Fantasy waistline sizing for pants

Abram Sauer of Esquire measured the waistline of several different brands of "36-inch waist" pants and found the actual waistlines to be larger, and in some cases much larger, than advertised.

Esquire: Are Your Pants Lying to You? An Investigation

Mark Frauenfelder is the founder of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of MAKE and Cool Tools. Twitter: @frauenfelder. Come and hear Mark speak at the ALA conference in Chicago on July 1.

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

Anonymous

Vanity sizing does happen, but 2-3 inches of wearing ease is not surprising. Your waistband is not supposed to be exactly the same measurement as your waist. I would say that five inches of wearing ease is ridiculous, but particular pair could be mis-labeled, too.
confluence

I seldom buy clothing without trying it on first, unless it’s something with a completely predictable shape, like a loose button-up shirt or a t-shirt. Or so cheap that I won’t mind if it turns out I have to alter it, chop it up for parts or give it away. ;)

People come in different shapes. People used to have clothing made to fit. The idea that a single number can tell you with certainty whether an item of clothing will fit you is a convenient fiction. That may be true if you’re shaped exactly like one of the average people of size n that mass-made clothing is tailored for. Sure, some manufacturers add a second dimension (various “fits”, etc.) but there are only so many permutations they can make.

While I don’t think I’m very far outside the norm, some bits of me are sufficiently nonstandard to cause a problem. And sometimes even when I can technically fit into something perfectly I discover that what looks good on the hanger looks completely ridiculous on an actual person, or vice versa. So I just grab things that look promising and reserve judgement until I’m in the fitting room.

So yeah, I’ve noticed the hilarious discrepancy in supposedly standard pants sizes before — but it doesn’t really affect me. I still have to try them on to check if my entire ass falls out of them when I bend over. They don’t have a measurement for that. :/
Anonymous

you’d be surprised, how many clothing retailer don’t actually check the lots of clothing they buy, note the most large places like Old Navy are not making their own merchandise, it all vended out. If you get the same item from different factories there will be some variances, but yeah some places do vanity sizing especially in bathing suits and lane bryantt. But all the sizing is not standardized through the clothing industry, that is why different jean will fit differently. Also some jean may have been fit at the hips and not at about 1″ below the bellybutton.
Gyrofrog

P.S. Jos. A Banks, at least a couple of years ago, would seem to be the clear exception to vanity sizing.
Anonymous

Anybody else notice they used a ‘Fat Max’ tape measure here?
- Jack
  
  I prefer â€œItâ€™s glandularâ€ measuring tape.
Jack

What everyone else said is correct. It’s all vanity sizing and it’s ruined my brainless method of buying jeans since high school: Just get a size and stick to a brand and that’s it.

Nowadays I’m either a 32 or 34 depending on the brand and style. And let’s not even get started on t-shirts. “Normal” shorts bought from anywhere are just sized to be floppy and fit like a tent.

Stinks.
Anonymous

The problem with vanity sizing is when your waist is truly 32 but due to size inflation 32 inch pants are really at least two inches too big (even for adjusting for lose fit)
Why is this a problem? Almost all common, affordable, chino and cargo pants start at size 32 for men. So I wear a belt now for everything, including my 32 inch Levi’s jeans which are huge.
Kludgegrrl

What is truly maddening is that, not only have the “measurements” grown, but they have stopped producing the smaller sizes entirely. I used to wear student cut Levi’s with a 28″ waist. The company discontinued them :(

In women’s clothes (I am actually female) I used to wear normal sizes. Now I’m a zero in Banana Republic and can’t buy *any* pants in Gap or Old Navy that are small enough. True, I’m thin, but I’m 5’8″ and do have hips and an ass — there are lots of genuinely petite women who are much smaller than I am. Damned if I know where they buy their clothing.
- Anonymous
  
  We petite ladies often have to resort to buying clothes in the children’s section, that’s where. Seriously.
  
  I’m a size 4/5. Have been for many, many years. I’m 5’2″ and about 120 when I’m not working out a lot. I’ve dropped down to about 115 when I was working out all the time…which put me down to a size 3/4. I always just pulled size 4/5s off the rack to try on…and they usually fit. But for the last few years, I’ve had to start pulling 2s in some stores (like Target) because that was the smallest size offered and even those started being TOO BIG!! Ridiculous.
  
  So I went to the children’s section. I can wear size M/L in girl’s tops, depending on the fit, and size 16 in girl’s pants. That is, if I can get my very womanly shaped ass and hips into them. The waist will often be fine, but my 9″ difference between waist and hips is a problem in children’s clothing, since girls under the age of 12 generally don’t HAVE hips yet.
  
  As an adult woman, with womanly curves, I shouldn’t HAVE to resort to shopping in the children’s section. I’m fine with having to hem every damn pair of pants I buy, but I should at least be able to find grown up clothes that fit my very normal size 5 body. I wish the stores and manufacturers would knock it off already with the vanity sizing and just make the sizes the ACTUAL sizes they’re supposed to be.
Alan

From the blog: “Men whose waists measured 47 inches or larger were twice as likely to die.”

At 32″, I’m gonna live forever!

Or at least I think I have a 32″ waist…
Camp Freddie

What’s most amusing is that my jeans are a 32 in H&M. However, they did the same style for women – and my wife has a pair which often get mixed up with mine. They fit me perfectly and have a 28 waist…

This crap really pisses me off.
I can cope perfectly well with being told that I’m fatter/thinner/shorter or taller than I thought.
I don’t cope so well when I have to return all my clothes (hired suits are the worst) because some asshat can’t use a tape measure.

And I’m a guy. Christ knows how much worse it is for women, who seem to only have measurements in a single dimensionless unit.
magnetiquewolf

Reverse psychology: every time I go shopping I can never find clothes that are small enough to fit me. Size 0 is too big, size 3 is too big, size 6 is too big… after a day of shopping I feel so tiny and insignificant that I feel a bit depressed. I have to go to the childrens section sometimes just to find clothes that fit, which makes me feel infantile.

It’s like they deliberately oversize clothing to make small framed athletic people feel insignificant and infantile, and to subliminally encourage us to gain weight and/or get fat and lazy.

I’ve come to the point where I buy whatever fits best and have it tailored to fit me. A happy balance between mass-production and craftwork.
Anonymous

Okay, I’m on the smaller end of women’s clothing, and I’ve had trouble finding pants that fit, but I still think gadgetgirl’s right.

The waist of your pants _shouldn’t_ be the same measurement as your actual waist, unless you want them to be super tight. H&M goes for that look, other retailers don’t. That’s a lot of the difference here.

Also, this doesn’t account for differences in rise, or style of cut. If the rise is lower (especially in women’s jeans, which need to be larger as they go towards your hips), the waist measurement is bigger. If the cut is “relaxed” (Old Navy is a more casual clothes store), the waist measurement is supposed to be bigger. Neither of those has to do with vanity sizing.

I’ve found in places where they can’t hide behind numbered sizing (2, 4, 6, etc) stores don’t vanity size, they just stop carrying size 24, 25 pants. :(
Elliott C. ‘Eeyore’ Evans

Dickies brand seems to be pretty reliable. All my 30″ waist Dickies pants are a little tight right now (gotta get back in shape), but the other 30″ pants I bought at the same time from another brand are nice and comfy.
deckard68

How about the discrimination against odd-numbers in men’s pants? 31″ waist, 31″ inseam man speaking here.

Most brands do not include odd-numbered sizes in their offerings. Haven’t for decades, if they ever did.

I know a couple brands that offer a 31″ waist, and I know a couple brands whose measurements are off in my favor, but even try to find a 31″ length. You can’t. I always end up paying $10 extra at a tailor’s to change a 32″ to a 31″.

Mind you an extra inch doesn’t matter so much for jeans, it matters for slacks.
jjeff1

And oddly enough Old Navy is one of the few places I can go to get a pant with a 29 inch waist.
Niklas

I suspected as much. This might explain why I have gone from 30” to 32” to 31” in jeans waist sizes while at the same time gained some weight.
agave

I’ve been suspecting this for years.
They get bigger and bigger.

I’ve gone back to 34′s
Nylund

So I’ve put on even more weight than I thought. Great…

As if 36″ inches wasn’t depressing enough.
flatfive

That sound you’re hearing is the ego deflating from millions of men around the country. Dammit, I just bought my first pair of Old Navy pants and I was feeling pretty good about myself.

At least I still fit into the same 34 Levi’s I’ve been wearing since college. If I hear they’ve been gradually lying to me over the years, I might have to do something drastic. No, not diet – I said drastic, not completely irrational.
alllie

This is why you have to try on clothes instead of getting them off the internet.
- t3knomanser
  
  You’ve obviously never been a guy. I wear 34″W/32″L. In general, this means I can walk into any store and grab a pair of pants with those measurements and they’ll fit. I just snagged a pair of pants, paid and left. They fit perfectly.
  
  Ditto on shirts- I know I wear a large. So long as I can see that they have decently long tails such that the lowest button is below my waist (am I weirdly shaped? I find too many shirts try and swing open a few inches above where the waist of my pants fall).
  
  Of course, I thought I had shrunk some in the past year or two, in part because I was swimming in 36″ pants. Maybe the pants changed more than I did. I’ll have to confirm that these are truly 34″s (this brand wasn’t on his list).
Anonymous

i think the manufacturers have also lied on the inseam lengths. For years I wore a 30″ length pant or jean. Now 30″ are 4″ longer than they used to be. I measured some i got recently, and sure enough, they added some extra length. I just want some honesty and consistency that’s all.
- Unmutual
  
  I’ve suspected this too. I was a 32 / 32 in high school . . .I’ve put on a few pounds and now wear 34 or 36 waist depending on the brand, but my length has gone down to a 30″ and even some of them are too long. I’m 5’11″ . . . what gives?
  - penguinchris
    
    I’m also a 5’11″ male who wears a 36 waist (was 32 to 34 in high school). I also used to get a 32 inseam, and now have to get 30′s. 36/30 seems like such a disproportional size; it’s kind of depressing (and not as easy to find as proportional sizes, though I rarely have a problem getting pants I want, and they’re more common in clearance which is great).
    
    However, in the mean time I’ve also discovered that wearing your pants too long is not actually a cool look ;) I think inseams have actually been fairly consistent, I just incorrectly assumed what my size was back then and didn’t realize I looked stupid.
    
    I actually think waist sizes have remained pretty consistent as well… as I’ve steadily gained weight from high school, through four years of university, then two years of grad school… my waist size has steadily increased at the same rate. I went through a period of sticking with the 34′s but most being too tight, then getting the rare 35 that you might find (Gap was good for those), and then I got to 36 and stuck there. I’ve had great luck blindly buying 36′s without trying them on (and ordering some online where I couldn’t try them even if I wanted to). I’ve been keeping my weight and size pretty consistent since reaching 36 and I think I’ll be safe with them for a while.
    
    I really don’t think they’re changing that much. Then again, I don’t shop at Old Navy, and only buy pants if they come in a “slim fit” or “tailored” version, or if the brand’s regular cut is a slimmer fit than average. It’s pretty obvious when you look at pants if you’re going to like the fit (if you care about that kind of thing); most are pretty bad.
- Anonymous
  
  No joke. there is no standard on sizes. Even between brands at the same company. Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic are the same company and yet I”m a 2 at Gap, a 6 at Old Navy and a 0 at Banana.
gadgetgirl

I’ve never been able to figure out industrial clothes sizing, but I know from when I make my own clothes that a “36″ would refer to the size of the body it’s meant to cover, not the size of the garment (unless it’s supposed to fit like a glove or tighter). You wouldn’t want pants that matched your waist measurement exactly unless you never planned to eat lunch while wearing them — or sit down, since the waist/belly air always sticks out a little when a body is in a sitting position rather than a standing position (yeah, even on very thin people).

Up until about the 1970s, 2″ of ease was standard, so a 36″ size whatever would actually be about 38″. Then the sloppy look came in, and 4″, 6″, or even more ease was added.

39″ for “size 36″ pants sounds reasonable to me. 41″ sounds sloppy/oversized.
- Thom.B
  
  First, a note on my credentials,
  I am the owner of a clothing company, a designer and have 5 years industry experience as a pattern maker and technical designer.
  
  As gadgetgirl says, yes, 1″ to 2″ is not uncommon but there is actually something more to it than that.
  Companies will develop their patterns from a basic block.
  That is a really simple no frills pattern that just is used to get consistent sizing throughout their line.
  Blocks are typically fitted to the natural waist which, when people were thinner, was smaller than their hip measurement. As styles changed and waistlines dropped they still kept using the sizing from the basic block patterns.
  That is, if you were to extend the height of the waistband up to the natural waist it would narrow and you’d reach the label size.
  This, in my opinion, was one of the major factors contributing in the upwards drift in sizes.
  Once the change in style had caused the label size to come untethered from the actual size of the garment things began to get all out of whack.
  Vanity sizing started in womens clothing ages ago but id clearly taking place in men’s clothing now two.
  5″ of “ease” in the waist is nothing more than a lie. 2″ of ease is excessive in my opinion. good pattern making does not require it.
  At my company (Lastwear) we size all of our garments in actual inches. We don’t include any ease in that measurement. Our philosophy is that
  our customers are smart enough to know how tight they want their damn pants to fit. Additionally, we also include sizing instructions in our product descriptions.
  This should just be a common courtesy for any garment being sold online.
  - Anonymous
    
    Interesting … however 36″ is still 36″ … it doesn’t really matter where the waist falls in my book. 36″ is a measurement, not a guide. Fair enough if ‘Medium’ shifts every now and then, because that’s an abstract and subjective ‘measurement’.
- lyd
  
  I know that it’s a shame to lose an opportunity to rant about obesity and conspiracy, but I think gadgetgirl has pretty much put this one to rest.
brie987

THIS IS JUST WRONG! With online shopping rising and will continue to rise how can a person get an accurate size? This is just promoting more frustrating returns and frustrated customers. Yes I am a customer of this experience also due to the fact that I had to pay partially for the return postage and now to know that I most likely had to return it because of the stores inaccuracy of its size labeling practices, this makes me very upset!
Lady Katey

This is known as “vanity sizing” and its extremely common with woman’s clothes. Some brands are more ‘vain’ than others- I have owned size ZERO skirts from Tommy Hilfiger, while my ‘real’ size is a 5.

Old Navy’s clothes are huge, too, IIRC. I stopped shopping there when they made everything even cheaper and chintizer than before, though.

At least Target still have fairly normal sizes and decent quality construction.
MustWarnOthers

This doesn’t seem to be the case with smaller sizes, at least I don’t think it is.

I’ve been a 30 or 32 inch waist since I was 18. I’m 28 now, and all the 30′s and 32′s fit exactly the same.

Perhaps it is only on the larger sizes that they start massaging people’s egos.
hadlock

As a guy, I don’t keep track of my pants size. When I go in to a store I grab pants anywhere from 29-35″ waist, and narrow it down from there.
Anonymous

Men’s clothes used to be sized accurately.

Women always tried everything on before buying, and would buy the smallest numbered size that would fit, which caused women’s clothes manufacturers to evolve adaptively or die. They were economically rewarded for deceptive labeling.

Men, on the other hand, did not like to buy clothes from a maker who sold them something sized inaccurately. A man would buy pants (without trying them on, typically, or his wife would buy them) and if they didn’t fit he wouldn’t buy that brand any more.

The answer isn’t “try everything on first” it’s “always return anything that isn’t accurately sized, and refuse to buy again in that brand”. That’s the way capitalism is supposed to work; buyers are supposed to behave like informed and intelligent agents and not like self-deluding chumps.
thekevinmonster

I bought a pair of leather pants online, and they were sized by the waist size, not the ‘regular men’s pants size’. That was a shock, because your waist is through your navel and mine works out to about 38, but I can wear size 33 pants and comfortably wear 34′s.

I would guess that a lot of the time, size 34 pants (for example) are actually measured at the ‘under the belly’ hips size, aka the ‘where your belt goes’ size. That doesn’t change nearly as much as the ‘waist size’.
- t3knomanser
  
  Your waist is supposed to be the thinnest part of your trunk. Usually, that’s around your navel, but there’s no guarantee. And pants aren’t cut with a deep enough gusset these days for people to wear the waistband at their navel. I’ve found that trying to do that with pants creates the rare male camel-toe.
Shelby Davis

By and large, men’s sizes are more standard than women’s–an inch is (or at least is supposed to be) an inch, while a “size 2″ is a label that takes a lot of factors into account. But while I can usually just pick up something with x waist by y inseam and walk out with it, I have noticed that Old Navy sizes are kind of skewed.
Moriarty

Predictably, this doesn’t seem to be limited to that one particular measurement. I’ve even noticed this at Old Navy in particular – definitely caters to the “American body type.” I’m no stick, but they don’t have any shirts there that don’t balloon out and look silly on me. H&M is one of the few cheap stores where clothes actually fit me. Uniqlo is another.
Drew from Zhrodague

Huh. I’m pushing 40 years old. Regarding pants sizes for men, I have a 28″ waist. When I go shopping for pants, I buy every single pair of pants in the store that fit me — if they even have any. Levis does not make 501 30/34 jeans anymore, I haven’t seen ‘em in any store in years. For khakis (my other option), a 32 is too big, but it is the smallest they have, and infrequently do they have enough length.

I’ve just resigned myself to wearing tent-sized office clothes. I was never able to figure out fashion anyway.
traalfaz

I don’t think it said – did they measure and find that the belt labeled 36″ was 41″ long, or was it 41″ to the last notch?

I went to buy a belt for the first time in many years a while back, and since I wear a 34 waist, I assumed I’d need about a 36 or 38, so I’d have notches on either side of my initial size. Turned out they were indicating the entire belt length, and I needed to buy about a 40 or even 42, otherwise I was on the very last notch and the tip of the belt couldn’t tuck into a belt loop at all.
- mdh
  
  i see what you did there.
Anonymous

This has been happening for so many years with women’s pants. Ten years ago, all my jeans were size 6 or 8. Now my jeans are mostly size 2 or 4, despite gaining 12-15 pounds since then. I’m only a little surprised to hear that it happens with men’s pants now, too. Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld.

I wonder how much of this is really intentional, and how much is just sloppy manufacturing and poor quality control. If I try on jeans in my size at Express, they all fit the same. If I try on jeans in my size at Old Navy or Target, I might try on 5-6 pairs and only find one that fits. The actual sizes are all over the map.
Anonymous

Really? Vanity sizing has been around for ever. Women’s clothing has been doing it, and I’m sure men’s for nearly as long.
Even wikipedia knows! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing
SarahLovesFabric

There’s also the concept of “ease” to consider. In general, a man whose waist measures 34″ with a tape measure doesn’t want pants with a waist measurement of exactly 34″; they’d be too tight to be comfortable. Clothing manufacturers work in a certain amount of extra fabric to allow for movement and the style of the individual garment. Stretch fabrics and “body skimming” styles call for less ease (in menswear, think of “tapered”, “tailored”, and “European” styles), while more casual “relaxed” styles and fabrics with less give require more ease. Based on that, it doesn’t surprise me that Dockers pants have a bigger waist than H&M.

However, vanity sizing and size inflation are very real, and it’s interesting that it’s happening in men’s sizing as well. Don’t believe me? Try shopping for vintage clothes by tag size, or use a sewing pattern in the same size you wear off the rack. It will never fit.
jerwin

By and large, men’s sizes are more standard than women’s–an inch is (or at least is supposed to be) an inch, while a “size 2″ is a label that takes a lot of factors into account.

A size two is the smallest (or next to smallest) grade of a pattern that a designer/clothing manufacturer thinks will sell.
Gyrofrog

I guess things come full circle: Anyone else remember the 1993-ish SNL skit about The Gap? “You have to cinch ‘em.”

The only other purpose of too-large waist sizes is so the trousers hang around one’s ass, which makes the wearer look like a god-damned, four-door jackass. (Besides that, it’s old, already. First time I saw someone sporting that look was 19 years ago. It looked like shit on a stick then, and it looks like shit on a stick now, with compunded interest.)

My $0.02
roboton

I would like to see how each pair of pant types from the same company varies.

For instance, the low-waist hip huggers versus the easy fit designed to ride a little higher.

I can’t call foul just yet…
Cheqyr

Boy, is this article well-timed. I *just* had to return a pair of Old Navy 32×30 cargos. I’ve been buying pants from many different manufacturers in size 32×30 since high school (many many years), but suddenly the Old Navy waistlines are all too big — even though my 2-year-old Levis fit the same as always.

