizing isn’t the problem. The waist measurement on pants almost never matches the size on the tag, nor should it. That’s because pants usually sit below your natural waist, and your torso gets bigger the further down from the natural waist you are. However, the size on the tag is a “guess” about your natural waist size. Because everybody has a different shape, it’s not necessarily the case that pants that fit you have a tag size with your natural waist on it. That’s one of the complications with designing and buying pants: it’s rise dependent.
The problem is best understood from a supply chain management perspective.
A clothing retailer ordered that stuff six months ago and they only took a two minute glance (if that) at the one model sized 'medium' garment the wholesaler got the supplier to make. Every other size was just a tickbox with some guesses made as to how many items to stock to get through the sales season.
The importer took the orders from retail and topped up the order so they can do some mid-season re-stocking. They know that they have to get the order right as it is not as if the product is going to be made again.
The retailer does not have to make a sale from every customer that walks through the door. For people with XXS or XXL size requirements they might only have something to sell, the one coat in the super-sized option. Even this may be a carryover item from a previous season, kept in stock for the guy with arms that reach down to his ankles.
It is quite a risk to get the sizing wrong, you can't have a garment on the shelves with just the XXS and XXL sizes with nothing in-between. If this happens then it is straight to the sale rail. Particularly if the supplier didn't overstock the popular sizes.
We also live in an age of fast fashion where people buy clothes the whole time. Truth be told, if everyone out of childhood stopped buying clothes today we wouldn't have a mass nakedness problem for years. Clothes are that abundant. There have always been tailors and dress makers that will make clothes to fit any body, maybe a service for this is needed rather than a newsletter about what trousers in the world of fast fashion can be squeezed into.
This is one of those "no stupid questions" type questions: why are there so many more sizes for women? Men's sizes don't fit perfectly either, but it seems like women have more sizing options for the same struggle. Are women harder to fit? Do men just not bother with a correct fit? It also seems that at least a good number of guys can wear off-the-rack for a decent fit, but almost no women. Just a guy who doesn't understand trying to understand more.
And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
Go down to a basic clothing store like The Gap and look at the different pants options available in the men's section. Skinny, Slim, Straight, Relaxed, Athletic, and Jogger aren't just different styles. Each style also fits differently at the same nominal measurements, because the nominal measurements for pants are waist + inseam but there are many more measurements that actually matter, like the ratio of your waist to thigh to calf. Pants that fit your waist might not fit your legs. Pants that fit your legs might be too tight in the waist.
If a 30 Relaxed fits you, a 30 Slim probably doesn't. They aren't just styles. They are different kinds of sizes with names.
> And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.
> It also seems that at least a good number of guys can wear off-the-rack for a decent fit
In my experience this is false. It depends, of course, on what you're willing to accept as "decent fit". I personally, for instance, would not accept a dress shirt that billows like a sail around the waist as a "decent fit". And yet good luck finding a rack men's dress shirt that doesn't do that if you are fit but not rail thin across the chest.
I don't go to stores like gap, and don't really buy trendy clothes. I've never seen tons of styles like all those you mentioned, especially not in one place. My jeans are usually $20-25 a pair; I buy on-sale.
I've also never really heard of the "raito of waist to thigh to calf" being used as a measurement.
Maybe these sorts of things are popular among the younger "metrosexual" boys?
> Now you're being a sexist caricature.
How? Caricature of what? I'm relaying the exact things I've heard and seen from others. I'm really just asking a question, more "why is there this expectation of women?", and you cry "sexism"? That term is very overused.
> I don't go to stores like gap, and don't really buy trendy clothes.
That's fine. But you made a totalizing claim that isn't true about men's sizes vs women's sizes. If you want to understand why your claim isn't true, perhaps you can stop into one just to look around.
To be honest, you sound out of touch. Especially with the dropping of the "metrosexual" line.
You asked why there aren't more sizes for men, received a response telling you there are, and then somewhat indignantly responded with "well, I don't shop at those places." Well, if you want to find a better fit, maybe you ought to.
I am probably out of touch, but I wish more people would respond with information, not rebuke.
I thought metrosexual was the politically correct term these days, and that the terms traditionally used for such people are now considered offensive. What is a better word?
I get a perfectly good fit, which is why I don't shop at such places. I asked because I didn't know such things were commonplace for men, precisely because I don't shop at such places. That part of the answer was informational, and something of which I was simply not aware. The "sexist caricature" part was what merited the indignance.
Honestly, it seems as though I'm being rebuked simply because I'm not a fashionista. The first respondant referred to Gap as a "basic" clothing store; I always thought of it as high-end. I didn't grow up in a situation where we shopped at exoensive stores: not poor, just not that rich. I never fell out of those habits, I guess.
It's not the fact that "metrosexual" is or isn't politically correct (I really don't know (or care) where it falls), it's more the fact that the term itself is passé. It's a term that was used (and overused) some 15 years ago. Plus, it referred more to a man that over-indulged in taking care of their appearance, not a man that is just looking for some good fitting clothes (which is the subject of this discussion...I think).
Anyway, the more you know -=*.
(Also, no foul intended. I'm well on my way to being out of touch, too.)
I think some fit concerns could be mitigated by having a more diverse range of sizes of models. Women's clothing brands seem to be more open to showing a diverse range of sizes whereas men's clothing is still filled with models at least 6'0" of slim to athletic build.
Case in point, check the difference in body type diversity between the Everlane men's and women's clothing sections:
That seems like it would cause size deflation, the opposite of what has been happening? If I'm overweight, I might look, cknsider that I am bigger than that, and get a larger size?
Also, what on God's Green Earth is a "Pineapple Commonwealth"? It's clearly a fake indirect reference to something, but I'm not sure what.
> > And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
> Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.
This is a very uncharitable reading of the question, and a personal insult is a very unhelpful response. When someone doesn't know something, saying "Stop being an idiot" doesn't help anything.
My professor uniform used to involve a closet full of Brooks Brothers Oxford button-down shirts. Not that the brand resonates with me; the quality was simply better than similar mass-produced shirts. They felt like the denim shirts I was advised to not wear.
Then I discovered propercloth.com - custom shirts made in Asia, with an outpost in Manhattan. Took a guess at the dozen or so size parameters, got my trial shirt, wore it down to their tailor, and had it tweaked. Turned in my trial shirt for a free replacement. I now have 15 or so.
32 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 76.1 ms ] threadIME the only places that actually stick to proper sizes on belts are places that cater more toward "working belts" - selling to people who carry guns or gear - not for fashion or "just" to hold up their pants.
Tl;dr though: vanity sizing is a myth
A clothing retailer ordered that stuff six months ago and they only took a two minute glance (if that) at the one model sized 'medium' garment the wholesaler got the supplier to make. Every other size was just a tickbox with some guesses made as to how many items to stock to get through the sales season.
The importer took the orders from retail and topped up the order so they can do some mid-season re-stocking. They know that they have to get the order right as it is not as if the product is going to be made again.
The retailer does not have to make a sale from every customer that walks through the door. For people with XXS or XXL size requirements they might only have something to sell, the one coat in the super-sized option. Even this may be a carryover item from a previous season, kept in stock for the guy with arms that reach down to his ankles.
It is quite a risk to get the sizing wrong, you can't have a garment on the shelves with just the XXS and XXL sizes with nothing in-between. If this happens then it is straight to the sale rail. Particularly if the supplier didn't overstock the popular sizes.
We also live in an age of fast fashion where people buy clothes the whole time. Truth be told, if everyone out of childhood stopped buying clothes today we wouldn't have a mass nakedness problem for years. Clothes are that abundant. There have always been tailors and dress makers that will make clothes to fit any body, maybe a service for this is needed rather than a newsletter about what trousers in the world of fast fashion can be squeezed into.
And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
There aren't.
Go down to a basic clothing store like The Gap and look at the different pants options available in the men's section. Skinny, Slim, Straight, Relaxed, Athletic, and Jogger aren't just different styles. Each style also fits differently at the same nominal measurements, because the nominal measurements for pants are waist + inseam but there are many more measurements that actually matter, like the ratio of your waist to thigh to calf. Pants that fit your waist might not fit your legs. Pants that fit your legs might be too tight in the waist.
