Standard sizes

Virginia Postrel has a characteristically informative and entertaining piece on standardized clothing sizes in the December issue of The Atlantic. Clothing sizing, she says, began in the mid-twentieth century when “the U.S. government established and maintained size guidelines, using data from about 16,500 women, including 6,500 members of the women’s Army Corps measured during World War II. The guidelines specified the proportions that defined, say, a Misses 12 or a Junior 7. These standards were always voluntary, however, and over time they broke down. As Americans got fatter, garment makers discovered the marketing wonders of vanity sizing. Equally important, makers of different brands found that different proportions – a larger waist-hip ratio or narrower shoulders – could attract loyal customers who fit that profile. Every deviation from the standard represented a potential market niche. Although individual brands still adhere to in-house size standards, competition killed national standards. The government got out of the size-specifying business in 1983, and nowadays only sewing patterns adhere to the old sizes.”

The sizes were never really accurate anyway. During 2002 and 2003, the Textile Clothing Technology Corporation “used computerized 3-D scanners to collect precise measurements from about 6,300 women and 3,600 men.” Their sample was much more diverse in age and race, and the results were accordingly more accurate. The study found that “not many American women have the hourglass figures assumed by most apparel sizes,” and this is a matter of body shape not body weight. Computerized studies also confirm that bodies vary in shape far more than we realize. Decently clothed, we all look standardized, but that is an illusion – a blessed one perhaps, but an illusion.

Fortunately, the industry is making adjustments and coming to the rescue of average man and woman. At Bodymetrics in London, you can have your body scanned so they can make a perfectly fitting pair of 450 l jeans just for you. For those who can’t afford a thousand-dollar pair of jeans, Bodymetrics also uses the scanner to match the customer’s body with something in the store’s inventory.

Clothing sizes, Postrel says, “reflect a classic modern dilemma, a conflict between human heterogeneity and mass production. Standardized sizes made inexpensive, off-the-rack garments economically feasible [so replacing hand-maids]. They gave shoppers a reliable guide to finding clothes in self-service shops. (Historically, the biggest advocates for standard sizes were mail-order catalogs, whose customs couldn’t try on the clothes they were buying.) Standardized sizes seemed efficient and scientific. Clothes could be as predictable as screws or frozen peas – and as regimented and impersonal as an assembly line.”