Unfortunately, the ones with the 30″ waist are small everywhere else. Guess I won’t be shopping at Old Navy anymore.

@t3knomanser: if this idiocy keeps up, your days of being able to walk into a store and grab a pair of pants without trying them on are probably numbered.

@alllie has it spot on: companies, if I can’t trust your sizes, I ain’t buying of the web. You can kiss those sales goodbye.
jerwin

The only way to really get to the bottom of this is use a seam ripper and dissect the pants into the constituent parts, and see whether in fact all of the “size 36″ pants share a common “seat” measurement. It may be that some retailers are catering to those with proportionally more rotund waistlines, and not putting in such severe darts. Also, some pants sit lower on the waist than others.

But, yeah, vanity sizing is a terrible idea. Men should be humble.
mdh

it’s especially odd that the GAP and Old Navy (and Banana Republic) are all the same company.
- Unmutual
  
  They target different socio-economic class.
  
  Old Navy was not always so big, I remember a time when they fit pretty much just like Banana Republic.
Anon022

I stopped buying pants at Old Navy a few years ago because of this. I’m petite, and their smallest sizes I can pull out, away from my hips. So size 0/1 went to about size 4. It’s about time someone else noticed this influx in lying pant sizes!

Jerks.
cjp

This isn’t at all surprising. I am a five foot tall, one hundred five pound woman (of normal weight for my body type ) who finds it almost impossible to buy adult-sized clothes because a size zero or two is really a four or a six in most stores now and far too large. I’ve suspected they’ve been tampering with sizes for several years.
tomorrowboy

30 inch waist pants.
I wear large children’s t-shirts.
They have dinosaurs.
styrofoam

I thought men were usually guilty of adding 2-3″ to the actual measurements.
EH

I know this won’t be PC, but my sense is that this is prevalent in stores where lots of fat people shop (or where the store/chain is targeting them).

I have to buy men’s Small shirts at Target because their medium is the size of other stores’ Large. My confirmation is that they do stock XS and S items, but they’re always the first to be sold out.
- jerwin
  
  I have to buy men’s Small shirts at Target because their medium is the size of other stores’ Large. My confirmation is that they do stock XS and S items, but they’re always the first to be sold out.
  
  Yes, but with small, medium, large, and the extras, there’s no particular point of reference. With “size 34″ pants there’s the suggestion that the garment’s waist is 34 inches, or the idealized wearer of the pants would have a 34 inch waistline.
Cosmo P Topper

My first experience with vanity sizing occurred when I tried on a pair of Cotton Reel shorts. At the time I took a size 36 pant. I tired on the Cotton Reel size 36 shorts and they were immense! In fact they fell off me they were so huge. Finally settled on a size 32 as the 30s were just a bit tight.

I’ve since lost some weight now I usually take a 34 – really! After reading this I measured my Levis and a pair of Dockers. The Levis, size 34, measured closer to 35″. The Dockers, size 36, measured 36″. (I would have bought a pair of size 34 Dockers, but the cut was odd.)
The Mudshark

From my experience, American sizes generally are by far the largest, followed by European sizes, then Asian sizes (which kind of corresponds to actual people sizes as well). I own American “small”, European “medium” and Asian “large” t-shirts that fit me exactly the same. The problem is, even that is not consistent. IÂ´d love to buy t-shirts online more often but thereÂ´s always risk involved.
- Gloria
  
  It’s not that bad. Check size charts. A good site will provide dimensions for all their products, usually provided by the manufacturer and often measured by the vendor itself.
  
  Know your body measurements (and how much ease you prefer) and/or measure a shirt that fits you really well. Keep in mind new clothes can stretch or shrink and check if the site or product reviews indicates the product will do either.
  
  The sizes small/medium/large, by nature, are totally subjective. I never found them reliable.
  
  When I first started shopping with my boyfriend, he wasn’t even sure what his shoe size was. Then last week, he measured his waist for the first time instead of going by his pant size. Ended up asking (in a careless moment) if my tape measure was defective.
  
  Hehe.
  - The Mudshark
    
    Thanks for the advice, Gloria. I probably really should get my measurements. The truth is, IÂ´ve been too lazy to ever do it.
    
    Still, consistent clothing sizes would be appreciated.
    
    Anyway … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3w1_E1V46M