Thursday, October 11, 2007

Vanity Sizing... Mrs Furious Investigates

So I was over at Sister Skinny this morning and Katieo posted THIS about vanity sizing. I find this stuff fascinating since I just went through all my clothes and can testify that what year you bought your clothes and where you bought them definitely effects what size you bought. I can currently fit into clothes spanning 3 sizes!

My mom just took Kid F to school so I'm hoping to finally get a chance to hit the mall in search of better fitting pants.
Since this is how my jeans look on me now...
These are Gap size 6 slim fits circa 2003. I will be very interested to see what size pants I come home with.

The interesting thing about the clip Katieo links to is that they claim men's clothing is labeled true to size and not subject to vanity sizing. Hold up... that is some bad reporting... cause I just took the tape measure to two of Mr F's pants. Cover your eyes Mr F! I measured a pair of Old Navy Khakis I bought last year size 34"... true waist measurement... 38.5". Then the new pair of Levi's size 36"... true waist size.... 38.5"! If that isn't vanity sizing I don't know what is!


Mr Furious said...


Damn right men are vain. There is no debate about this. Label size bears no relation to actual size.

And let me refresh the public on my famous "Bald Guy Conspiracy"

Oh, about ten or so years ago there seems to have been an across the board shift in male models and actors used in catalogs and advertising. Starting with the J. Crew guys and spreading far and wide. The receding hairline was made acceptable if not an outright attempt at "the new handsome."

NONE of those guys would have been in front of a camera in the 80s.

My theory? the yuppies in the the agency world hit their forties and started shedding. This was their attempt to drag thinning hair to the middle.

It is now perfectly acceptable to work a shaved head, buzzed head on tv, in the corporate office, wherever.

Think Scott Van Pelt would have landed an anchor job back in the day?

Since I'm now a member of the No-Hair Club for Men, I'm not complaining or anything...

katieo said...

Yeah, I'd have to agree with the men's sizing thing. (but maybe just LESS whack than women's sizing)

SO curious how your shopping adventures go! Good luck!

katieo said...

oh yeah, and thanks for the linkypoo. :)

angie said...

It's all about J Crew Jeans. They were expensive $80--but i have never looked better in jeans in my whole life. They were the first pair of jeans i had worn in a decade and i always feel sexy when i wear them (I got them last Christmas).

Check out JCrew!!!

Mrs. Furious said...

I had a $100 gift card left over from xmas so that is where I went first... plus I really wanted my same jeans (or similar) in a smaller size. No such luck. I tried on at least 20 pairs of pants. I got something kind of like 'em but about 5" too long eventhough they are still "ankle" length. But I'm not loving them. I also got a great fitting pair of pin striped trousers some leggings (I know but I really think it is a look I can pull off) and a crazy pair of black cigarette pants (9.99). Photos tomorrow!
And Ang you look great in those jeans... I might hit there next but I really need to buy things in petite length and I'm not sure they always have those in stock at J Crew...

Chris Howard said...

Pancake ass is definitely not good.

And bald men are sexy.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin