Vintage Sizing

[Kim_B]

:eusa_clap

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!

 

[Lauren]

You're welcome! Glad to help!

If anyone knows any more info, if you could post it here and I'll update the first post to make it easy to find

 

[Kaela]

I don't know why, but I like the old sizing better, I would like to do the sizing of my own vintage repro line in vintage sizing. Somehow, I think girls these days are so vain they'd hate to order a size 14, or 20.
It seems strange that the measurments haven't changed much, a 14 being such a straightforward 6 these days. (Or 8 to some companies). I would've expected them to be more hourglass, smaller waists in proportion. Guess not.

 

[Belinda]

Thank you

Lauren you are a life saver, I have been searching the net for ages trying to make sense if the vintage sizes.

I have always loved vintage clothes and have just started buying patterns so I can made my own as well as buying them.

Your post has helped me realise I have bought many patterns too small for me!

Thanks again!

 

[Rosie]

I'll post vintage plus sizes later today or at the very least by the weekend since we all know how I am already.

Vintage Lane Bryant goes up to a 60 inch bust and vintage Roamans goes to about a 66 I think. But like Lauren says, harder to find.

 

[Bonny]

Thanks for those measurements. That is good info to know

 

[Pink Dahlia]

Hopefully this hasn't been posted before. Something has been bugging me lately. And prompted by my own experience and Bella's I decided to post.

How come I find some vintage clothing listings in my size on eBay stated as "Large Size" or "Plus Size"? I always thought of myself as "average." And what's the deal with Bella buying a Lane Bryant dress? She looks average size to me.

What's the deal with this?

I refuse to believe that every single lady who lived in the 40s and 50s was a super Skinny Minnie (despite what many eBay auctions would have us believe).

I do know that vintage sizing differs greatly from the sizing today.

What has been your experience with this? What are your thoughts?

And finally are we ever going to come to some sort of uniform sizing for woman's clothes?

 

[Lady Day]

This is because they are listing a vintage sized item with modern sizing specifications. :rage:

In the sticky at the top of the PR, there is vintage sizing guides.

No not all women were small, that stuff didnt get worn as much, so it survived.
Check out this site and its 20s patterns, LARGER size patterns. I think that 'only small' people in the past thing is a myth.

Enjoy!

LD

 

[pigeon toe]

I don't know what size you are, but I know that I, a modern day 4-6, am a size 14-16 in vintage clothing, so perhaps that's why people are advertising not-so-plus-size vintage clothing as such? I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with vintage can get pretty confused by the sizing differences between then and now.

I remember someone mentioning that one of the reason why super teeny vintage dresses are so common are because those are the sizes that WEREN'T worn back then. All of the more common sizes got used, and hence, haven't survived in as many numbers as the less worn dresses.

I take that to heart when I try on dress after dress that fits perfectly in the waist and hips but is truly gigantic in the bust, just so I don't feel inadequate (however, after a few trips to the tailor, I'm thinking my super short waist is more the problem than my smallish bustline).

I read an article in Marie Claire recently (I was at the airport, I have an excuse!), that was all about vanity sizing and how they are making size 00 now to accommodate to how they have been changing the sizes. I definitely remember a few years ago being a size 8 in pants, and now I am a size 4. I'm sure my body has changed a bit, but not that much! My best friends, who are both very petite, size 0-2, are now having the hardest time finding anything that fits them because clothes are becoming sized so crazily. Sucks for everyone!

 

[TaxiGirl]

My best friends, who are both very petite, size 0-2, are now having the hardest time finding anything that fits them because clothes are becoming sized so crazily. Sucks for everyone!

I had that conversation with a very petite friend of mine last week... she was trying to buy an interview suit, but no where in the mall could she come up with anything in her size -- the 0s were too big.

My biggest problem, on the other hand, is that I can get clothes that fit in the waist or in the hips but not both. *sigh* And of course that the sizing numbers vary, apparently at random.

I wish we could just use measurements, like some men's clothes do. I would be FINE with that. But for the moment, I won't try to buy ANY garment online that doesn't give measurements in the auction or sale. Whether it's vintage, or whether it's modern.

It makes me wonder what sort of early-21st-century vintage my hypothetical granddaughters might find in the future equivalent of a thrift shop. And what they'll think women today might have been like.

 

[exquisitebones]

I had that conversation with a very petite friend of mine last week... she was trying to buy an interview suit, but no where in the mall could she come up with anything in her size -- the 0s were too big.

My biggest problem, on the other hand, is that I can get clothes that fit in the waist or in the hips but not both. *sigh* And of course that the sizing numbers vary, apparently at random.

i have this problem.. I am a size 0-2 in the hips/waist area, but i have a large chest, so to buy dresses that fit my Boooooooooo... you knows, its HUGE in my waist :rage:
so annoying.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As long as there's social cachet to be had in boasting of wearing smaller and smaller sizes, there'll be vanity sizing. It has nothing to do with the process of how clothes are designed or made, and everything to do with modern cultural standards. As long as they think it's what women want, it's what women will get.

