Absolutely. Of course, I have found some that claim to list the measurements in inches - but they lie. I own tape measures. Apparently the inches on the manufacturers’ tape measueres are bigger, because they use fewer than I do to get around my waist and hips.
My guess is that Drain Bead is right, though. But at least, I’d know that it wouldn’t fit without having having to go through the annoyance of trying it all on.
Nah, they use the same figures as women (which for EU sizes are actually more closely related to inches than to centimeters, or they were 100 years ago).
What I’d like to have is labels that give multiple measurements. Like, “waist thismuch, hip thismuch, inseam thismuch” for trousers or “hip thismuch, boobage thismuch, torso length thismuch” for dresses.
I seem to have two numbers difference between topsize and bottomsize, in the UK and buying from a single brand. Throw in different brands and there can be 10 numbers worth of difference for the same body part. I suspect that the reason I see so many British women with clothes that look comfortably snug/loose in general and too tight across the boobs is that designers/clothes stores don’t consider that many British women are more top-heavy than the freaking plastic mannequins (many Spanish women are more bottom-heavy, for example myself).
YES.
You know, even if the manufacturers aren’t consistent (and of course they wouldn’t be), having some measurements to go by would at least start me out in the right ballpark. As it is now, I start by trying on a medium, or perhaps a “3”, with no idea whether I’ll actually need something larger or something smaller. It’s a surprise!
On a related note, how did/does Levi’s get away with printing the waist measurement on the OUTSIDE, for all to see! Uh, no, thanks!
Another yes, especially for jeans. Ideally, there’d be a common description cross-brand of waist height (“low-ride”, “mid-ride”, “navel gazer” and “Mom jeans”), intended tightness (“baggy”, “close-fit”, “don’t eat while wearing”) and then a waist, hip and inseam - although I’d be willing to forgo the last one if printing space is at a premium. There are a number of low end brands that are starting to include the first two bits of info, but the real numbers haven’t made it into my market.
Some dresses would need only a bust measurement and a length suggestion and others would do well to include waist and/or hip, too.
Yes, there will always be some variation, and there will always be designers who thought they were making a baggy garment that fits me flatteringly tight (or vice-versa) but, as others have said, meaningful numbers give you something to go off of as a starting point.
Damn, that really sucks. FWIW, I’m jealous of the ladies around here who fit your description, as most affordable (read: cheap) stores cater almost entirely to your body type. I know, move to Central Ohio, and all your problems will be solved! Okay, maybe not all, but the most important one. Okay, so it’d probably be more hassle than it’s worth…
Yes! I’m getting tired of guessing what size fits in each particular store (anywhere within a range of about 4 sizes for heaven’s sake.) Numbers at least give you a guide.
I’m a guy but I also have problems with inconsistent sizes sometimes (some time ago bought a set of running trousers in size XXL without noticing that it said “Asian size XXL” :smack: ). The EN 13402 systems looks much more rational to me and I hope it will see widespread adoption soon.
I would be thrilled if they standardized clothing sizes to use inches. I’m pretty fat, but mostly carry my weight fairly well. I’ll wear a size 20 from one store, and need a 24 from another. It gets frustrating for multiple reasons. One can’t just say, “Okay, I need a size XX,” and have that be the end of it. And on those days when one is feeling bad enough already about the weight, having to put on a size 24 can be really disheartening, even though logically it doesn’t mean anything. It’s the same size as the so-called size 20 clothes.
I do agree that for pants the hip measurement would need to be added to the inseam and waist measurements, because women’s backsizes come in all shapes and sizes.
Does no one else but me also have a problem with the “rise” measurement? I have a short upper body and a long lower body and legs, and I do NOT like having pants cut me in two vertically!
Most places I’ve gone to will try to describe the rise on the tag, so that’s something at least. I find that “just below waist” or thereabouts works for me.
Do they fit?
I don’t really care how my clothes are measured. At this point, I can generally tell if a piece of clothing will fit by looking at it anyways.
