Talk:U.S. standard clothing size

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.

When I look at the misses chart measurements I am a size 12 however if I buy a US 12 it would dance on me, I wear US 4 to US 6. The chart is wrong! Maybe I could wear a 12 in New Zealand but it would still be big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.188.35 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hey, iv altered the opening paragraph substantially, to hopefully clarify some of the issues and confusions that have been raised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.219 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

I came here looking for this exact information regarding Mens sizes. However, this page seems to contain everything but. As I don't have the information to add to this page, would somebody please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3300:2930:1512:DAE5:4546:EFC6 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

I often see the difference in sizes bandied about as evidence of how drastically Americans have changed in build, but while the 1940s/50s data could be an accurate snapshot of the U.S. population at that time, it may not be a valid representation of the "ideal" or "natural" size for/of Americans. Many people purchasing adult clothing in that era grew up during the Great Depression, and may have had stunted growth as a result of malnutrition. 70.253.134.137 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2010‎ (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

True, but those same people who are "destined to grow taller than average adult size" are at that taller size for a lot more years than at the shorter size, therefore, their clothing needs should be met just like the shorter(petite) women's clothing needs! 65.100.210.42 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Charzii

The distribution of height for women isn't quite normal, there's a long tail at the tall end—women stop growing at 6' or taller much more frequently than they stop growing at 4'8", for example, even though these are both an equal distance from the estimated population mean of 5'4". But "because" the mean is where it is, there must be more women at any given size smaller than average than any given larger than average size, if that makes any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.93.94 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Measurements

I do not see any place in this article where it is explicitly mentioned that the dimensions in the tables are in inches. This needs to be fixed. --Deutne (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the "Misses’ sizes" table, the hip measurements are off. It goes from Size 6:32½; 8:33½; 10:34½; then down to 12:30; 14:34. This doesn't seem accurate. Djbutt3rfly (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the entire article, I'm noticing a bit of confusion still about the sizes in the tables. Are they the original, 1940's US standard sizes, or are they the current, drift-corrected 2010 sizes? It would be helpful to add a clarification right after the size table header to nip confusion in the bud. Thank you! --Syrasha (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

--Mnoon (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Need picture of a 3d person and it shows exactly what an inseam is. And it maybe even a video. I keep having to refer to this article and have read through a bunch of thoughtful text when all I really need is a graphic. This will definitely help this page and help the endless myriad of people who don't care to read all this very helpful but unnecessary gibberish.

Europeans

I think "The Europeans have an entirely different view of fashion and their sizing hasn’t changed." is original research - please state your sources as anecdotal evidence would suggest there's been drift here too. 82.24.154.33 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ingenuity

Furthermore, the sizing deception is a product of American ingenuity. Is ingenuity the right word to use here? Or at the very least isn't it POV to suggest that something is ingenious. --Neil (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pure nonsense

There is not now, nor has there ever been -- nor should there ever be -- a standard US size. Note that there is no citation for any of these figures anywhere in the article. Ehusman (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had to take this nonsense lede out twice now. It used to say,

US standard clothing sizes were originally developed from statistical data in the 1940s-1950s. At that time, they were similar in concept to the EN 13402 European clothing size standard, although individual manufacturers have always deviated from them, sometimes significantly.

However, as a result of various cultural pressures, most notably vanity sizing, North American clothing sizes have drifted substantially away from this standard over time, and now have very little connection to it. Instead, they now follow the more loosely defined standards known as US catalog sizes.

The first paragraph is nonsense on stilts. EN13402 is a labelling standard, not a sizing standard. Also, follow the logic: someone developed a "standard" and manufacturers have always deviated from them, sometimes significantly. That is not a standard. Anyone can publish something and call it a standard, but it is neither a de facto nor a de jure standard. Then look at the second paragraph. Sizes have drifted ... very little connection to it ... loosely defined standards [plural in the original]. Whoever wrote that (and let's face it: this is Wikipedia, it was probably written by committee) has no idea what a standard is.

