Why Clothing Size Is Just a Number
Natalie has shopped with clients at hundreds of different brands since 2010. There is one thing that continues to frustrate her and something oft-lamented by clients: sizing is not even close to being consistent across brands. Even now, within the same brand, size measurements can vary. It sucks, it’s annoying, and it has become a vehicle to perpetuate unhealthy obsessions with weight and body image issues. Read on for Natalie’s research on the history of sizing, why it’s really just a number, and how you can start adjusting any negative relationship you have with size labels.
Once I started studying fashion, I quickly learned that, in general, there are very few impactful regulations to protect us, the consumers—and sizing is another example of this. Before we start with how to tackle this in the present, let’s go back in history to learn how we got where we are now.
First, I’ll say that much of this applies broadly to womenswear and menswear, but it’s much more problematic and prevalent in womenswear. This should come as no surprise, as women’s bodies are under a lot more scrutiny in the media than men's. It has been shoved down our throats from an early age, and we have to spend more of our lives unlearning unhealthy associations with self-worth and body image.
Civil War & Block Adaptations
We’ll stick with US history here and start with the American Civil War, which started in 1861. During the Civil War, federal agents took measurements from thousands of recruits and discovered patterns for combined chest, waist, and leg measurements. This ultimately formed the basis for a single set of sizes that was rolled out to civilian menswear. Because of this, average-size suits were then made available with variations in length and fits—not too different than menswear is offered today.
In 1881, the American tailor Charles Hecklinger created the first systematic methods of block adaptation for women. This involved the creation of “generic” patterns for a range of body types and sizes. Variations in breast and hip sizes were difficult to reduce to a single size number. The biggest challenge in this conversation was the bust shape—the three-dimensional differences in size and the proportional differences between waist and bust measurements among different women were not accounted for by the sizing systems of the time. As such, one of these new made-to-measure suits still required up to 11 body measurements.
Mid-1900s: Attempts to Standardize
In 1939, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which then had a Bureau of Home Economics, hired statisticians to analyze the body measurements of thousands of American women. The statisticians collected weight measurements and 58 size measurements for 15,000 women. They were looking for key measurements that could predict other body measurements. “Since the survey was done on a volunteer basis, it was largely made up of women of lower socioeconomic status who needed the participation fee. It was also primarily white women. And the measurements still primarily relied on bust size, assuming women had an hourglass figure,” wrote Laura Stampler for Time.
Contextualize this with World War II, which started in 1939, and let’s look at the mid-1940s. War was driving the U.S. government's efforts to conserve fabric, resulting in continued interest in standardizing sizing. At the same time, the catalog industry was booming. They wanted size standardization, as well, because “It was costing them about $10 million a year not to have set sizes” because so many people returned missized, ill-fitting clothing that they’d ordered, Stampler also shares.
In the late 1940s, the Mail-Order Association of America, representing catalog businesses including Sears Roebuck, enlisted the help of the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology) to reanalyze the sizing. They created a new standard in 1958 that became a government-issued standardized women’s size guideline for the apparel market. This new standard created the now-prevalent sizing system with numbers ranging from 8 to 42 and used letters to indicate height (T for tall; R for regular; S for short) combined with a letter to denote height and either an increase (‘full’) or decrease (‘slender’) in the size to account for hip measurements.
1970s & 1980s: Sizing Becomes a Marketing Tool
As you can imagine, this sizing system also did not work, so it was modified in 1970. Even in this failure, there was hope to take what didn’t work and move forward with a clear, universal sizing system. This would not be, and the standardization of sizing sets and measurements was eliminated in 1983 when the United States Department of Commerce completely withdrew the first somewhat-standardized sizing system of 1958.
With that, brands largely abandoned the standards and developed their own. Companies began downgrading size labels and adding lower numbers like size 2 and size 0—right down to the 00 or even 000 we see now. For example, a waist measurement that would have previously been categorized as a size 12 became an 8. This is what we know now as '“vanity sizing.” Vanity sizing is when the size on the label is reduced in number without reducing the measurements. In general, vanity sizing is used to encourage customers to buy a brand’s garments, often taking advantage of consumer body image aspirations—especially in the big conglomerate-owned brands.
The most recent U.S. sizing standard, ASTM D5585-11, was established in 2011 and provides guidelines for how to measure and label clothing sizes, but it does not have a universal set of measurements for these sizes. Furthermore, many clothing brands have their own sizing systems, which may not always align with the standardized sizes. You may be a 4 in J.Crew, a 1 in Ted Baker, and a 36 in Maje. It’s really just a numbers game!
Additionally, as we mentioned, many brands may use vanity sizing, and their sizes may be larger than any standardized size guidelines to make customers feel better about their bodies. Other brands may use different grading rules (the way they scale their garments up or down) or have different target markets, which can, of course, affect their sizing.
