Dear All, In �Clothing Sizes � International Standardization� John Winks asks the pertinent question:
�Which size 12 are you?� He then goes on to publish this table of sizes for a woman of medium build � the manufacturer�s mythical stock size. Country Size Australia 14 Bulgaria 81 Canada 32 Czechoslovakia 3AA45 Denmark 40 Finland NC 40 or C 38 France 42 n Germany 40 Holland 34 Hungary 164/80/94 or N 90 Iran 38 Ireland 12 Israel 40 Japan 92/99 New Zealand 14 Poland 164/92/96 Spain 46+2�L Sweden C40 Switzerland 40 UK 14, 38, or 8 USA 12 or 14 USSR 164/92/96 Yugoslavia 40 Of course she could throw up her hands in horror at all this confusion and simply say, �I don�t care how this fits, I AM A SIZE 8, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A SIZE 8, AND THAT IS WHAT I AM BUYING�). There are, however, definite limitations to this method. Women's sizes Recently (2002), I visited a major department store and noted that all the women�s clothing was designated in 'Size Numbers'. Anyone who has any experience of �Size Numbers� knows that they not only change from manufacturer to manufacturer but also garments from the same manufacturer change in sizes over time. There is a lot of talk about such things as �large size 10s and small size 12s�. Philosophically, 'Size Numbers' are a peculiar entity in that, other than their sequential order, they are numbers that have little to do with mathematics or numeracy. In the same week in a radio interview I heard a leading clothing maker say ' . . . of course Size 12 is a lot bigger than it used to be, say, 10 years ago' He went on to say that some clothing manufacturers take sizes a step further by changing the sizes to suit the feelings of their customers. One maker is well known for changing all the size numbers so that size 14s have a size 12 label: those who want to feel that they're 'still a size 12' prefer to shop for products from this manufacturer. The manufacturer's lie apparently makes their customers feel better. To many in Australia there currently seems to be no useful measuring system available for women to assess the size of their clothing. The systems that are available are based on a number system that has no basis in reality, that is not understood by the industry, and the numbers are changed to suit the needs of commerce or fashion. It seems that there is now no meaningful measuring system in use in the clothing industry at all. The facts are, however, that the size of women�s wear were set by the Standards Association of Australia in 1975 and they have not changed since. For average fittings the women�s sizes in this table are expressed in centimetres. If you want the full range of sizes you can get a copy of AS 1344 � 1975 from Standards Australia. Size 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Bust 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 Waist 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Hips 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 Please note that these are women's sizes as measured over light underwear � the measurements are not the size of the clothing. The actual measurements on the clothing should be slightly larger to allow for 'garment ease'. Note that the size numbers themselves have absolutely no meaning as numbers. They would be just as descriptive if they were A, B, C, D, and so on. In fact you could use any set of words to designate size numbers; sparrow, chicken, duck, goose, turkey, eagle and emu would do. �I�m a goose in slacks and a turkey in tops� means just as much as �I wear a size 12 jeans and size 14 top.� The words or the numbers have no absolute meaning, but they may have relative meaning . . . emus are bigger than ducks and size 14 should be bigger than size 10. In the end it�s the measurements that count, not the size numbers, and it�s probably easiest if you think only of your actual body measurements, especially since we know there are clothing makers who clearly don�t use the Australian Standard and feel free to change size numbers whenever they feel so inclined. Note how the people responsible for setting the standard for women�s measurements were wise enough to round all the measurements to the nearest 50 mm. Men's sizes A year later, another group were writing the standard for men�s clothing (AS 1954 � 1976). Eventually they decided to stick with inches but dress them up in centimetre clothing (so to speak). Taking 38 inches as 97 cm they devised the following table for normal menswear sizes. Size Number Size Letter Waist cm Waist Inch Chest cm Chest Inch 12 XS 77 30 87 34 14 S 82 32 92 36 16 M 87 34 97 38 18 L 92 36 102 40 20 XL 97 38 107 42 22 XXL 102 40 112 44 24 XXXL 107 42 117 46 26 XXXXL 112 44 122 48 28 XXXXXL 117 46 127 50 30 XXXXXXL 122 48 132 52 32 XXXXXXXL 127 50 137 54 34 XXXXXXXXL 132 52 142 56 And this was supposed to simplify the system! It�s no wonder no-one understands it. What hope has a consumer got of receiving any sort of fair deal if this is the state of the industry. Men�s sizes are nominally in inches still (2002) but some have been approximated to centimetres, but these are written in intervals that have been chosen to approximate the old inch sizes with 2 inch intervals. It�s hard to understand how the Australian menswear industry copes with the irrationality, and even harder to evaluate the cost of these bizarre methods. Note that the intervals between sizes are in 5�centimetre lots and not true 2 inch lots that they are approximating. This is one of the places in modern Australian society where we are carefully preserving old measurements such as inches whilst hiding them as centimetres. You could call these 'hidden inches' Each new staff member in a men�s wear shop (after 32 years of metric education in Australian schools) is carefully taught about old measurements so he can translate them into the approximate (read shonky) centimetre measures. It�s all a total waste of everybody�s time. We should get rid of size numbers and size letters immediately since they don�t mean anything. Then we should set new standards based on 40 mm intervals for waist and chest measurements, 20�mm intervals for leg and sleeve lengths, and 10 mm for neck measurements. A major change is needed to jolt the mind-sets of the people in the industry to better systems � a move to millimetres and a move away from 2 inch intervals could help toward this end. An interesting example of the preservation of old measures can be seen as far away as Norway where I believe that jeans are sold with their dimensions in inches; no doubt this is to give them the authentic feel as being genuine articles from the 'good old' USA. As inches are not taught in Norwegian schools most people don�t know that their jeans are measured in these old measures. They just use the numbers in the same way as the meaningless size numbers that we use for women�s clothing. If you asked a Norwegian about their waist measurement they might say �don�t know� or give an answer using metric units, but if you ask about their size in jeans they might say something like �34� or �38� with no idea that they�re using an old measurement method. I believe that this unsatisfactory state of affairs is due to the selection of centimetres as the unit of measurement. This was an error in that the centimetre is not sufficiently different to an inch for the mind set of the people in the business to change. My knowledge of the clothing trade in Australia is that tailors, cutters and garment makers are all totally confused and are desperately seeking guidance to lead them to a rational size system for men�s, women�s, and children�s garments. In their desperation (!) the Textile Institute even asked me to be their keynote speaker at their annual convention, when they asked me to speak on clothing sizes. The use of centimetres in the clothing trades has failed almost completely. The difficulties of using centimetres mean that manufacturers use meaningless size numbers or inch measures disguised as centimetres. Currently there is no world standard for clothing sizes. The nearest we have is the proposal put forward by John Winks in �Clothing Sizes � International Standardization� (published by The Textile Institute). Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia
