Posted on 09/13/2010 7:46:29 AM PDT by tlb
Esquire Magazine discovered a secret technique used in the pants making industry called "vanity sizing," a merchandizing trick of sizes that make you feel good and want to buy the clothes.
Eyewitness News bought four pairs of labeled 36-inch waist pants from different retailers. Old Navy's pants measured 39 inches and H&M at 39.5 inches, while Banana Republic and The Gap both came in at 40 inches.
Esquire Magazine's own test measured H&M's size 36-inch dress pants as 37 inches, Calvin Klein's Dylan pant as 38.5 inches, and The Gap as 39 inches. The worst was Old Navy, coming in at 41 inches.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
I had the same problem but I solved it by adding an extra 12 pack a week to my diet. Wholla instant size 36. They fit like a champ.
In the news story I saw on tv, the news team took the pants to tailors to measure the waist, so I think the waist measurements reported were accurate.
When I first started wearing junior clothing, a size 5 was the smallest available. By the time my daughter started wearing junior-sized clothes, the smallest size was a 0. We’ll have to go into the negative numbers soon.
I don’t buy my pant otr. My clothes are mtm.
I noticed this with T shirts. I used to take a large, now they are too big on me. If anything I have gained a few pounds over the years but now I wear a smaller size. I didn’t know they were also doing this with pants.
I gain and lose a few pounds and have for years had jeans in 32”, 33” and 34” waist sizes. Several years back I started noticing that the differences weren’t always what one would expect, so I measured the waists of several a found that all were a little larger than labeled, usually 1” or less.
Take them in for alterations. That’s what I do for one of my kids. The wear and happiness you get out of having properly fitting clothes is worth it. I can get three pairs of 36” jeans taken in to 35” for probably $30.
Ha! When I was young I bought extra large T-shirts. Now I am older and somewhat heavier, I have shrunk to “large!”
I'm incredibly handsome.
Vanity. Or shoddy work from overseas.
You can try on FOUR pairs of men’s pants, same cut, same brand, same shipment (store location).
They will all fit a little differently.
And in the 1980s, 6 was the smallest size made...Very few offered size 4 (or 2 or 0) till towards the end of the 20th century.
Today, size 6 is STILL the smallest size many clothing catalogs carry-and these size 6s would have been 10s or 12s in the 1980s.
Now here's what annoys me : No one in the 1960s I'll bet ragged on size 8 or 9 women as being too thin. In the 1980s, size 6 was the ideal size. Today, size 0 is meant for women with 24--25.5" waists and 34-35.5" hips-the SAME measurements as a 1960s 8 or 1980s 6-and size 0 is called "scary thin", "unhealthy", sexless", "looks like 12 year old boys", and a whole lot of other BS . Why? Why the pretense that size 0 is unusually thin, when no one said that about 1980s size 6 women with the SAME DAMN MEASUREMENTS??????
OOPs-make that 34.5” HIPS. (THough the way things are going, I’ll bet some of today’s size 6s ARE for 34.5” waists!)
“”I’m 5’ 2” and I weigh 155 lbs. I wear size 8 so I know I’m not fat, so why do I feel fat?” “
Because you’re obese!
A high-carbohydrate, low-exercise diet works wonders.
Seeker sensitive, affirmative action, post-modern pant sizing. It was inevitable.
I had heard that about women’s clothing. Yet, I notice that size 0, which used to be size 6...the women look quite skeletal. Maybe it’s just my age, but I notice as I get older a little more plumpness—not sloppy fat, mind you (unless it’s solid muscle) looks better than being thin.
i’m a mean bastard and proud of it!
Size 12 belongs hidden under a burka!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.