When is a number not a number?

[TomH]

(without being too obvious).

I never try to cover what I'm doing. After all, I probably arrived in a skirt, so checking one at my waist just doesn't make any difference. It's a very rare occurrence that I'm in town in shorts and certainly not in trousers. Lots of snow or extreme cold would mean I didn't travel far enough in our lifestyle of moving with the sun.

That's another life style choice that isn't available to everyone, so sorry to brag to much.

TomH

PS. No one knows your wife/GF size anyway, so you could just be checking for a possible fit on her...

[skirted_in_SF]

I buy a lot from Lands' End and find their sizing to be quite consistent as I would expect from a catalog/internet store trying to minimize returns. I wear a 12 or Medium in shirts/blouses/sweaters and every one I have bought from them fits well. In bottoms I have to pay attention to how they say the garment fits. Traditional waist I wear an 8, lower rise I wear a 6. This is, of course, a function of the difference in the way men and women are proportioned from waist to hip.

[crfriend]

Aside from fires, floods, and other natural calamities it looks like it's a "slow news day". So I'll understand why folks would wonder why I'm lighting this log-dead thread off again.

From a story on the NBC Evening News, faithfully presented by Brian Williams and with music by John Williams (likely no relation), I am given to understand that even the staid male wardrobe has become fodder for "vanity sizing". The premise of the story was that guys who state that they can still fit into the same size they wore in college has become false, and that "a 36" pair of Dockers now measures closer to 40 inches".

This firmly places us into the same conundrum that our sisters have (and those of us who wear skirts have known for a while) that a number is not a number -- all over again. What am I to do if I need trousers? Take a measuring tape or string with me to measure pants? Resort to, as Sapphire put it, "trial by dressing room"?

Back when I was a wee lad of 18 (a large number of years ago) I sported an honest waist measurement of thirty-four inches and an inseam of thirty-six (heels were still available for men back in those times). A "large number of years" later, my tape-measure (spring-steel by "Stanley", so I doubt it lies) states that my waist now measures thirty-six and my inseam is about 34 to 35 (heels being unavailable). So what's a lad to do?

This is just plain wrong! Who redefined what an inch means? Does this mean that engineering challenges like bridges, ships, aeroplanes, and nuclear reactors now need to be "vanity sized" as well? Where's the reason? Where's rational thought? Where's honesty?

Am I alone in holding this sense of outrage, or should I just take the cue from the cat in Allegro non Tropo animated to Sibelius' Valse Triste and merely fade away? My opinion on the matter skirts on creating a massive X-ray burst followed by an even bigger shock-wave caused by atmospheric heating.

[Since1982]

Carl said: Reason: Cleaned up a grammatical probem

A what??? hehehehe Doesn't look cleaned up to me.

[JohnH]

From a story on the NBC Evening News, faithfully presented by Brian Williams and with music by John Williams (likely no relation), I am given to understand that even the staid male wardrobe has become fodder for "vanity sizing". The premise of the story was that guys who state that they can still fit into the same size they wore in college has become false, and that "a 36" pair of Dockers now measures closer to 40 inches".

Bummer! Now we have a double whammy with men's clothes being dull and with the sizing now unpredictable!
The inseam of some of my pants have been on the long size, as if the person wearing the pants should wear medium or high heeled shoes. In fact I have a pair where they come down to about 2.5 cm [1 inch] from the ground when I am wearing shoes with 6.5 cm [2 1/2 inch] heels (which I call medium heels)! At least it's easy enough to shorten the pants.
I always took comfort that men's clothing would be reliably sized, regardless how dull they are.

At least for skirts there is a wide leeway for their fit, unlike pants. .

[Grok]

Web site with a few suggestions. Check out conversion charts for sizes. Not only conversions between men and women, but also between countries.

[r.m.anderson]

This thread having been on a 3 year hiatus is resurrected to demonstrate that as things evolve everything changes and nothing
stays the same - even today the "Vanity Sizing" is well in vogue ! At least the use of half-sizing is gone - half of What ?
But damn if I will use a measuring stick (tape) to determine my real actual sizing least I find out that I don't fit the mold !
Oh the slings and pains of outrageous fortune I guess I will have to visit Omar the tent maker whose real one size does fits all
does just that ! The main components being measuring your camel - not hands high like a horse but how many sections of the
tent can you cover the whole double hump. So I am way off my horse am I? - well if there is better method of measuring - use it !
I can see in the future that an individual's vital statistics will be measured in longitude and latitude after all those are universal
measurements - just don't ask milady how many times her waist can be accommodated around the equator - so choose your latitude
with care !
And remember to use the ILL-FITTING booth with care also. No fun house mirrors allowed. If it looks too good to fit you it probably is !
Make sure your plans for the New Year are off to a measured start - now where is that start button using Windows 8 ?

[Grok]

Also noticed conversion charts for a few CD sites. (To search I had typed "men wearing womens' clothing"). However, I wasn't sure that it would have been appropriate to link to such. Also, I am not sure about converting between different countries. One thing that might be useful, if on line, would be rules of thumb.

[Uncle Al]

One of the 'sites' said take your waist measurement - 'MINUS' 21 inches which
will give the dress/skirt size. So - a 44" waist would yield a size 23 skirt. Now
most sizes are given as an even number so you'll need to adjust sizes accordingly.

This will work in reverse too. You've found a skirt/outfit and wonder if it will fit.
Women's size is a 24(example), thus you 'ADD' 21 giving you a waist size of 45".

Hope this info helps


Uncle Al

[crfriend]

Also noticed conversion charts for a few CD sites. (To search I had typed "men wearing womens' clothing").

The danger here is the assumption that a size "x" will always be "x". In practice, that assumption is fallacious -- "size 'x'" from one manufacturer is highly probable to be different than "size 'x'" from another. That fact invalidates all the charts that do not also list manufacturer's individual sizing.

So, I can be a perfect "14" from one manufacturer, a "16" (or even "18") from another, and "12" in yet one more.

If that's not confusing enough, it seems that the new standard is even sizes for women and odd sizes for "misses" (I believe the 1/2 sizes were originally for "juniors" but which has been abandoned). Four words here: "Trial by fitting room".

[Grok]

In the past I have found a particular brand/style/(official)size of jeans; then keep going back to the same to buy replacements. Same with other garments.

[crfriend]

In the past I have found a particular brand/style/(official)size of jeans; then keep going back to the same to buy replacements. Same with other garments.

The problem there is that you're using the same brand/manufacturer each time and you're, likely, doing it in menswear sizing. Once those constraints are violated anything is possible and "sizing" becomes a black art.

[Kirbstone]

......When it says M, or L, or XL or whatever. Agreed, Buying on the internet is a minefield and one must be aware which manufacturer's numbers to trust, converted or otherwise.

In the High St. though, the little roll-up measuring tape is the great leveller and when measured flat the desired girths are exactly halved with the little tape applied INSIDE the folded material. Works every time.

Tom.

[dillon]

It can also be said that a size X in one skirt doesn't usually equate to the same size in another garment...close, perhaps, but never exact. I think this is the consequence of the global economy. The same is true for men's shoes. My theory is that some Asian clothing makers simply cannot fathom that Americans could have such big feet...though the cynical me knows that ill-fitting sneakers are a product of profit margins. Big shoes priced the same as smaller ones are money losers.

[Grok]

The article suggested very tall or plus sized (I have also seen the word "zaftig" online). Has anybody had any experience with this?