Facts on Clothing Sizing Today
So now we enter the world we’re in: sizing has become a marketing tool instead of simply being a vehicle for sizing. Which, let’s be honest, it wasn’t very good at in the first place. As it stands now, there are enforceable standards, no regulations—just a lot of paths for further confusion. So here are the facts on the state of clothing sizing today to help you internalize why the size on the label doesn’t matter and should not be a means to judge your body:
Fact 1: Different brands of clothing that are marked with the same size can vary by as much as three to five inches. Let’s note that the big major apparel brands actually like having their own sizes. But, Natalie, why is this so? One of the reasons for this is that it forges brand loyalty. For example, many people find shopping for pants tough. (Nod if you are one of those people.) So if you find a pair that fits you well—in the cut you like and the size you expect or want to be—you’re going to continue buying from that same brand.
The industry and lack of standards exploit the fact that doing your research and the work to find which sizes, which cuts, and which brand works for you can be just that: a lot of work—both physically and emotionally. Who really has time for that?
As such, people often go back to the first brand that “worked”—even if they want more or better. It can feel like to much work and effort to find more or better options if you aren’t an industry expert or do not have the time to do your due diligence.
Fact 2: Brands also exploit consumer psychology in sizing. Tasha Lewis, an assistant professor of apparel design at Cornell University, said that brands adjust their sizes to make female customers feel thinner. “Vanity sizing is very real,” said Lewis. “I worked at one company—and to make a customer who wore a size 2 feel like she wore a size 0, they shifted all the measurements down.” Let’s note that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12 in the 1960s, but in the 2020s, she would be around a size 6 (of course, depending on the brand).
In a personal example, I was just home going through some of my old clothes from high school and college. I noticed that the pant size from a brand I still occasionally buy from today was 2 sizes bigger than the size I purchase from this brand now—and I was 20 pounds lighter and much less curvy than I am today. Let’s look at the facts there: I am certainly not smaller than I was at 16 years old.
But the most important fact is that my worth is not any greater or lesser than it was then because I fit into a smaller size now than I did at 16 years old.
Fact 3: There is another factor explaining why sizing systems no longer work. People’s bodies are just different and more diverse and multifaceted than they were decades ago. We aren’t as insular and homogenous within our groups.
The Textile Clothing Technology Corporation conducted the first widespread study of American women’s bodies, called SizeUSA. They scanned the bodies of almost 11,000 people between the ages of 18 and 80 in 13 locations across the country. The study identified nine distinct body shapes for women. The ‘hourglass ideal’ that has long set the standard for women’s clothing sizes, in fact, only rings true for 8% of American women. Analogous surveys were conducted in the UK (SizeUK), South Korea (SizeKorea), and Mexico (SizeMexico). The study was conducted in various countries because clothing sizes between countries vary greatly, too. Italian sizes, Japanese sizes, Brazilian sizes, US sizes, etc., are all sized differently and proportionally cut differently based on their populations’ averages. Let’s also remember that a numbered or lettered size isn’t taking into account the whole of you: your unique 360-degree, top-to-bottom shape or proportions.
Our bodies are not made to be categorized so narrowly. Do you see, these labeled sizes aren’t indicative of anything but an averaged number from measurements that vary from brand to brand, country to country, and year to year? In fact, the only things actually required by the government to be on clothing labels are the brand-created size, fiber content, the country of origin, the manufacturer or dealer identity, and the care instructions.
Make Size Un-Matter to You
I hope you can see by now that there are literally no enforceable standardizations of sizing as they relate to clothing for womenswear in particular. So it really is just a number to help us pull in the right ballpark of fit—and will likely span a lot of different numbers depending on the garment. My closet right now has 4 different denim sizes—and they all fit! However, I have clients that simply won’t try on something that could be beautiful on them because of the size:
“No, I can’t wear that size,” or “I’m not comfortable with that number,” or “Maybe I’ll try it again when I lose weight.”
What do I say to that?
First, I totally get it. It’s really hard not to fall into this trap, but here are a few tips to stop fixating on the numbers . . .
Re-read this article if you need to, and remind yourself over and over that there are NO regulations on sizing.
Compare scenarios. Ask yourself, would you avoid buying an amazing pair of shoes if you had to go a half size up? What about a ring? If the sizing changed, would it keep you from buying a beautiful design you love? What’s the difference? It’s literally just a number that helps you get in the right ballpark of the correct size—and then you can adjust based on the fit or style.
Cover up or cut out the size tags (after you make a purchase, of course). If you want a support system, have a sales associate, your stylist, or a friend you trust pull clothing within the ballpark of your sizes. Make a rule that you won’t look at the label when you try things on. Focus on what fits you best and makes you feel the best!
Remember that you are good enough no matter what the size label reads. You are more than the numbers or letters on the tags of your clothes.
Want to explore more? Natalie touches on these and other aspects of sizing in a recent episode of Wear Who You Are:
Reference: “The Bizarre History of Women's Clothing Sizes,” by Laura Stampler, Time.com, October 23, 2014