wondering about advertised size question

[itsallgood]

I don't understand why you see so many quality leather jackets advertised as "labeled xyz" but "fits like abc". I don't want to name any vendors in particular, but if you go to eBay and do a search, say, on "CXL jacket", you see a lot of them. Labeled 40, fits like 44, etc, etc. Why doesn't the manufacturer (assembler?) put a size 44 label on it if it fits like a 44? Or, why is this not sold as defective merchandise; a factory second at factory-second pricing? What am I missing? I've never seen another product category that so commonly advertises as one thing but openly says it's really another.

 

[tweedydon]

My understanding is that some reproduction or vintage-inspired jackets are cut so that they would fit "properly" at their stated size in the era in which they were originally made... But that the desired "fit" for these jackets has changed over the years. Aero Highwayman jackets, for example, are a 1950s "blousey" fit, which isn't the slimmer silhouette people prefer today. So if you'd like a HWM that looks good to contemporary (2020) eyes you'll need to get one one or two sizes too "small". (Labelled 40, fits like a 44)

Also, some makers' sizing can vary quite a bit!

 

[CatsCan]

I thought this only to be the case with women's clothes. They seem to sell better, when a woman of a true size 40 finds a label saying size 38 in a well fitting dress. Bought!

 

[Seb Lucas]

I don't understand why you see so many quality leather jackets advertised as "labeled xyz" but "fits like abc". I don't want to name any vendors in particular, but if you go to eBay and do a search, say, on "CXL jacket", you see a lot of them. Labeled 40, fits like 44, etc, etc. Why doesn't the manufacturer (assembler?) put a size 44 label on it if it fits like a 44? Or, why is this not sold as defective merchandise; a factory second at factory-second pricing? What am I missing? I've never seen another product category that so commonly advertises as one thing but openly says it's really another.

Sizes have almost never matched actual measurements so they are best ignored. I am a size 38, 40, 42, 44 or a 46 depending on the brand or pattern. The actual measurements of all are always 23 inches (or close) pit to pit. It's just how clothing seems to work. Obviously period styles have smaller sizes - before improved nutrition and obesity increased people's sizes. A 1940's size 42 could fit like a modern 38.

When buying a jacket go by measurements not sizes.

The convention is that if you need a 42, the actual jacket needs to be a couple or more inches larger than 42 inches in order to allow you to move. Then there's how you want the jacket to fit - trim or loose. This will have further impact on the measurements you should look for.

 

[Bfd70]

I thought this only to be the case with women's clothes. They seem to sell better, when a woman of a true size 40 finds a label saying size 38 in a well fitting dress. Bought!

Only womens clothes? Measure the waist of a pair of your jeans and compare to the tag size. I’m guessing you’ll find a 3” difference.

 

[Sloan1874]

The practice of 'vanity sizing' is becoming pernicious. The number of times I've tried on a pair of trousers tagged with a 30" waist only to find they've got an extra inch-to-inch-and-half to spare, it's ridiculous and makes buying clothes on line a roulette wheel spin. With jackets, I would always go by overall measurements rather than the tag size. I have jackets running from 34 to 40, not due to some weird weight-fluctuation but because the patterns and styles proportions are wildly different.

 

[CatsCan]

Only womens clothes? Measure the waist of a pair of your jeans and compare to the tag size. I’m guessing you’ll find a 3” difference.

Did this a moment ago... all of mine are quite true. This one for example measures 32 inches, Tag says 31. But it's well worn and streched a bit. After washing it should meet the 31 inches again. It does't fit me anymore however..

 

[Bfd70]

Wow. Maybe the exception not the rule. Vanity sizing is rampant in mens clothes as well.

 

[ILLINI]

I have found that most jean/trouser manufactures acknowledge the standard 2 inch difference between "Vanity labeled" size and actual "waist" size when you read their fit guides - think Levis. Some manufactures do a really good job of demonstrating their fit differences. For example, Brooks Brothers has slim, fitted, and regular and diagrams on line that explain the fit. When it comes to leather jackets - it really is a crap shoot. I have found Schott NYC to be absolutely worst in their size labeling - I wear a 36 to 40 in their jackets. Japanese jackets almost always require me to size up from my 38 to 40 just to accommodate my wide shoulders and while Euro sizing 38 to 48 - I find the shoulders fine but sometimes the chest a bit tight. It really does make you appreciate the fit from custom or made to measure garments.

 

[Blackadder]

Wow. Maybe the exception not the rule. Vanity sizing is rampant in mens clothes as well.

That is a pair of Japan Blue. Pants and denim by Japanese selvedge denim brands and repro brands are pretty true to tag size that they shrink to tag size (machine washed and air dried). Exception to that are Stevenson Overall and Connor Sewing Factory.
Levi's regular shrink to fit 501 is pretty true to size. The LVC line sizing and shrinkage however is a complete mystery (some shrink two sizes while the other has zero shrinkage). The skinny spandex jeans, washed and distressed jeans are vanity sized.

 

[itsallgood]

"Vanity Sizing", that's a new one on me. So, what you're saying is that there's been creep over the years in terms of actual dimension vs the label that gets applied to the garment. And quality leather jackets that say 'label 44, fit like a 44' are simply a more modern design vs one that says 'label 40 (blousey design), fit like a 44 (trim fitting)".

 

[Seb Lucas]

"Vanity Sizing", that's a new one on me. So, what you're saying is that there's been creep over the years in terms of actual dimension vs the label that gets applied to the garment. And quality leather jackets that say 'label 44, fit like a 44' are simply a more modern design vs one that says 'label 40 (blousey design), fit like a 44 (trim fitting)".

As I said, sizes have always varied. A size is a manufacturer's take on how a 42, say, needs to fit in a particular pattern. Not necessarily a vanity thing. Sometimes sizes are smaller than they need to be. The key jacket rule is: ALWAYS go with the measurements, NEVER the sizing.

It's not necessarily about the maker quality. In jackets, Aero, for instance is a quality brand, but I need a size 38 up to a 46 depending on the pattern. I wear a 38 Highwayman and a 46 Board Racer. It's the measurements you go by.

Vanity sizing, kind of a separate issue, has been a thing for decades (especially women's - which is why an "8" may well fit like a 12).

My favourite absurd jacket size story involves me buying a Wilson's leather car coat some years back. I thought a medium would work but it had a pit to pit of 26 inches. That's more like a size XXL. The small fit me like an XL and was still too big. I generally need 23 inches pit to pit.

 

[Carlos840]

"Vanity Sizing", that's a new one on me. So, what you're saying is that there's been creep over the years in terms of actual dimension vs the label that gets applied to the garment. And quality leather jackets that say 'label 44, fit like a 44' are simply a more modern design vs one that says 'label 40 (blousey design), fit like a 44 (trim fitting)".

I posted this in the find & deals yesterday, i think it might help:

Let's say you have a 40" chest exactly.
You can't wear a jacket that is 40" circumference as that would literally be skin tight.
Chest ease is added to account for that, usually between 4 and 6" on top of the true chest measurement.
So a size 40 jacket should be between 44" circumference (4" of added ease) and 46" circumference (6" of added ease). To go from circumference to "pit to pit" you just divide by two. (which is the equivalent of flattening a cylinder before measuring it side to side, not to be confused with the diameter)
So a size 40 should be between 22" and 23" pit to pit.

What i did in the previous post was basically the opposite, you know it's a size 34, you know it has 20" pit to pit.
20 pit to pit is 40" circumference, jacket circumference - chest size=chest ease (40-34=6), so that means it gives you 6" of chest ease if you are a real 34, that's on the larger size but still within acceptable range for a size 34.

Compare that to an Aero HWM for example where you usually see 24-25" pit to pit for a size 40.
That means compared to tag size a HWM usually has 8 to 10" of chest ease, which is the reason people say "40 fits like a 44" (which i don't think is true since they are always too short to be a real 44, they are just a very boxy 40).

Does that make sens?

( if you check out the Vanson website, they mention the chest ease in the sizing guide, they call 5" to 7" ease "normal fit" and 4" ease "continental fit")

Different designs will have different amount of chest ease per design.

If you add to that brands that play with tag size. Schott for example does something they call "vintage fit" where a specific vintage fit model will be a tag size smaller than a non vintage fit model. For example the 644 was a "vintage fit" jacket.
All that meant was that a size 40 Schott 644 was the exact same pattern as a size 38 Schott 141.

If you add to that the subjectivity of what a good fit is, and a bit of vanity sizing, it quickly becomes clear that tag size is just a loose guide, not a real certitude on fit.

 

[Edward]

My understanding is that some reproduction or vintage-inspired jackets are cut so that they would fit "properly" at their stated size in the era in which they were originally made... But that the desired "fit" for these jackets has changed over the years. Aero Highwayman jackets, for example, are a 1950s "blousey" fit, which isn't the slimmer silhouette people prefer today. So if you'd like a HWM that looks good to contemporary (2020) eyes you'll need to get one one or two sizes too "small". (Labelled 40, fits like a 44)

This happens online quite a bit; if you look closely, it's usually specific resellers whose market does indeed favour a trimmer fit than a jacket like the Highwayman tends to have at labelled sizes. How the jacket is worn rather than how it was originally designed to be worn definitely has an impact. A lot of foks these days buy these vintage styled jackets as contemporary fashion and don't want the 'as designed' look. Personally I'll never understand why anyone tries to radically downsize a jacket rather than buying one that is simply a trimmer fit to start with, but there you go.

The practice of 'vanity sizing' is becoming pernicious. The number of times I've tried on a pair of trousers tagged with a 30" waist only to find they've got an extra inch-to-inch-and-half to spare, it's ridiculous and makes buying clothes on line a roulette wheel spin. With jackets, I would always go by overall measurements rather than the tag size. I have jackets running from 34 to 40, not due to some weird weight-fluctuation but because the patterns and styles proportions are wildly different.

Actual measurements are the only way to go . I'm very wary of buying jackets on eBay nowadays ax so many people out there seem to think that a pit to pit measurement equates to the size. Even a lot of retail sellers online don';t seem to understand the need for clarity re whether the measurements given are theszie of the person for whom the garment is intended, or measurements of the item itself.

I have found that most jean/trouser manufactures acknowledge the standard 2 inch difference between "Vanity labeled" size and actual "waist" size when you read their fit guides - think Levis. Some manufactures do a really good job of demonstrating their fit differences. For example, Brooks Brothers has slim, fitted, and regular and diagrams on line that explain the fit. When it comes to leather jackets - it really is a crap shoot. I have found Schott NYC to be absolutely worst in their size labeling - I wear a 36 to 40 in their jackets. Japanese jackets almost always require me to size up from my 38 to 40 just to accommodate my wide shoulders and while Euro sizing 38 to 48 - I find the shoulders fine but sometimes the chest a bit tight. It really does make you appreciate the fit from custom or made to measure garments.

Schott have been donig that for a long time - though they're not the only leather company I'm aware of to switch the labelled sizing and claim the cut is different as a result. I doubt it would stand up in court, even if the jacket did!

Interestingly, I always found that with the exception of Dickies 874s, I pretty much universally canfit one size smaller in trousers in the US than in the UK. Different tolerance norms, I guess.

 

[CatsCan]

Does that make sense?

To me this makes sense! Thank you for your explanation.

Cheers
Cats