The whole question of whether people are bigger than they used to be is an interesting one. I know that when the theatre where I work was being renovated, they had to remove every third seat -- because modern people take up much more space than people did when the place was built in 1923. So even if people aren't *bigger* overall on the average, I'd suspect they're *wider*.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Actually, I *love* it when things that will fill me are listed as "plus size" or "XL" or whatever, because slimmer gals won't even look at the listing and larger gals won't fit into it, so fewer people bid! But yeah, I'm a vintage 16 which is about an 8, so, I'm average these days. Maybe my vintage Lane Bryant was the smallest size in the shop!

 

[Pink Dahlia]

Actually, I *love* it when things that will fill me are listed as "plus size" or "XL" or whatever, because slimmer gals won't even look at the listing and larger gals won't fit into it, so fewer people bid! But yeah, I'm a vintage 16 which is about an 8, so, I'm average these days. Maybe my vintage Lane Bryant was the smallest size in the shop!

That's funny Bella I find the opposite. Plus size or XL listings tend to get much more bids than S or M.

 

[Kimberly]

I have the same problem. I can get things to fit in the hips and waist but once I try and zip it up I can't get it past by rib cage. I am 5'3 and about a size 4-6 and can't really shop on eBay for vintage because it is so hard for me to find in my size.

 

[Pink Dahlia]

Pigeon I read a similar article in Cosmo stating that a size 2 will now accommodate a 32 in waist (yeah right!).

I haven't been shopping for modern clothes by numbered sizes for a while but I bought a pair of pants at Target about a month or two ago in a size 11 (I'm usually a 9).

And Lizzie vanity sizing just makes me laugh. When are people going to realize that the size on your pants doesn't change your actual size.

I think we should embrace our sizes (whatever they are) and not get sucked in to vanity sizing.

Stupid modern sizing!

P.S. - What a great site LD!

 

[Cheesecakecutie]

I have quite a few friends who are a u.k size 16-18 (modern day)...They get really peeved as there is so little choice on the bay for stuff in there size . Niether of them are over weight i might add...both have very lovely shapes and are very health conscious .....IT gets disheartening for them to troll through lots of cute dresses...that will never fit no matter how many visits to the tailor... as one friend put it "that dress would only fit on one of my legs" Bless her. So with this in mind i try to get as much vintage stuff as i can in larger sizes for those strapping lassies , milking maid wench types.....They really appriciate looking through listings and just stopping by on the ones lablled larger. So thats why i do it.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

That's funny Bella I find the opposite. Plus size or XL listings tend to get much more bids than S or M.

Oh I would agree with that, I just mean, when things are mis-listed as plus size when really they have a 27 inch waist (ie NOT plus sized) it helps to bring the price down.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

As long as there's social cachet to be had in boasting of wearing smaller and smaller sizes, there'll be vanity sizing. It has nothing to do with the process of how clothes are designed or made, and everything to do with modern cultural standards. As long as they think it's what women want, it's what women will get.

The whole question of whether people are bigger than they used to be is an interesting one. I know that when the theatre where I work was being renovated, they had to remove every third seat -- because modern people take up much more space than people did when the place was built in 1923. So even if people aren't *bigger* overall on the average, I'd suspect they're *wider*.

I completely agree with this, and because of this trend, I have a terrible time finding modern clothing (I find that the waists are too generous for my body type--finding pants is a horrible experience.) I will say that vintage clothing was designed to be worn over foundation garments--for example, one reason that many 1950s dresses seem so small through the waist is that women were wearing corsolets and waist cinchers to achieve the tiny waistlines desired then. This is one factor contributing to the sizing discrepancies between vintage clothing and what is on the racks today.

I will also add that there seems to be a real trend equating hourglass figures with being ‘plus’ sized, when in actuality, one can have an hourglass figure (bust and hips of equal size, waistline narrow) at any size. It is also possible to be voluptuous at any size, but I often find that many love to use this term only when describing someone with more ample curves. So, because many vintage dresses are cut for the more desired, curvy figures of the day (fuller through the bust and hips, as well as the waist in some eras), sellers may automatically equate this with being plus-sized (the desired figure of today is quite boyish—almost a more athletic version of what was popular in the 1920s—with narrow hips and wider waist the mold for clothing lines.)

I consider myself to be of average size today (6) and actually have better luck finding vintage clothing.

 

[Miss Sis]

I find that people put alsorts of things on their descriptions that really don't mean anything. You just have to look through and see.

One dress that was marked Extra Small that a friend of mine bought ended up being my size with a 36" bust and long anough for me who is 5' 9". They had marked the size as having a 32" bust! She is only 4' 11" so it was massive on her.