That said, I was shopping for jeans on day and tried on a bunch of pants that were everywhere from a perfect fit to not being able to get them past my thighs. Every single one of them was marked as a 24" waist. In the same store. The hell?
Geez, yes, I’d buy clothes sized in inches.* I loathe clothes shopping. I absolutely have to try everything on, since no item’s “size” bears any resemblance to how big/small it is.
For example, I recently had to buy some new jeans. I took sizes 5, 7 and 9 into the dressing room, for each style of jeans I was considering. I was considering 4 different styles, 2 of which were the same brand. That’s 12 pair of jeans. It doesn’t matter if they’re made by the same manufacturer, the sizes vary so widely as to be irrelevant.
Can the manufacturers give some kind of half-credible explanation as to why some jeans will fit around the butt, but give you a 6 inch wide pouch at the small of your back when you sit down? Are they suggesting we store something in there?
The whole scum sucking, life draining ordeal appears to have been specifically designed to create feelings of inferiority and hopelessness. If that was the goal, I guess I could argue that it’s been a rousing success.
In my closet right now my dress pants (trousers for non-USAians) range in size from 4 (they’re a bit baggy) to a size 12 (snug in the seat), not missing any sizes in between.
Since I’m starting to hiss and spit over this topic, I’ll just wind up by reiterating: why yes, I’d buy clothing sized in inches. As others have pointed out, at least you’d have some kind of starting point.
*the friggin’ tag will be on the inside, right?
Yeah, me too. There are also cases where the measurements aren’t very precise. I have two pairs of the same model jeans from the same store, both with the same measurements. One fits well, the other one I can squeeze into, but is really too tight. I foolishly tried on one pair, liked it, and grabbed another off the rack to buy. Not doing that again.
Yes, yes, to your whole post but especially this. I desperately need clothing but I’ve developed a bit of a phobia about it.* If I have to do it for more than an hour at a time (coincidentally, about as long as it takes to try on twelve pairs of jeans), I want to cry and hit people. Therefore, I don’t go shopping and I don’t buy clothes. Is that really what clothes manufacturers want?
*Shopping, that is, not clothing
God yes. I think my arms and shoulders are “large” but the rest of my torso is “medium” and it would be nice to have this reflected on the tag. I never ever buy blouses, because I have never ever found one which fits properly around my arms, shoulders, AND boobs (occasionally I can get 2 out of 3, but that’s it) and that doesn’t look like a bathrobe.
There is a chain around here that sells jeans sized in inches, and it is the only place where I can buy jeans, and only one style of them. I don’t even bother going anywhere else because whenever I try, I can’t find any other place that sells jeans with (a) odd sizes (i.e. 33 inch waist instead of 32 or 34), and (b) inseams measured in inches, and available in the length I need.
If I go anywhere else I invariably find that the inseam is too short (because I am too tall for “medium”) or the waistband is too big (because I am too narrow for “large”) or the crotch is ridiculous (because my thighs are apparently too big too).
I would love consistency across clothing and diversity in size availability. If sizing them in inches would address that, then where do I sign up?
If nothing else, this thread has made me feel not quite so alone. The dressing room attendant in my example was so stinking chirpy I feared for her safety.
“Hee HEE! There’s a style for everyone! Isn’t it GRAND??!!” Grrrr.
Not quite what you’re describing, but I actually already shop for clothes based on the measurements of said clothes, on eBay. It’s standard to include certain measurements for certain items – for a blouse, for instance, you’ll often see armpit-to-armpit, overall length, and maybe arm length, with waist tossed in if it’s a close-fitting design. If the listing doesn’t include this stuff most sellers will give it to you on request. I buy almost nothing retail anymore.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As noted, it may not be perfect. But it’d certainly be an improvement.
(Who are all of these “vanity sizing” people anyway? I don’t think I’ve ever actually met one. Or at least, not one who isn’t already squeezing themselves into their old size already. The rest of us want clothes that fit, dammit.)
It’s sad when they start at “style for everyone” and then by the time you’re through, you’ve ground them down as well; they have to admit that they were wrong. There is no style for you.
But at least they temporarily lose the chirpyness.