average sizes?

[pgoat]

I know we've had 'vanity sizing' in the last few decades - where a given size is actually larger than in the past - so the same person can gain weight over the years but continue buying and wearing the same number size, which 'magically' increase right along with them. I also realize people generally have gotten bigger - even those of us who are not overweight are probably taller and maybe better fed (discounting junk food, High fructose corn syrups, etc).

so, what is a normal size for men and women these days? I am a bit confused about sizes when buying vintage stuff; I am in my mid-forties, and whilst I don't anyone to wear the same size their entire life, I reached my adult height early on (at about age 14) so I technically could wear a size close to the sizes I found on a receipt for my HS Prom tux rental (33 waist, 40 jacket). Unfortunately for me I am overweight and currently wear a 44 or 46 jacket and a 38-40 waist.

My wife says forget the 32-33 I used to wear, even If I lost tons of weight - that 36-38 would be 'normal'....I am only 5'8"....I do have a big Frame, but isn't 36-38 kinda 'big' for someone my height?

I should mention I looked at a book about male models a few years back - that was a mistake....very depressing. They are all 6 feet or taller, have inseams over 34" and few take a jacket larger than 40, regardless of their healthy looking upper bodies....sigh...now I know why those off the rack suits fit so poorly on me....

 

[Orgetorix]

I don't buy the whole vanity sizing thing, at least not for men. I don't think men's clothes are sized significantly differently than they were at any time in the 20th century. This is because of the way men's clothes are sized: not an arbitrary number like 2, 4, 6, etc., but keyed to a specific body measurement. And standards of measurement haven't changed: 36" is still 36", and a size 36 trouser still has a waist circumference that measures 36" (give or take a quarter inch, perhaps, accounting for slight variations in the manufacturing process).

Suit jackets are still made to accommodate a specific chest size. Every manufacturer still intends for their size 42 jacket to fit a man with a 42" chest (just like they did 70 years ago), and whether they build in an extra 2" or 4" of room for movement just depends on the cut. If a man has a 42" chest but has to go up to a 44 or so, he's either compensating for another physical feature (like large shoulders or a prominent belly), or he's wearing the wrong size. It's not the manufacturer's fault.

I deal with selling and fitting men's tailored clothing every day, and the majority of American men I see are wearing their trousers too small and their jackets too large. They're wearing the same trouser size they've worn for years, though now they have to wear them down on the hips below their gut, not up on their waist. Their jackets usually fit poorly because they've gone up two or three sizes out of a misguided search for comfort.

And I don't have any idea what an "average" size for men is. I'm not sure there's any such thing. Perhaps I sell more 36" pants than any other stock size, but not enough to be remarkable. I think a 40R jacket is the industry "standard" for working with fit and design issues, but that doesn't mean we sell more 40R than anything else.

 

[pgoat]

Perhaps I sell more 36" pants than any other stock size, but not enough to be remarkable. I think a 40R jacket is the industry "standard" for working with fit and design issues, but that doesn't mean we sell more 40R than anything else.

Thanks for that informative post; someone in your position is obviously well-qualified to comment about this.

Believe it or not , your observation about size 36 waists is precisely what I was wondering about. Not that this is a scientifically conclusive result, but if I am the same height as i was in middle school, should I be wearing the same waist size I wore back then? I am sure when I sported a 33 waist in my teens, many of my schoolmates were closer to size 30 or under (I was tall for 14 - even if I never grew since!).

The suit you describe as typical for your sales has a 4 inch drop; at my fittest in my mid 20s I wore a 42 jacket and 32 waist (10 inch drop). That is a lot closer to the proportions of a male model - although, alas, with an inseam of 28" at 5'8", even at my best I was more suited to a zoo cage than a magazine cover....

Sounds like a stupid question, but since most of us could stand to lose a few pounds, it's not always easy to know what is realistic to expect in terms of weight loss, physical conditioning, and even how clothes should fit us as we age (certainly we may wish to be more modest and dignified in our fit as we age). The mere fact you point out about men wearing trousers too tight, perhaps from ignorance, stubbornness or denial about needing a larger size as they age is more or less proof of this.

I should add as I have learned more about a good cut, and sought this when getting alterations done, I have encountered resistance from tailors when requesting a higher trouser waist or a more trim jacket with shorter sleeves, etc. Many shops seem to want to place us in exactly the sort of ill-cut suits you described, perhaps, thinking they know what we really want ultimately?

