Vintage sizes versus modern sizes.

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Didn't exactly know whether to post this in the suits section, or here. I opted for the WW2 forum as my question deals specifically with the size of a uniform tunic.
I just recently puchased a standard issue , regulation army officer's tunic, size 44 reg., in the tan tropical worsted wool fabric.
I have heard all this rhetoric about how vintage sizes are always cut smaller than the same size in today's garments. And I had no reason to disbelieve it. Until now. My 44 regular tunic, which has not been altered in any way, fits me just as well as any modern suit jacket! In fact, the sleeves seem just a tad long, by about a half an inch, compared to a modern jacket. Everything else looks and feels right.

So my question is, has anyone really, honestly noticed that vintage clothing is truly "cut smaller" or that it "runs smaller"?,..... (as they say in those online descriptions.)

I now think that a 44 is a 44 no matter what era it is from. Numbers can not lie, afterall,....but perhaps it's all in the specifics of the tailoring then, versus now?

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I don't think the sizes were cut smaller. I think the main difference would be the actual style of the jacket. A 30s suit jacket is going to be more form-fitting than a 90s one for sure.

 

[Trickeration]

Aren't menswear sizes in inches? Jackets measured at the chest and pants at the waist and inseam?

I know women's sizes are different when it comes to modern vs. vintage. I'm about a size 5 in modern sizing, but a 12 in vintage. I'm not sure why ours are so different in the first place, unless it's that women didn't want their "inches" so public. And I'm not sure why they changed from one system to another either (which was in the 60's I think). Lauren? Vanessa?

In any case, I envy you guys. My husband has also been able to buy vintage based on the size the item is marked. I'm completely dependent on my trusty measuring tape, which is my purse at all times. Trix

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I think you're right.

I don't think the sizes were cut smaller. I think the main difference would be the actual style of the jacket. A 30s suit jacket is going to be more form-fitting than a 90s one for sure.

This is a bit more form fitting in the shoulders. A bit more difficult to put on initially, than my modern suit jackets. But all in all, quite comfortable and a good fit.
It's dated 1944 by the QM tag by the way, if that has much bearing on the type of fit.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Yes, our sizes are in good old inches.

Aren't menswear sizes in inches? Jackets measured at the chest and pants at the waist and inseam?

I know women's sizes are different when it comes to modern vs. vintage. I'm about a size 5 in modern sizing, but a 12 in vintage. I'm not sure why ours are so different in the first place, unless it's that women didn't want their "inches" so public. And I'm not sure why they changed from one system to another either (which was in the 60's I think). Lauren? Vanessa?

In any case, I envy you guys. My husband has also been able to buy vintage based on the size the item is marked. I'm completely dependent on my trusty measuring tape, which is my purse at all times. Trix

But just what exactly is the standard of measurement for women's clothing?
Is it some kind of metric thing? Or some weird arbitrary unit of measure that changes every so often?? [huh] I never did understand it.

 

[Trickeration]

[huh] I have NO idea. I've never understood it either. I'd have thought maybe a multiple of something, possibly metric as you said, but my daughter is a size 00 . I don't know what that would be a multiple of. Where is Lauren when you need her? She'd probably know.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

This is known as vanity sizing, and it is a marketing trend, at least when directed towards women’s clothing. In vintage clothing, I wear a size 14-16—and in modern clothing, I wear a size 6.

Basically, women would prefer to purchase a smaller size, so manufacturers take a garment with size 12 measurements and label it a size 6. This has become so rampant that women who are truly petite are actually complaining that they are having trouble finding clothes small enough to fit them (this discussion comes up quite frequently on the makeup board I visit.)

I worked in bridal wear for many years. The bridal industry goes by a much older size chart—one very close to a 1950s size chart, or the European sizing system. Which means that gowns consistently run at least two sizes smaller than your regular, or ‘street,’ clothing size. In other words, if you wear a size 6 in regular dresses, you wear an 8-10 in bridal gowns. This upset brides terribly, sometimes to tears, despite this size being nothing more than a number. The real question is of course, does the garment look good on you? Does it flatter you? But I cannot tell you the number of times I heard someone cry that she was not walking down the aisle wearing a size 12 dress, because “she had never worn that size before!”

I used to explain that when looking at patterns from the 1930s-50s, sizing did not go down past a size 12—and the wearer had a size 30-32 inch bust (so she was very small.)

