Women's clothes sizes

Loz01

H&M are terrible for sizing!!! I am a size 12 (weigh 9 stone 1) and I couldn't get a pair of size 12 shorts up over my hips. First time a size 12 hasn't fitted me in my whole adult life and Ive pretty much always been the same weight. I even have a few size 10 jeans.

LavenderBee

Pollycat wrote: »

But what is your 'actual size'? (hypothetical question).
I have dresses - from the same shop - in sizes 10, 12, & 14.
I don't consider myself any of those sizes. I'll try different sizes and buy the one that fits.
I've even tried several same size items as I know that 2 size 12 can differ.

I agree with you about wearing the right size - or going bigger if you're between sizes - it makes you look slimmer than cramming a size 14 bum in size 12 trousers.
Seeing someone in Primark leggings (thin to start with) stretched so tight you can see the pattern on the wearer's knickers is not s good look.

Good point PollyCat - I've countered my own point (as a self confessed size "9"!). Replace "actual size" with "what fits comfortably" perhaps. Like MallyGirl's daughter I have everything from size 6 in loose fitting tops to size 12 trousers in the wardrobe (from the same shop...) though I blame some of that on my slight lack of height meaning I scale down more than up!

I can certainly get size 6 fitted stretchy t-shirts from Primani over my head and round my body; does not mean it looks good though and I would get more confidence wearing a 10 that goes over the top of my figure than walking round all day breathing in thinking "but at least this shirt is a size 6" (whilst simultaneously going blue in the face from lack of breathing and blood being cut off in my arms...)

About 10-15 years ago H&M (who, of course, excel themselves at having no standard sets of measurements for their sizing whatsoever) launched a range of jeans that came in "in between" sizes (i.e. 25, 27,31, 33" etc waist). I went to investigate a couple of weeks after they came out only to find the shelves were bare, they were that popular they'd sold out of everything that ended in an odd number. What does that say!

MysteryMe

I'm assuming the OP wants clothes that fit first and foremost.

There are plenty of independent fashion shops that cater to sizes above 16, many of them designer plus size ranges so no tents in sight. You need to research on the internet though.

You need to know your measurements obviously but also general body shape. Not all "size 18s" have the same body shape so one M&S size 18 garment might fit one but not another.

No shapeless tents to be found at

ASOS curve range.

A German website called Navabi.com that has a wide range of all different types of styles of clothes from size 14 to 28. Free returns and free postage if spending over £50 I believe. Used it several times with no issues. Not the place for cheap clothes.

More expensive plus size designer Anna Scholz, https://www.annascholz.com she does a cheaper range for Simply Be.

There is Simply Be itself but it's not somewhere I have bought so can't comment on clothing

https://www.curvissa.co.uk 14+ Not bought from there myself but looks nice stuff and not too expensive.

Pollycat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yes - you do need to lose weight.

The tiny size labelling is because:

1970s size 10 = is now re-labelled size 6
1970s size 12 = is now re-labelled size 8
1970s size 14 = is now re-labelled size 10
1970s size 16 = is now re-labelled size 12
1970s size 18 = size 14
1970s size 20 = size 16
1970s size 22 = size 18

I disagree that a 1970s size 10 is now a size 6.

Pollycat wrote: »

When I was late teens, a size 10 was a 22" waist.
Yes. Really. :eek:
And it wasn't rare that people were size 10 or 12.

But maybe the OP isn't talking about sizes of clothes but more the lack of choice of clothes she likes in her size.

I've recently bought a pair of size 10 trousers - GOK WAN for TU - and the waist measures 16.5 inches.
That's a waist size of 33 inches.
Heaven knows what size that would have been in 1970.

Most people's waists seem to be much bigger now than in the 1970s.
There seems to be very little definition in waists - unlike in the 1950s, 60s & 70s when people did have a waist much smaller than their bust and hips.

Gloomendoom

Wasn't it Marilyn Monroe that was supposed to have worn a US size 12 (UK 16?) dress in the 1950's, yet had a 35" bust, 35" hips and a 22" waist.

Pollycat

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Wasn't it Marilyn Monroe that was supposed to have worn a US size 12 (UK 16?) dress in the 1950's, yet had a 35" bust, 35" hips and a 22" waist.

Some interesting information here about Marilyn's clothes size and clothes sizing in general:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/66536/what-dress-size-was-marilyn-monroe-actually

As the size and shape of the average American woman began to change, so did the vanity sizing aimed at soothing egos. While a size 8 was considered the smallest available in 1958 when the initial sizing standards were put into effect, an 8 corresponded to roughly a 31-24-33 body. By 2008, a size 8 had increased by five to six inches for each of those measurements.

Izadora

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

As far as I can work out H & M are one of the few clothing manufacturers in this country to put accurate sizes on their clothes.

They're actually renowned for having very poor sizing. Although it would appeal to your "real" sizing, as they tend to come up small, there is no consistency across their sizing - I once tried on the same shirt in a 16 and an 18, the 16 was a bit snug but wearable and the 18 was so small that I couldn't get it done up.

hunters

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

As far as I can work out H & M are one of the few clothing manufacturers in this country to put accurate sizes on their clothes. I only wish I actually liked their clothes - but they're too "monochrome" for me.

That's put an idea in my head though - ie in order to find out what my true current size is I think I might just pay a visit to them whenever I'm visiting my Home City (as there isnt one of them anywhere remotely near where I live now) and then I can check to find out my accurate size by heading to the changing room with 3 different sizes of the same item in my hands and see which comes up as fitting me and that will be my true size.

Waste of time unless you are actually going to buy something from H&M as all it will tell you is what size you are in that particular shop and depends on the style of the clothes you are going to buy.

There is no such thing as a "true current size" that covers all shops but if it suits your vanity to think you really are a size 10 then fair enough but best to actually buy something that fits you.

Don't forget the label is inside your clothing and no-one will actually be able to read it

fairy_lights

I see a lot of people have suggested that clothing manufacturers start labelling things according to waist size/length instead of sizes but I'm not sure if that would make much difference.
I wear 28inch waist jeans from Gap - but they don't sit anywhere near my waist, they fit around my hips which are certainly bigger than 28inches. So where does that number come from? Vanity sizing again?

leslieknope

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

As far as I can work out H & M are one of the few clothing manufacturers in this country to put accurate sizes on their clothes. I only wish I actually liked their clothes - but they're too "monochrome" for me.

That's put an idea in my head though - ie in order to find out what my true current size is I think I might just pay a visit to them whenever I'm visiting my Home City (as there isnt one of them anywhere remotely near where I live now) and then I can check to find out my accurate size by heading to the changing room with 3 different sizes of the same item in my hands and see which comes up as fitting me and that will be my true size.

biggest load of tosh i've heard all week! h&m are always in the press for their poor sizing. i have fit into size 10 clothes in h&m as well as size 18. what size am i??? :think: