Talk:US standard clothing size

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Textile Arts WikiProject
Textile arts Portal
This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within textile arts.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Error

The third paragraph, comparing old US, new US and UK sizes is not right. There has never been a size 2 in the UK as far as I am aware, not in mass market anyway. A (modern) American size zero is well publicised (in the UK at least) as being equivalent to a UK size 4. I have no idea how anything compares to the old US sizes so I've not changed anything. NinjaSteve 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UK size 4 appears to be smaller than a US size 0 in actual measurements, more like a size 00. I think the problem is sizes are constantly changing. When they first introduced a size 4 into the UK it probably was like a US size 0 at the time, but then vanity sizing brought in a size 00 to replace the size 0. So now a US size 00 is comparable to a UK size 4 and a US size 0 is comparable to a UK size 6.

[edit] Clarifications

Hey, iv altered the opening paragraph substantially, to hopefully clarify some of the issues and confusions that have been raised here.

[edit] Obsolete sizes

Wow...according to these (now defunct) sizing standards, I'm somewhere between an 8 and 10! And I wear a 0 or 2! Writerchick 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this article: Vanity sizing. The Editrix 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
She's probably too modest to say this, but Writerchick wrote that article.
By the way, Wc, were the changes to Petite sizes OK with you? I tried to keep the spirit of your writing, while adding some technical details. I hoped you didn't mind. See you around in Wikispace! :) WillowW 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. It's perfectly fine! :-) Writerchick 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making sense of it all

First I noticed that Size Zero gives contradictory information to this article. But then I noticed something called "catalog sizes". Now it makes more sense; however, the information still needs to be clearer. But on this basis, in what respect are the "standard" sizes still standard? And why does the "Conversion from catalog sizes" section talk only of women? -- Smjg 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Stewart (Smjg), I answered over at Talk:Size Zero, but I thought I'd drop you a line here as well. These clothing sizes are still called "standard", although they are no longer standard in practice. Does that make sense? There are some new standards in the US (drafted by engineers!), but I don't believe that they've been adopted by anyone officially. And as for why I didn't include men in the "Conversion" section, well, I've been kind of busy (my first FA last week, Photon — yeay!) and I'm not as familiar with men's sizes and how they're marketed. My limited understanding is that standard sizing doesn't work as well for men, since their bodies are more idiosyncratic; really fine men's clothes have to be tailored individually, unless you're very, very lucky. Willow 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see now. However, some standardisation was obviously necessary for the "catalog sizes" to exist as anything but assorted company-specific systems. So doesn't it make sense to call these sizes "standard" at least as well? And I'd be very surprised if men's sizing is more complicated, considering the number of measurements one could take of a woman. Moreover, I think it goes without saying that, on the basis of what you say, standard sizes wouldn't be used on "really fine" clothes. Here in the UK at least, nearly everybody, male and female, regularly buys ready-to-wear clothes. -- Smjg 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junior sizes

One thing I've never understood is why there is a women's size clothing is called "junior." Shouldn't that be for boys? btw, I just added the clothing size to the list on Junior. This whole thing is coming from frustration due to the fact that I want a wikipedia sweatshirt from www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/528088 but the only one that is made in my country (the US) is for girls... I'm just way too tall and much too much of a man to get it. sigh. --Trakon 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand it either. Most of the juniors sizes look like they could fit misses or petites or womens. I don't know. I thought they just liked to belittle people and put them in wrong categories. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counting people of various sizes

So I found this passage in the article:

With the average American woman's height at about 5'4", both standard and catalog size ranges attempt to address a variety of weights / builds as well as providing for the "shorter-than-average" height woman with "petite" and "half-sizes". However "taller-than-average" women (who, by the definition of average should be as numerous as "shorter-than-average") may find their size-height addressed by manufacturers less frequently, and may often find themselves facing issues of slightly too short pant legs and sleeve cuffs, as well as waist lengths.

It occurs to me that there are more people shorter than average adult size than there are taller than average adult size - because all those people who are destined to grow to taller than average adult size must first be smaller than average - unless they're like Mork. This fact quite likely accounts for the better selection of clothing for smaller-than-average adults. -- ke4roh 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)