Advertisement
I think womens clothing sizes mean almost nothing anymore. I can wear anywhere from a 0 to a 4 depending on the individual article. I n the old days (25 yrs ago) I always wore a seven. Funny thing is, I haven't changed weight but now I wear a 2 (usually). Can't trust those darn size tags. i wish they would use waist and inseam like men's.
posted by:
|
Portland
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Wed, December 19, 2007 - 8:59 PMi SO agree! some brands, a size 0 is too tight on me.....and some, it's huge! try shopping at Express, or Limited.....their pants run about 2 sizes too big. i am convinced their 0 is really a 2.
thank GOD for Delias who has recently come out with several new inseams! i got 2 pairs of size 0's with a 28 inch inseam and they fit perfectly! i don't love all their clothes but they are really good for jeans. try them out ---> www.Delias.com
i have gotten lots of compliments in them so they must look good! :) -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Wed, December 19, 2007 - 10:33 PMWell, Marilyn Monroe was a size 13, or somesuch, which today would be a 7 or a 9. Clothing manufacturers know that a woman looking at two garments, one marked size 7 and the other marked size 3, will probably, due to pressures from the beauty industry and resulting vanity issues, purchase the 3, which has led to a complete reorganization of women's size charts.
If you used to wear a 7, but now wear a 0 depending on who made it, you're not imagining things- it's the manufacturers who are mixing things up to sell more clothes.
Have a great holiday.
Love you, Crista.
T
-
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Thu, December 20, 2007 - 3:37 AMI never knew anything about this until very recently when I went into the Gap to buy some pants, and for the first time in my life (I'm 53) ran into it with men's pants. I've always been able to buy clothes without trying them on; I could grab a pair of pants by the waist/inseam measurements anywhere from Neiman/Marcus to Costco, take them home, and 99% of the time they would fit fine. The other 1%, it was the length that varied, not the waist, and only by an inch or so.
Well they had some pants there at the gap that were just way off in the direction of being labeled smaller than they were; like 3 to 4 inches in the waist; 34's marked as 30;s, 36's marked as 32's.
I guess they probably sell a lot of pants that way, you get in there and think, gee, I've lost a lot of weight.
The point is that if this trend goes on, waist and inseam measurements won't be of much use, either.
Kind of like that time my digital scale was screwed up and I 'gained' 16 pounds in one day by replacing it. -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Thu, December 20, 2007 - 10:02 AMwell, for men anyway, there's the whole baggy sagged pants style, which means you get a much bigger waistline for the same "size". i guess these kids nowadays can't do math on their own. -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Thu, December 20, 2007 - 7:43 PMI'm totally annoyed by the baggy trend combined with the "under-sizing" or whatever you want to call it. The fashion industry has lost me as a customer, because I can't buy their product. -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Thu, December 20, 2007 - 10:41 PMwe should all be naked more, anyways... -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Fri, December 21, 2007 - 7:52 PMyeah, right. Us skinny people, the ones who are colder should be naked? You've lost your grip. :) -
-
Re: women's clothing sizes
Sun, December 23, 2007 - 5:41 PMI can't but into the marketing madness that belies the products... but short of being a costumer, I am a customer... even with tailoring. I've also noticed that my feet have also seemed to have sized down. Hmmm... What next? Or maybe WHY?
MA
-
-
-
-
-