Finally, I apologize for not being clearer - I think you are spot on about men's clothing sizes staying constant in the world of tailored clothing, measured inch sizes, etc. However, in casual clothes (ie, with general sizes of S, M, L, XL, etc.) I do believe mens' clothing is often adjusted, as with womens arbitrarily numbered sizes. This was what I was alluding to with vanity sizes, although you answered my question about sizing quite well. Thanks again!

 

[dman]

Pant's sizes

I have been thinking about this some. It's not the number that has changed but where the pants are worn. The variation in sizes may be due to the difference between one's hips (modern waist) and one's actual waist.

 

[Tomasso]

However, in casual clothes (ie, with general sizes of S, M, L, XL, etc.) I do believe mens' clothing is often adjusted, as with womens arbitrarily numbered sizes. This was what I was alluding to with vanity sizes

As Orgetorix mentioned, there will be variances between certain manufacturers/designers patterns but I don't believe that there is a deliberate effort to deceive as exists in womenswear.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

A size 28 marked pair of men's Levi's does not fit a size 28 waist - they measure to 30". To this I can attest. A marked size 30 pair of "Express" brand cargo shorts has a waist that measures 34". If this isn't vanity sizing, i have no clue what it is. People making these trousers cannot use a measuring tape?


I apologize for the horrid examples; they're the only modern things i've bought in ages.

Oh yes, another one. A marked size 36 jacket of today (like one i tried on in Brooks Brothers just before i left the US) is significantly - i'm talking a good 2 inches - bigger in the chest and waist than a marked size 36 1930s jacket i own. Built for the mythical "modern figure", perhaps.

bk

 

[Alan Eardley]

No manufacturer makes (or ever made) an item of off-the-peg clothing 'to size'. There are always two allowances made. First there is the seam allowance (or manufacturing allowance) that makes up for the fact that different machinists will use more or less material in making up the garment. You don't want to go undersize with a machinist who does 'big seams', so a pattern maker will add on a small amount to cover this. We're usually taking about half an inch difference between samples on the waist of trousers or an inch on the chest of a jacket.

Second there is the fit allowance that is added in the pattern to allow for movement and different body shape. This is often as much as four inches. Most pattern makers in 'the old days' would have added less than this - two inches was commonly used.

Apart from a more standard body shape when men were in general leaner (what makes body shape different is muscle and fat, not bone), I think it possible that the rise of mail order and Internet shopping today is having an effect on sizing, in that it deprives customers of the opportunity to try on the garments. Vendors will therefore request manufacturers to put in a full allowance to avoid returns due to customers underestimating their size. Conpanies that offer 'guaranteed returns' seem the 'worst offenders' here - Orvis (to name but one) appears to add five or six inches to the actual size!

Alan

 

[dogsplayinpoker]

From someone else who is thickly built, weightlifting ruins my chances of off the rack suits, XL or a size 16 is about the smallest shirt I can get into. As for pants, 36 or 38 is about my norm as well. I suppose if one got really, really trim 34. I have a horrible time picking out clothes!

 

[Orgetorix]

Thanks for that informative post; someone in your position is obviously well-qualified to comment about this.

No problem.

Believe it or not , your observation about size 36 waists is precisely what I was wondering about. Not that this is a scientifically conclusive result, but if I am the same height as i was in middle school, should I be wearing the same waist size I wore back then? I am sure when I sported a 33 waist in my teens, many of my schoolmates were closer to size 30 or under (I was tall for 14 - even if I never grew since!).

Not at all. It is perfectly normal for a man's waistline to expand as he gets older. It doesn't happen to everyone, but even men in good physical shape with a low body-fat percentage can experience this. I have customers in their sixties who run several miles a day and eat a healthy diet, and still have waists measuring several inches larger than in their high school days.

Height does have some bearing on waist size--Baron Kurtz is several inches shorter than me, and there's no possible way I'll ever have a 28" waist--but, again, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Age, lifestyle, natural body proclivities, and so on.

The suit you describe as typical for your sales has a 4 inch drop; at my fittest in my mid 20s I wore a 42 jacket and 32 waist (10 inch drop). That is a lot closer to the proportions of a male model - although, alas, with an inseam of 28" at 5'8", even at my best I was more suited to a zoo cage than a magazine cover....

My post may have been confusing; I was dealing with jacket and trouser sizes separately. Most suits have around a 6" drop, but again that's somewhat misleading. Rare indeed is the man who doesn't need to have either the trouser waist or the jacket body (or both) taken in or let out.

Sounds like a stupid question, but since most of us could stand to lose a few pounds, it's not always easy to know what is realistic to expect in terms of weight loss, physical conditioning, and even how clothes should fit us as we age (certainly we may wish to be more modest and dignified in our fit as we age). The mere fact you point out about men wearing trousers too tight, perhaps from ignorance, stubbornness or denial about needing a larger size as they age is more or less proof of this.

