Vanity sizing, or size inflation, is the phenomenon of ready-to-wear clothing of the same nominal size becoming bigger in physical size over time.[1][2][3] This has been documented primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.[4] The use of US standard clothing sizes by manufacturers as the official guidelines for clothing sizes was abandoned in 1983.[5][6] In the United States, although clothing size standards exist (i.e., ASTM), most companies do not use them any longer.[2]
Size inconsistency has existed since at least 1937. In Sears' 1937 catalog, a size 14 dress had a bust size of 32 inches (81 cm). In 1967, the same bust size was a size 8. In 2011, it was a size 0.[7] Some argue that vanity sizing is designed to satisfy wearers' wishes to appear thin and feel better about themselves.[2][3] This works by adhering to the theory of compensatory self-enhancement, as vanity sizing promotes a more positive self-image of one upon seeing a smaller label.[5] Designer Nicole Miller introduced size 0 because of its strong California presence and to satisfy the request of many Asian customers. It introduced subzero sizes for naturally petite women.[2] However, the increasing size of clothing with the same nominal size caused Nicole Miller to introduce size 0, 00, or subzero sizes.[2] The UK's Chief Medical Officer has suggested that vanity sizing has contributed to the normalisation of obesity in society.[8]
In 2003, a study that measured over 1,000 pairs of women's pants found that pants from more expensive brands tended to be smaller than those from cheaper brands with the same nominal size.[9]
Although more common in women's apparel, vanity sizing occurs in men's clothing as well. For example, men's pants are traditionally marked with two numbers, "waist" (waist circumference) and "inseam" (distance from the crotch to the hem of the pant). While the nominal inseam is fairly accurate, the nominal waist may be quite a bit smaller than the actual waist, in US sizes. In 2010, Abram Sauer of Esquire measured several pairs of dress pants with a nominal waist size of 36 at different US retailers and found that actual measurements ranged from 37 to 41 inches.[15] The phenomenon has also been noticed in the United Kingdom, where a 2011 study found misleading labels on more than half of checked items of clothing. In that study, the worst offenders understated waist circumferences by 1.5 to 2 inches. London-based market analyst Mintel say that the number of men reporting varying waistlines from store to store doubled between 2005 and 2011.[16]
^ abD'Angelo, Jennifer (15 July 2002). . Fox News. Archived from the original on 2006-05-25.
^. WNWO.com. Archived from the original on 2005-02-15.
^ ab"Hidden Numbers: The History of Women's Clothing Sizes in the U.S." Bodylore. Retrieved 2018-09-20.
^"When — And Why — We Started Measuring Women's Clothing". Time. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
^Clifford, Stephanie (24 April 2011). "One Size Fits Nobody: Seeking a Steady 4 or a 10". New York Times. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
^Howard, SJ; Davies, Sally C (27 March 2014). "Chief medical officer urges action to tackle overweight and obesity". BMJ. 348: g2375. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2375. PMID 24677657. S2CID 6223248. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
^Kinley, Tammy R. (2003). "Clothing Size Variation in Women's Pants". Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 21 (1): 19–31. doi:10.1177/0887302X0302100103. S2CID 110382656.
^ abc"A short history of U.S. white women's measurements used for patternmaking". Analog-Me. 30 November 2011. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
^(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-06-17.
^(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2014-09-14.
^"ASTM D5585 - 11e1: Standard Tables of Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range 00–20". Astm.org. ASTM. Retrieved 2011-11-13.
^Sauer, Abram (September 2010). "Are Your Pants Lying to You? An Investigation". Esquire.
^Jamieson, Alastair; Hadfield, Tom (September 2011). "Wrong trousers on the High Street as men fall victim to 'vanity sizing'". The Sunday Telegraph.
External linksEdit
Johnson, Kate (5 May 2006). "As waistlines grow, clothing sizes shrink incredibly; 0 is the new 8". Boston Globe.
