4 ms·

>Yes, it has. It most certainly has not. Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and

by na85 5y ago

>Yes, it has. It most certainly has not. Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and inseam length), there are lots of variations between brands for garments with the same nominal size. I have 2 pairs of billabong board shorts that are slightly too big and fall down if I don't cinch the drawstrings extra tight. Size 34 waist. I have another 2 pairs of o'neill shorts that fit perfectly and don't fall down even if I don't lace up the drawstring at all. Size 34 waist. Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero".

noja 5y ago
> Size 34 waist. If you want an extra shock: measure your waist. It's not 34 inches!
gruez 5y ago
>Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". size zero at least makes sense if it's the smallest, and they're using zero based indexing. It really gets ridiculous when they have size 00.
hn_user82179 5y ago
Agreed, and that's also not taking into account vanity sizing, where the differences in sizes is on purpose
phil_e_delphian 5y ago
I've started selecting for brands that have more information than those two measurements. Seat and taper are more helpful, for instance. More casual button-downs are also very frustrating, as sleeve length and chest circumference aren't provided accurately for S vs M vs L
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It most certainly has not. It has, but, again, mass market clothing doesn’t use it. Bespoke clothing and tailoring does. > Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and inseam length), No, those are what mass-market panta tend to use as nominal size dimensions, with variations in the relation of those and other standard dimensions being brand or style variations (where there are options for some of them within a brand, typically multiple of them are collapsed together under another single axis like slim fit/classic fit/loose fit, which tends to lump ankle) The standard measurements for men’s pants include all of: waist circumference front and back crotch length hip circumference waist to knee length knee circumference thigh circumference calf circumference ankle circumference waist to ankle length inseam (sometimes, some of these will be estimated based on visual inspection and the other measurements.) > there are lots of variations between brands for garments with the same nominal size. Yes, mass market clothing nominal sizes have no consistent relationship to even the things the subset of measures they noninally represent. > Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". The only difference between women’s dress sizes and men’s pants sizes is that the former is a one-dimensional arbitrary ordinal category and the latter is two dimensional, and pretends to a (false) correspondence to a standard length measurement.

by na85 5y ago

noja 5y ago

> Size 34 waist. If you want an extra shock: measure your waist. It's not 34 inches!

gruez 5y ago

>Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". size zero at least makes sense if it's the smallest, and they're using zero based indexing. It really gets ridiculous when they have size 00.

hn_user82179 5y ago

Agreed, and that's also not taking into account vanity sizing, where the differences in sizes is on purpose

phil_e_delphian 5y ago

I've started selecting for brands that have more information than those two measurements. Seat and taper are more helpful, for instance. More casual button-downs are also very frustrating, as sleeve length and chest circumference aren't provided accurately for S vs M vs L

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It most certainly has not. It has, but, again, mass market clothing doesn’t use it. Bespoke clothing and tailoring does. > Even in men's legwear where your clothing is more or less fully defined by two measurements (waist circumference and inseam length), No, those are what mass-market panta tend to use as nominal size dimensions, with variations in the relation of those and other standard dimensions being brand or style variations (where there are options for some of them within a brand, typically multiple of them are collapsed together under another single axis like slim fit/classic fit/loose fit, which tends to lump ankle) The standard measurements for men’s pants include all of: waist circumference front and back crotch length hip circumference waist to knee length knee circumference thigh circumference calf circumference ankle circumference waist to ankle length inseam (sometimes, some of these will be estimated based on visual inspection and the other measurements.) > there are lots of variations between brands for garments with the same nominal size. Yes, mass market clothing nominal sizes have no consistent relationship to even the things the subset of measures they noninally represent. > Let's not even get into women's clothing where you can have such ill-defined terms like "size zero". The only difference between women’s dress sizes and men’s pants sizes is that the former is a one-dimensional arbitrary ordinal category and the latter is two dimensional, and pretends to a (false) correspondence to a standard length measurement.