I agree. You're probably better off talking to a doctor about what weight-loss goals are best and most realistic for you, and that is going to be determined by factors like body-mass index, not by waist size. After you reach your target weight, then buy clothes to fit. Clothes should fit you, not the other way 'round. Leave the vanity dieting--"If I can only get to a size 2!"--to the women, along with their vanity sizing.

I should add as I have learned more about a good cut, and sought this when getting alterations done, I have encountered resistance from tailors when requesting a higher trouser waist or a more trim jacket with shorter sleeves, etc. Many shops seem to want to place us in exactly the sort of ill-cut suits you described, perhaps, thinking they know what we really want ultimately?

This isn't uncommon, sadly. About all I can say is that your should keep looking until you find a tailor or shop who can and will give you what you want. Keep in mind, though, that with any given garment the alterations you want done may or may not be possible. For instance, you're not going to get a slim, sleek Italian silhouette out of suit that's cut on a boxy, relaxed American pattern. You're better off going elsewhere.

Finally, I apologize for not being clearer - I think you are spot on about men's clothing sizes staying constant in the world of tailored clothing, measured inch sizes, etc. However, in casual clothes (ie, with general sizes of S, M, L, XL, etc.) I do believe mens' clothing is often adjusted, as with womens arbitrarily numbered sizes. This was what I was alluding to with vanity sizes, although you answered my question about sizing quite well. Thanks again!

You're probably right about S-M-L sizing. I have trouble myself, sometimes figuring out which is best for me. That is why, even with casual wear, the best items are often either custom-made or sized more precisely.

 

[Orgetorix]

A size 28 marked pair of men's Levi's does not fit a size 28 waist - they measure to 30". To this I can attest. A marked size 30 pair of "Express" brand cargo shorts has a waist that measures 34". If this isn't vanity sizing, i have no clue what it is. People making these trousers cannot use a measuring tape?


I apologize for the horrid examples; they're the only modern things i've bought in ages.

Oh yes, another one. A marked size 36 jacket of today (like one i tried on in Brooks Brothers just before i left the US) is significantly - i'm talking a good 2 inches - bigger in the chest and waist than a marked size 36 1930s jacket i own. Built for the mythical "modern figure", perhaps.

bk

No surprise that manufacturers' practices may vary, but I can pull lots of trousers out of my closet that all measure to within half an inch of the marked size.

As to the jacket, I think my point still stands: Brooks Brothers intends their size 36 jacket to fit the average man with a 36" chest. Finding that "average man" with the "modern figure" may be difficult, but that just points out a basic truism: buying and fitting ready-to-wear clothing is always an inexact endeavor, because it wasn't made for you. It was made to fit a whole range of different body shapes.

 

[pgoat]

No problem.



Not at all. It is perfectly normal for a man's waistline to expand as he gets older. It doesn't happen to everyone, but even men in good physical shape with a low body-fat percentage can experience this. I have customers in their sixties who run several miles a day and eat a healthy diet, and still have waists measuring several inches larger than in their high school days.

Height does have some bearing on waist size--Baron Kurtz is several inches shorter than me, and there's no possible way I'll ever have a 28" waist--but, again, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Age, lifestyle, natural body proclivities, and so on.



My post may have been confusing; I was dealing with jacket and trouser sizes separately. Most suits have around a 6" drop, but again that's somewhat misleading. Rare indeed is the man who doesn't need to have either the trouser waist or the jacket body (or both) taken in or let out.



I agree. You're probably better off talking to a doctor about what weight-loss goals are best and most realistic for you, and that is going to be determined by factors like body-mass index, not by waist size. After you reach your target weight, then buy clothes to fit. Clothes should fit you, not the other way 'round. Leave the vanity dieting--"If I can only get to a size 2!"--to the women, along with their vanity sizing.



This isn't uncommon, sadly. About all I can say is that your should keep looking until you find a tailor or shop who can and will give you what you want. Keep in mind, though, that with any given garment the alterations you want done may or may not be possible. For instance, you're not going to get a slim, sleek Italian silhouette out of suit that's cut on a boxy, relaxed American pattern. You're better off going elsewhere.



You're probably right about S-M-L sizing. I have trouble myself, sometimes figuring out which is best for me. That is why, even with casual wear, the best items are often either custom-made or sized more precisely.

Thanks again - just the type of info I was looking for.

 

[Tomasso]

Thanks again - just the type of info I was looking for.

Well, I guess if you're looking for knowledgeable and articulate.

 

[pgoat]

I usually am