To make things worse, the body of the article has some referenced material that makes sense which completely contradicts the old lede. To summarize the body: Several standards have been proposed, but none have been successful. This is why I rewrote it. Again. If someone wants to assert that there was a meaningful standard (singular) that was widely followed, cite your references here and let's hash it out rather than getting into an edit war. Ehusman (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your personal conception of what a standard ought to be, and furthermore, your belief that it never existed is wrong. Please read the Slate source, paying close attention to what it says about the 1958 commercial standard issued by the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, and legally required for all pattern-makers to use for women's clothing until 1970.

I agree that the source of the various numbers is unclear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not my personal conception of what a standard ought to be. A legal standard is one that people are required to follow. A de facto standard is one that is widely followed without a legal requirement. An example of the former might be the NTSC television standard. An example of the latter would be VHS. Anyone can call their personal project a standard, but that has no meaning unless someone follows it; as a researcher once wrote about imaging standards, "the great thing about standards is that there are so many from which to choose".

No such thing as a legal or de facto standard has ever existed in clothing manufacturing in the US. Read the Slate article yourself - it says that it was required for the pattern making industry, but was only a recommendation for the apparel manufacturing industry. The pattern making industry is not the apparel manufacturing industry. For something a bit more technical than the Slate article, try this: article written by an actual subject matter expert and which was probably a source for the Slate article. Also, read the rest of this Wikipedia article - as I have now pointed out twice, the lede is not congruent with the rest of the article. The article says that several were tried, but none adopted. Please fix it or I will. Also, please hash it out here instead of getting into an edit war. Ehusman (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy Tanenbaum's description of a standard is indeed relevant: "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." The 1958 commercial standard was one that could be chosen. It doesn't quit being a standard simply because it wasn't adopted widely.

There need not be exactly one standard for a standard to exist. And notice that this article's title is not "US standard clothing size, as represented by what manufacturers actually did". "Standard clothing size" applies to pattern-makers, too. And, as you said, a standard is meaningful if someone follows it, and we've got a source saying that not merely "some", but "all" pattern-makers followed this particular standard for a number of years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Very well. I can agree that there were several standards. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the body of the article describes reality better than the lede. The lede I wrote but you deleted (along with the request to check talk first) could have said, with a tweak to the first sentence,

US standard clothing sizes have never caught on because clothing manufacturers market to different demographic groups with different tastes and anthropometric characteristics. Furthermore, these measurements change as populations age and especially as they have gained weight in the past 30 years. Several voluntary standards have been proposed, but none have caught on due to these issues.

which would have been more accurate than the existing lede, (mostly) aligned with what you are saying, and congruent with the rest of the article. Note that the existing lede that you restored lists only the predecessor to the NBS "official standard" upon which you are hanging your hat, not the NBS standard itself, and also note that it says, "this standard" not "these standards". You are contradicting the existing lede, yet defending it.

Pattern companies, pattern makers, and clothing manufacturers are three separate things that you seem to be conflating. Your claim that all pattern-makers follow the official standard is categorically incorrect and either a misreading of the Slate piece, or a misunderstanding of the difference between pattern makers and pattern companies. Pattern companies - McCalls, Simplicity, Vogue, etc. - were nominally "required" to follow the NBS standard. It is far from clear that they actually did follow it; it's not like the NBS has an enforcement arm. But these companies are far from the subject of the rest of this article and home-made clothing is hardly representative of US clothing.

Though pattern companies were nominally "required to", most clothing is made by clothing manufacturers, i.e. 99.99% or so. This was almost certainly lower in 1950, but not anywhere near 50/50. Clothing manufacturers employed their own in-house pattern makers at that time. With a few exceptions, they were not following any national standards, preferring their own in-house practices. That is why there were so many proposed standards -- you did read through the reference I posted earlier? It details some of these. For most of the century, the most closely followed standard was the Sears-developed commercial standard, not the NBS standard or its predecessor. The commercial standard was adopted by other mail-order companies. Today, manufacturers mostly outsource the pattern-making to their contractors, and it is anyone's guess who is establishing the design rules.Ehusman (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not claim that any pattern makers follow the standard today—only that they apparently did back when it was required.

