Thursday, October 1, 2015

"Miss Petite, under 5'4" without shoes"

I'm trying to figure out what I should/would like to be wearing as I wander between sizes.

I don't care for leggings, I think the lagenlook is aping little girls (skirts over pants?), but what the hell, it looks comfortable and camouflage-y. A tunic, a statement necklace (that doesn't make noise when I move), some leggings, Birkenstocks with socks...

I live in a family of thin men, and they shop vintage in person and Uniqlo online for skinny stuff.

God bless 'em for putting real measurements of clothes up on the web, but according to this

Uniqlo size chart - they do a separate chart for each clothing item

my 43" backside is too big for XXL.

Now I know my brands: I wear a ladies XL in t shirts from American Apparel, a L from District, and so forth.

But I was wondering how these numbers stacked up in sewing pattern numbers.

There is, generally, way more ease in sewing patterns today.


Had to dig down past searching the website for "size chart". Who writes this site's code anyway? The Microsoft /Apple help desk teams?* Make this site searchable, dangit.


Roll credits

It's there. Needed a better data shovel. My top is a 14, my bottom is a 20. Usually I only span adjacent sizes.

We've yapped about sizes, sizism, and marketing a lot on the sewingnets, and as much as I dislike a vast conspiracy (no one is that organized), there is a great desire for standardization across the shopping globe. Americans are bigger than Europeans (check the Ted Baker US/UK size ranges - my spouse is a "1", which does not exist in the American range) and certainly bigger than the Japanese size range. So the Uniqlo range makes sense.
Unlike the American Apparel range.

I am trying to compare apples to apples here. Note there is no hip measurement on this chart. It's the same on the jeans chart. It's a case if "if you have to ask, it's not for you".

I had a friend who sewed for AA, and she joked that none of the sewists could possibly fit into the clothes they sewed (being average lady people).

I had an email exchange with an OLD and VENERABLE workwear company about posting the measurements for their ladies jeans, and their response was: Why? We use a standard size.

Whose standard?

Now THAT's a curvy chart! I'm actually within the 0 size range, waist AND hip! Let's go shopping!
(ed: I did. Those are the leggings. In the jeans, I'm still too big in the waist. SAD)


from the very very fine NewVintageLady website. Go read this article!


Styles change, so do sizes. It's worth reading about. Hey, you're already on the 'net!





*It's now official: in the inhouse Windows/Apple style wars, I hate them both.




3 comments:

  1. I have patterns from the 20s where 12, 14, and 16 are the AGE. After that you go to 40 for the bust or something. My girlcrush Claire McCardell made her dresses adjustable because the standard sizes from the Department of Agriculture didn't fit anybody back then.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds very stressful, i.e. Even more stressful than shopping for jeans.

    Having said that, I enjoyed the post and have learnt the term 'lagenlook' which I'd assumed to be the kind of clothes one wears to German beer festivals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to assume that lagenlook was the beery gaze over the lagerglass. Which makes everyone's pants look like a much better fit.

      Delete

Thanks thanks thanks. Together, we can make more better makes. You know what I mean, clever you!