|
I was in a local clothing store on the weekend to take
advantage of some sales. I was absolutely surprised to discover that the
racks upon racks of shirts that I looked at had the sizes stated as only: S, M,
L, XL XXL (or 2XL), XXL (or 3XL), etc. Not one had an inch size
declaration. Is this becoming a trend? It would seem that those
opposed to the metrication of clothes have found an interesting way to avoid
metric altogether by using a measurement neutral sizing system.
Kind of reminds one of US passports, where feet inches
were all that existed, now there are no measurements given in the
document. It is like someone decided if we can't have FFU and must have
metric, then we will have neither.
BTW, whatever happened to the new sizing system to be
implemented in Europe this year? I never hear it mentioned. Is it
happening now? Has it already taken place? Has it been
shelved? What is going on? I would think our EU metric experts here
would keep us informed now and then. What is the problem here?
Silence and ignoring the question when it arises only tends to make one feel the
plan is dead.
No wonder there is a muddle. All the metric side
does is publish reports and does nothing more. When opportunities are
present, the UKMA and others go into hibernation. How truly
sad.
Euric
|
- [USMA:30826] Clothing Sizes Euric
- [USMA:30827] Re: Clothing Sizes David King