. Web2.unt.edu. 16 December 2003. Archived from the original on 2007-03-25. Retrieved 2013-03-14. Press release.
Rickey, M (2007-09-22). "Vanity sizing". The Times (London).
October 21, 2023
vanity, sizing, size, inflation, phenomenon, ready, wear, clothing, same, nominal, size, becoming, bigger, physical, size, over, time, this, been, documented, primarily, united, states, united, kingdom, standard, clothing, sizes, manufacturers, official, guide. Vanity sizing or size inflation is the phenomenon of ready to wear clothing of the same nominal size becoming bigger in physical size over time 1 2 3 This has been documented primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom 4 The use of US standard clothing sizes by manufacturers as the official guidelines for clothing sizes was abandoned in 1983 5 6 In the United States although clothing size standards exist i e ASTM most companies do not use them any longer 2 Size inconsistency has existed since at least 1937 In Sears 1937 catalog a size 14 dress had a bust size of 32 inches 81 cm In 1967 the same bust size was a size 8 In 2011 it was a size 0 7 Some argue that vanity sizing is designed to satisfy wearers wishes to appear thin and feel better about themselves 2 3 This works by adhering to the theory of compensatory self enhancement as vanity sizing promotes a more positive self image of one upon seeing a smaller label 5 Designer Nicole Miller introduced size 0 because of its strong California presence and to satisfy the request of many Asian customers It introduced subzero sizes for naturally petite women 2 However the increasing size of clothing with the same nominal size caused Nicole Miller to introduce size 0 00 or subzero sizes 2 The UK s Chief Medical Officer has suggested that vanity sizing has contributed to the normalisation of obesity in society 8 In 2003 a study that measured over 1 000 pairs of women s pants found that pants from more expensive brands tended to be smaller than those from cheaper brands with the same nominal size 9 Contents 1 US pattern sizing measurements 1931 2015 2 US misses standard sizing measurements 1958 2011 3 Men s clothing 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksUS pattern sizing measurements 1931 2015 EditPattern sizes Du Barry Woolworth 1931 1955 10 5 3 5 6 tall average bust 3 lt hips waist 9 lt hips Dimension size 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 40Bust 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 40Waist 23 23 5 24 25 26 27 28 30 32 34Hip 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 41 43Pattern sizes McCalls 1947 11 5 3 5 6 tall average bust 3 lt hips waist 8 9 lt hips Dimension size 12 14 16 18 20 40 42 44 46Bust 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46Waist 25 26 28 30 32 34 38 38 40Hip 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49Pattern sizes DuBarry Woolworth 1956 1967 10 5 3 5 6 tall average bust 2 lt hips waist 9 10 lt hips Dimension size 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20Bust 30 5 31 31 5 32 33 34 35 36 38 40Waist 23 5 24 24 5 25 25 5 26 27 28 30 32Hip 32 5 33 33 5 34 35 36 37 38 40 42Pattern sizes DuBarry Woolworth 1968 present 10 5 3 5 6 tall average bust 2 lt hips waist 9 10 lt hips Dimension size 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Bust 29 5 30 5 31 5 32 5 34 36 38 40 42 44 46Waist 22 23 24 25 26 5 28 30 32 34 37 39Hip 31 5 32 5 33 5 34 5 36 38 40 42 44 46 48US misses standard sizing measurements 1958 2011 EditMisses sizes CS 215 58 12 1958 5 3 5 6 tall regular hipDimension size 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Bust 31 32 34 35 37 39 41 43Waist 23 24 25 27 28 30 32 34 Hip 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46Misses sizes PS 42 70 13 1970 5 2 5 6 tall average bust average backDimension size 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Bust 31 32 33 35 36 38 40 42 44Waist 22 23 24 26 27 29 31 33 35Hip 33 34 35 37 38 40 42 44 46Back waist length 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 Misses sizes ASTM D5585 95 R2001 1995 revised 2001 5 3 5 8 tallDimension size 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Bust 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 42 44 Waist 