"Size Change Over" - Sizing

[Linn]

\"Size Change Over\" - Sizing

Aloha,

I am trying to find more information about the "size change over" mentioned on the Lavin dress thread today. Several Google and other searches are not yielding very much information. I found some discussion about sizing on Wikipedia including catalog and vanity sizing, which says that US sizes are roughly six sizes smaller now than 20 years ago and that a 1984 size 12 is now a size 6, and a 6 is now a "0".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size

We know that the Lavin dress posted today is marked much larger than the current size. Did this change is sizing occur in the mid-'80's? Is there a reference for that date (other than Wikipedia?)

I looked through Everyday Fashions of the '50's and '60's as sold in Sear's Catalogs and found Junior size 7 (and Misses size 8) dresses as early as 1957. Size 6 and size 7 garments were available in 1960. I don't have any later references. The first time I remember seeing a size 0 or 2 was in the very late 1990's. Does anyone know when these sizes first appeared? I remember when sweaters were sold by bust size rather than xs, sm., med., lg. etc., but I also found some sweaters sold as Sm., Med. and Lg. in 1957, too.

In modern sizing I have to "TRY IT ON" and it depends on the maker - but I have different size dresses, tops, pants, etc. from the same label. I wonder if there was some variation in the past? I know some expensive clothing is and was "vanity" sized.

Best,

Linn

 

[Circa Vintage Clothing]

My understanding is that vanity sizing came in during the '80s but there is also an element of fashionable cut at work, eg, in the '70s clothes were very body conscious and tended to be quite fitted, if not tight - whilst in the early '80s it became fashionable for clothes to be large and loose, hence a size 10 in the '70s might still be called a size 10 in the '80s but be much looser - when people wanted to wear clothes that weren't as cavernous, I think that initially they started buying sizes smaller than usual to get the fit, before the fashion designers caught on and started lowering the numbers....and vanity sizing was born.

It's all a bit crazy...I've drawn up my own charts that compare the two systems of Australian sizing (we used an alpha system until the late '60s when we switched to the US numeric system), with the '70s numeric and the modern numeric (which is 2 sizes down, so a '70s size 12 is now a size 8. We're a size above the US who has gone down even more, so our 8 is a 6.

I just tell people to measure the damn thing and ignore the sizes...every designer these days seems to have their own way of doing it and I can't even ask customers what size they are because the numbers are all quite meaningless - today I had one lovely lady who said she was an 8 (actually a 12) and another said she was a 10 and is really a 6 based on waist measurements, which in vintage land I believe to be the most important.

Nicole

 

[Elsewhere]

I remember this in only very basic terms - from any pre-68 garment with a size tag, I subtract 8 to arrive at a more modern size.

My understanding (and this is from VERY old conversations back on VCA) is that sizes changed in, I believe, 1968. At that point, you'd essentially subtract 6 from whatever size is listed on the tag to arrive at a more modern size.
Of course - many companies started straying from any sort of standardization and wrecked it for everyone- but let's ignore that part for now. We're talking about the "standard" of sizing.

And if I recall, there was another minor jump in sizing in the late 90's - 1998, I think? I think it sized down 2 sizes?? So at that point what was an 8 was now called a 6.

So essentially if you have a 50's dress marked size 12, you'd subtract 8 and arrive at the approx equivalent of modern size 4.

Again - the details are all from very hazy memory - and I'm sure not all companies adhered to it, anyway.

 

[hatfeathers]

I would honestly think it wasn't or isn't going to be very well publicized. "They" want you to think you're still a size X and feel great and buy more stuff. That's why some places that cater to the plus sized gal have just gone to sizing as 1, 2, 3, as in xl, xxl, xxxl.

 

[Teresas Treasures]

That would be right for the Lanvin dress. It is marked a size 16 and will fit an 8. It has obviously been washed so the 8 sizes difference would make sense. If it hadn't been washed it would probably be a bit larger than that.

 

[ivycompany]

The above is all correct, there was never any "official" announcement or deliberate industry-wide change. It was gradual over a long time and is in fact still taking place (which is why manufacturers had to add a size "0" a few years back.) Number sizing has become all but irrelevant, as it varies so greatly even now between companies.