This discussion goes hand-in-hand with the oft-repeated “Marilyn was a size 12.” Well, sure, she was—but she was a 1950s size 12, and not a modern day 12. There is a big difference!

Edited: I should also add that the cut of women's clothing has also changed, in part because our figures have changed (due to changes in diet, exercise, modern conveniences) and also because we no longer wear foundation garments on a daily basis. Waistlines are a lot more generous these days…

 

[jake431]

Most jackets (my "expertise" is flight jackets) during WW2 were cut overmeasure by 1-4 inches - so a 44 A-2 would have a chest measurement usually of around 46 inches - maybe 48. Somewhere in there. Modern 44's are cut with much larger overmeasure. say 4-8 inches. So it's not a myth that vintage sizes were trimmer. However, if you measure 44 in the chest, most likely a size 44 from WW2 will fit you. It will just be trimmer in the chest (and probably everywhere else too) than a modern jacket, but that's style differences from era to era.

-Jake

 

[dr greg]

sized up

Whether or not the sizes were cut the same, one thing is without doubt: people were generally smaller. As a dedicated vintage shirt hunter I find it very difficult to get stuff to fit me, and I'm only the old OS size which translates to about a 46" chest. It kills me to keep finding the old M size too small, and I'm only 5'7" tall. You see this on ebay with golden age hawaiian shirts, large sizes attract much higher prices in a steep curve up to your xxl's etc. this reflects the scarcity of large sizes as the majority of old shirts are a 44" chest. You can safely blame fast food for this as the trend to obesity is not only happening in Western society but in Asia, where Maca's and The Colonel are larding up the population. back to the depression diet everybody!

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

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

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Is this where we got the "98 pound weakling" designation from? Under weight in 1941 must have been under 100 pounds, Audie Murphy weighed just over 100 pounds if I'm not mistaken.
On the other end of the scale, there were probably those that were classified 4-f due to overweight also, though I suspect the number would be a low one.
The fact is that most of our guys were not very large. It's very common to see size 34 and 36 tunics with anything over a 40 being quite scarce.
I'm going to try and post a pic of me in my 44,.....to see if I look authentic or if I look too big. If the fit looks right, or if it looks tight.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

The Charles Atlas ads in the backs of comic books were always aimed at the skinny guys back then. Now, it's all about losing the extra pounds. Nobody's ever satisfied, I guess.

 

[Twitch]

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.

Women's clothes today are sized differently than they were in 1945 for sure. Manufacturers actually vary sizes to where a 6 is what an 8 used to be. women can say they wear a smaller size 6 when in fact they wear an 8.

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.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

At least when it comes to women's clothing, it is cut differently. I can walk into a vintage clothing store, try on a 1940s or 1950s dress, and it will fit me perfectly in the bust, waist, and hips, guaranteed. I can literally find 10 items of clothing that fit me like a glove every time I shop—and I can shop online and have no trouble either. Now, when I shop for modern clothing, it almost never fits the same way. It is much boxier and generally needs to be tailored in the waist. This is in part because women no longer wear foundation garments, and in part because women no longer have quite the same shapely waistlines[huh]

So, in my opinion, the sizing system and charts have changed, beyond just the number.

 

[Wild Root]

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!

 

[Hondo]

Thats our Root! man I think you have been lost in a time warp, gosh its been years since I've seen a Tailor, last time I recall coat fitted well but the pants were baggy. I'm a fairly big guy 6 ft 2, with 48" chest, problem is my rump
waist can go from 34, to whooping 36 (which I hate), I remain 35 but its tough finding anything 35" , guess I'll just have tailor made to fit.
You da man Wildroot or the lucky one, carry on :eusa_clap

 

[Twitch]

Hondo- I was one of those 35" guys for decades too. Some 34s would fit fine though and most of my pants were 34s. But enough new try-ons showed them to be too small and a 36 was in order. Frustrating. That's part of how I noticed the fluctuation of sizing. All that ended a couple years ago when the damned cancer meds made me put on weight and girth so I need a 38 now.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

And for the bigger fellows, "vanity sizing" is the joker in the deck. My Dockers actually measure a whopping four inches larger than their nominal size. When I took my measurements to send to Indy, it was frightening.

 

[Twitch]

Tony we'll make you an honorary member of the fatass club.lol I got a lot of pants to give away.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Well, I have a ways to go before I'll even fit into a 38. I don't think I've worn 38s since the Carter administration.

Or maybe Ford.





Nixon? lol