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 34 36 Hip 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 43 45 47Misses sizes ASTM D5585 11e1 14 2011 5 5 tallDimension size 00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Bust 31 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 42 44 46Waist Straight 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 36 38 40 Waist Curvy 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 36 39Hip Straight 33 33 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 44 46 48Hip Curvy 34 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 43 45 46 48 Men s clothing EditAlthough more common in women s apparel vanity sizing occurs in men s clothing as well For example men s pants are traditionally marked with two numbers waist waist circumference and inseam distance from the crotch to the hem of the pant While the nominal inseam is fairly accurate the nominal waist may be quite a bit smaller than the actual waist in US sizes In 2010 Abram Sauer of Esquire measured several pairs of dress pants with a nominal waist size of 36 at different US retailers and found that actual measurements ranged from 37 to 41 inches 15 The phenomenon has also been noticed in the United Kingdom where a 2011 study found misleading labels on more than half of checked items of clothing In that study the worst offenders understated waist circumferences by 1 5 to 2 inches London based market analyst Mintel say that the number of men reporting varying waistlines from store to store doubled between 2005 and 2011 16 See also EditBody image EN 13402 emerging European and international clothing standard from 2007 based on body measurements in centimeters US standard clothing size an inch based standard based on body measurements gained little traction and was replaced by vanity sizing from the 1980sReferences Edit Flattery Gets Designers Everywhere Fox News 15 July 2002 a b c d e Schrobsdorff Susanna 17 October 2006 Fashion Designers Introduce Less than Zero Sizes Newsweek Retrieved 2018 12 01 a b D Angelo Jennifer 15 July 2002 Flattery Gets Designers Everywhere Fox News Archived from the original on 2006 05 25 Vanity Sizing WNWO com Archived from the original on 2005 02 15 a b Hidden Numbers The History of Women s Clothing Sizes in the U S Bodylore Retrieved 2018 09 20 When And Why We Started Measuring Women s Clothing Time Retrieved 2021 01 24 Clifford Stephanie 24 April 2011 One Size Fits Nobody Seeking a Steady 4 or a 10 New York Times Retrieved 13 July 2011 Howard SJ Davies Sally C 27 March 2014 Chief medical officer urges action to tackle overweight and obesity BMJ 348 g2375 doi 10 1136 bmj g2375 PMID 24677657 S2CID 6223248 Retrieved 7 May 2016 Kinley Tammy R 2003 Clothing Size Variation in Women s Pants Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 21 1 19 31 doi 10 1177 0887302X0302100103 S2CID 110382656 a b c A short history of U S white women s measurements used for patternmaking Analog Me 30 November 2011 Retrieved 2015 03 11 Vintage 1940 s McCall s 6879 Misses Shirtwaist Dress Size 14 yourpatternshop com Retrieved 2015 03 11 CS 215 58 Body measurements for the sizing of women s patterns and apparel PDF Archived from the original PDF on 2016 03 04 Retrieved 2015 06 17 PS 42 70 Body measurement for the sizing of apparal PDF Archived from the original PDF on 2016 03 07 Retrieved 2014 09 14 ASTM D5585 11e1 Standard Tables of Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses Figure Type Size Range 00 20 Astm org ASTM Retrieved 2011 11 13 Sauer Abram September 2010 Are Your Pants Lying to You An Investigation Esquire Jamieson Alastair Hadfield Tom September 2011 Wrong trousers on the High Street as men fall victim to vanity sizing The Sunday Telegraph External links EditJohnson Kate 5 May 2006 As waistlines grow clothing sizes shrink incredibly 0 is the new 8 Boston Globe Study questions the sizing methods in women s apparel Web2 unt edu 16 December 2003 Archived from the original on 2007 03 25 Retrieved 2013 03 14 Press release Rickey M 2007 09 22 Vanity sizing The Times London Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Vanity sizing amp oldid 1133337064, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
