Vintage sizes versus modern sizes.

[TwoToneDeuce]

True, but let's not go too far. A lot of draftees in WWII were 4-F because they were underweight.

I have a love for uniforms. I have looked on ebay and many other places for vintage jackets to fit a 44. I have had very little luck. THe argument that the uniforms were sized differently is a myth. All men's tailoring is based on a tailors tape not on a size chart. When you went into the army they had a tailor to measure you and give you the best fitting uniform that they had stock. You then could have it taken in if needed. The problem is that the men were not as tall or broad as we are today. Most of us are taller than our fathers and grandfathers. Nutrition and the general improvement in health has contributed to this. Most these days do not suffer from "undernutrition," usually exactly the opposite. Our forefathers were mostly farmers or factory workers, these were hard jobs and with poor nutrition, many people didn't grow as big as we are today. Thus the lack of true vintage uniforms that fit an "average" man today.

-D

 

[TwoToneDeuce]

I can even attest to the vintage VS modern fit…

I once went into a modern suit shop… I know, *GASP* Root went into a modern suit shop! lol Any way, I tried on a 44 L the coat fit great… but, the pants were tight! So, they threw me a 46L!!! The pants fit great but the coat was size circus tent! I was frustrated! So, I held out a little longer and found a nice vintage one that fit right off the bat… I had to laugh out loud! I couldn’t find a new suit in my size but, I find a suit that’s 60 plus years old that just fit right! How is this possible? Does this sound wrong to any one? Shouldn’t be this way but, it is!

=WR=

PS. Nice to see you back Jitterbug!

Most Modern shops pair Jackets and Pants as a set. These pairings come from the prevelant sizes in society. We are noticing that coats fit fine, but pants dont, because men are not getting broader at the shoulders anymore, just at the waist. I have to buy a 42 or 44 jacket and a 32 waist. So I often switch the pants from the 38 or 40 "Set" with the 44 pants that are a waist size 36 or 38.

I recently phoned my measurements into a bridal shop for a wedding and they told me that my measurements were not correct and no one had a taper of more than 6in. (Taper is the difference in measure from the shoulders to the hips.) I assured him that my measurements were correct, but the clerk insisted I come in and get fitted. Sure enough 42/32. He said that the typical difference these days in taper is on 2-4in and they are to question anyone that gives measurements that are out of that range.

-D

 

[TwoToneDeuce]

We don't have to go back in time to notice variances in sizing. Every apparel company cuts their clothes a bit differently. A shirt that is marked large is tight and I'd need an x-large from one company while another company's large is great. Same goes for pants depending on the cut, rise and such all 34s are not equal as it were. Back long ago in the 70s I sold mens' clothing for a brief while and noted that even specifically measured shirts like 16 neck- 33 sleeve actually varied from maker to maker. And sometimes we'd receive clothes manufactured in Europe size-marked for the American market and they'd be off.


Bottom line is I don't necessarily think clothes of the past were sized differently but there could have been variance as exists with today's manufacturers. Also, people are larger today than they were in 1939 for example.

I have noticed that they higher end the clothing the less variance there is in the size vs tape measurements. And generally the variance is minimal within the same manufacturer.

-D