On a related point, what do you think about merging US catalog sizes here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't claim that they do today, but you claimed that they did back in the day. My point was that pattern *companies* may have (I doubt it), but that home sewing patterns are marginally relevant to the topic of the article for reasons outlined above.

In answer to your questions, to fix this mess, I think the article ought to be broken in two: History of apparel sizing in the US as a standalone article, and List of sizes in the US, of which one sub-topic would be "Catalog sizes". Breaking lists into separate articles is a common Wikipedia practice when the list is likely to grow long after the main article has stabilized. As it stands, "Catalog sizes" is incomplete and possibly misleading -- which catalog? Sears, FUBU, or LL Bean? Sears in 1940 or Sears in 2013? The population has gotten somewhat taller and tremendously larger in that time. What about Lane Bryant, My Stature, or Carhartt? Anyone should be able to see from a quick glance that they do not share target markets and their size ranges are vastly different (and I'm sure we could find more). This information (source and date) is sadly lacking in the article as it stands. It would be tremendously helpful to future researchers if it was there because it would document weak but objective proxies for demographic and fashion trends.Ehusman (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sizes

So for sizes of clothes for women, I expect to see numbers between 0 ( anorexic ) and 8,10,12,14 or thereabouts. But the sizes in the table captioned "womens sizes" are 38, 40 ( looks like European shoe sizes ? ). So the single digit and low teen clothing sizes are for junior and miss ? Does this mean that regular american women are all juniors and misses ? Vain about their age as well as their size ? So when an american woman says she is a size 8, does that mean, we should look up what that means in the "miss" table and not the "woman" table ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer is in the #Overview section: "Dress sizes may be given as girth at the bust in inches (e.g., 36), but even-numbered sizes from 2 to 16 are more common". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

These charts are sooooo hysterically off. I cannot believe anyone would consider a 28 inch waist would fit in size 16. More like size 6. My waist is 34 inch and I fit in size 13 in juniors. That is why wiki is declining because of complete crap articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.37.178 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What about trouser-rise, waist-step-waist-extent and hip-depth?

Trouser rise, waist-step waist-extent and hip depth seem to be compelety missing in the clothing standards. Am I right? (Same problem in the EU, cf. eg. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfektionsgr%C3%B6%C3%9Fe (german). --79.202.202.64 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:U.S. standard clothing size/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article -or at least the first three paragraphs- should be rated an "F". Who grades these? The citation is the Reader's Digest Sewing Book? I see my work is cut out for me here. Pattern maker (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Women's sizes table is all wrong

The numbers given for women's sizes in this table have no connection with the measurements given. "Women's" sizes, or "Plus" sizes, generally start at 16 or 18 and go to somewhere around 32 to 36 for most retailers who cater to this demographic, though some do go higher. The measurements given in this table for size 34 are approximately those of a US size 10 (which is not considered "women's" or "plus" size by US retailers), and those given for size 50 - highest size listed in the table - correspond to a size 26/28 for most US retail offerings. This table may reflect sizing in some other country, but it is NOT women's sizing in the US.

A quick sample found online includes:

http://www.ashleystewart.com/sizechart.html

http://www.asos.com/infopages/SizeGuide/pgesizechart.aspx?r=2

http://www.fullbeauty.com/Help/Help_SizeCharts.aspx

Please do some more research and put in a more accurate set of sizes/measurements for this category.Lunarmovements (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Men's Sizes Needed

There is a lack of a section for men's sizes. What is the standard height for men's clothes? Short men especially lack ready to wear clothes that will fit them. 65.182.141.161 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)