US "Standard" Sizing

Linn

Linn

Super Moderator
Staff member
VFG Past President
US \"Standard\" Sizing

As many of you know, US "standard" sizing has changed greatly over the last 20 years and more so over the last 50. There no longer is a "standard" - sizing now varies from manufacturer to manufacturer! If you have any vintage clothing from the '50's that is sized it is approximately 6 sizes smaller (in modern sizes) than it is marked.

Here is a link from Wikipedia that discusses this:

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

I am still trying to discover when size 2 was introduced. I think it was the 1990's and I think that size 0 was introduced then also - but if anyone has any older magazines with ads or catalogs that show sizes offered please post about it!

The only way to determine if something will fit these days is to try it on and/or know the measurments. The garment's measurements can help determine if something is vintage. If you have a piece of clothing with a 25-26" waist that's marked size 8-12, you know it's not current!

Linn
 
Yup, sizes are crazy. Like I can't for the life of me get into those size 27 vintage Levi's that I'm trying to sell, but in modern Levi's, a 27 is fine. :rolleyes:

I must admit, I am always totally clueless when I'm in the US (or Canada) and shopping for clothes - I usually go by the trial and error method :embaressed: .

But it's the same with sizes here in Europe, where they also vary by country - and thus by brand sometimes. Like Italian sizes are German sizes plus 4. So even if I go to Benetton here at home, I need a size 38 instead of the normal 34 as they don't change the sizes for sale in other countries.
German sizes once started at 38 - I have old 50s sewing magazines where the smallest pattern size is a 38, which roughly fits me. In the very late 60s magazines, the first size 36s turn up (for teenagers!), later it went down to 34, and now sometimes even 32 turns up.
I have some 30s and 40s German sewing and craft magazines with sewing patterns in them, and there the sizes are completely different - from 0,1,2 etc. up to 6, written in roman numerals. They only went by bust sizes, and even the 0 is a about 2 inches too wide.

Karin
 
I am pretty sure that US pattern sizes never corresponded to ready to wear sizes and you always had to go by the measurements. Blouses and sweaters used to be sold by bust size through the '50's and maybe '60's????

I have to take photos but I bought what appears to be a mid-late '70's Evan-Picone skirt at the fundraiser I have been helping with this week. The skirt is fitted through the waist with belt loops and has a slightly flared skirt. It is a size 8 - fits like a modern 2-4. Last night at the preview sale-party I bought a straight, very fitted mid-calf Evan-Picone skirt - different label - (we don't have it, ) that is probably mid- '80's and is a size 4. Go figure!!! Both skirts have the 1974-1995 AFL-CIO label.

I tried on a size 6 DVF stretchy dress that was way, way too clingy on me and all the other approximately size 4 people who tried it on!

The catalog charts vary, too, BTW.

Linn
 
As far as the size charts there, I usually go with the size that is 2" smaller than my bust measurement because in most clothes nowadays they add a lot more easement room. I have a small ribcage/larger bust so usually find that rule of thumb works well so it doesn't give me all sorts of extra material in the stomach/across the back that I don't need. But I had to learn that through trial and error. Ditto in the waist.

I think when we think of "why aren't things standardized" we think of things as willy nilly...its not like the "good old days" and makers can't get their act together. I think that is partially true, but I also think there is good to it. Some makers cater their clothes to curvier gals, some to a straighter figure, some to a more mature figure (I saw a line once that was catering to ages 75+ that didn't look like grandpa pants and recognized shoulders may slope and stomachs may be larger in the lower abs.). If i was all 100% standardized, we would all be altering except unless we were the desired figure type of the moment (as we all know, its run the gamut). Yes, it frustrates me a lot at times to no end. But, in the past year, particularly in the last 10 months, I have gone from lamenting why we couldn't go back to 50s sizing where everything looked great on me, to realizing there is stuff out there for me. I was a sad sack in the fitting rooms, trying on jeans that were perfect in the hips and 5" too big in the waist. Sure, I could alter them, but I wouldn't be able to pull them down over my hips to take them off if I took the waist in like it should! But now I am getting to know what makers make things for my shape. I really have had a hard time having to put down things at consignment shops that I really liked that looked crappy on me.

I did have a size 0 suit that I bought for Fall 1993/winter 1994, Linn, so size 0 was out then. I go a job that fall that i bought them for. I remember thinking "i'm a zero??". By contrast, in 1988 I wore a size 8. I was probably 4 lbs lighter when I wore the 0 than the 8! At the time i wore the 0, depending on the maker I also had a size 2 suit, and a couple of 4/6petites in my closet.
 
At 5'8" and 106 pounds, NOTHING fit me in the 50s...my mother sewed from patterns and tailored every single thing I owned. My sister, at 5 foot and bone-skinny, had the same problem until the 5-7-9 SHOPs opened. with the new 'tiny' sizes. Must have been late 50s or early 60s. That day's 5 might be today's 0.
 
Linn (and ladies) - You are amazing and thank you so much for taking the time to "teach" the next generation of vintage lovers!

I try not only to collect information on each piece but general information that will help in the future! This is definately helpful!

Thanks again!

Vicki
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top