If a 30 Relaxed fits you, a 30 Slim probably doesn't. They aren't just styles. They are different kinds of sizes with names.
> And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.
> It also seems that at least a good number of guys can wear off-the-rack for a decent fit
In my experience this is false. It depends, of course, on what you're willing to accept as "decent fit". I personally, for instance, would not accept a dress shirt that billows like a sail around the waist as a "decent fit". And yet good luck finding a rack men's dress shirt that doesn't do that if you are fit but not rail thin across the chest.
I've also never really heard of the "raito of waist to thigh to calf" being used as a measurement.
Maybe these sorts of things are popular among the younger "metrosexual" boys?
> Now you're being a sexist caricature.
How? Caricature of what? I'm relaying the exact things I've heard and seen from others. I'm really just asking a question, more "why is there this expectation of women?", and you cry "sexism"? That term is very overused.
That's fine. But you made a totalizing claim that isn't true about men's sizes vs women's sizes. If you want to understand why your claim isn't true, perhaps you can stop into one just to look around.
> I've never seen tons of styles
The world is a big place with lots of variety.
You asked why there aren't more sizes for men, received a response telling you there are, and then somewhat indignantly responded with "well, I don't shop at those places." Well, if you want to find a better fit, maybe you ought to.
Old Navy (parent to Gap) sells a variety of jean sizes for a fairly low price: https://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=5199&nvt=Hamb...
I thought metrosexual was the politically correct term these days, and that the terms traditionally used for such people are now considered offensive. What is a better word?
I get a perfectly good fit, which is why I don't shop at such places. I asked because I didn't know such things were commonplace for men, precisely because I don't shop at such places. That part of the answer was informational, and something of which I was simply not aware. The "sexist caricature" part was what merited the indignance.
Honestly, it seems as though I'm being rebuked simply because I'm not a fashionista. The first respondant referred to Gap as a "basic" clothing store; I always thought of it as high-end. I didn't grow up in a situation where we shopped at exoensive stores: not poor, just not that rich. I never fell out of those habits, I guess.
Anyway, the more you know -=*.
(Also, no foul intended. I'm well on my way to being out of touch, too.)
Though, could be a style, a la: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/44/99/04/449904cf74d56a096b1f5bb60...
I think some fit concerns could be mitigated by having a more diverse range of sizes of models. Women's clothing brands seem to be more open to showing a diverse range of sizes whereas men's clothing is still filled with models at least 6'0" of slim to athletic build.
Case in point, check the difference in body type diversity between the Everlane men's and women's clothing sections:
https://www.everlane.com/collections/womens-all
https://www.everlane.com/collections/mens-all
Maybe. I think fit concerns would be mitigated if places stopped lying about the fit of their clothing by secretly clipping all of their mannequins and models in the back. https://jezebel.com/pinning-clothing-so-it-fits-the-mannequi...
Also, what on God's Green Earth is a "Pineapple Commonwealth"? It's clearly a fake indirect reference to something, but I'm not sure what.
Banana Republic
> Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.
This is a very uncharitable reading of the question, and a personal insult is a very unhelpful response. When someone doesn't know something, saying "Stop being an idiot" doesn't help anything.
Then I discovered propercloth.com - custom shirts made in Asia, with an outpost in Manhattan. Took a guess at the dozen or so size parameters, got my trial shirt, wore it down to their tailor, and had it tweaked. Turned in my trial shirt for a free replacement. I now have 15 or so.
I wish one could do the same with jeans.
There are a some mentions of some better brands out there. Proper Cloth was one, but there are others, even ones which make bottoms.
NL DE FR IT SP GB US International
32 32 34 38 0 4 2 XS
34 34 36 40 1 6 4 XS
36 36 38 42 2 8 6 S
38 38 40 44 3 10 8 S
40 40 42 46 4 12 10 M
42 42 44 48 5 14 12 M
44 44 46 50 6 16 14 L
46 46 48 52 7 18 16 XL
48 48 50 54 8 20 18 XXL
50 50 52 56 9 22 20 XXL
52 52 54 58 10 24 22 XXXL