Gee, something that gets ME hot (I try to look at the politics and go, this too will pass, because all getting upset about THAT just raises my blood pressure despite the drugs).

I'm at an odd size right now because of a sincere endeavor to lose weight, and I've been at it for a while because I seem to have stabilized here. Without a bigger push (regular, more vigorous exercise, may happen but don't hold your breath) may stay here.

I'm right at the crossroads of L-XL-XXL. AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS WHAT UNLESS I TRY IT ON. Or unless it comes with a measurement range. It also doesn't help hat I have a big stomach and a big chest.

i may eventully buy a Salwar Kameeze, but you can buy by size-measurement there. I will probably never buy any other clothing (except the occasional Cafe Press shirt) online. I need to try things on and look at things.

And thank ghu for Savers, a new thrift store concept where they Buy a Clue and arrange clothing not only by what it is-style, etc.- but by size so you don't have to hunt through the whole freaking store to find three items to try on. Except for slacks and under garments, a lot of my clothing comes from thrift stores (dresses, blouses, shirts - i get to wear slacks/nice jeans and a good top (polo, blouse, sweater etc.) at work).

I totally agree that I also hate most online or catalog sizing charts. They are never, never accurate for me, and I always have to return stuff. Which is one of the reasons I like brick & mortar retailers that have a presence online, like Old Navy, since I can order the clothes, try them on, and then just bring them back to the store to return. I lose out on the $5 of shipping, but overall, it's not a bad deal. And for some of the plus sizes, ordering online is the only place I can find all the styles or colors.

On the subject of sizes, can someone tell me why bridesmaid's dress sizes run much smaller than the regular dress size? I had to order one recently, and it was a full three sizes larger than what I normally wear. The man in the store tried to explain that it's because it has "more seams", but that doesn't make any sense to me.

Guessing, I would say that it has something to do with most women's lack of accuracy regarding or inability to be truthful about their physical dimensions - a condition encouraged by the American culture.

Take shoe size - a measurement with fewer hang-ups than many in this culture - but still with some. There are women whose feet hurt everyday because they won't admit that they wear an 8 wide rather than a 7 narrow. If you took the same 8 wide shoe (which would fit comfortably on their feet) and labelled it a 7 narrow, they would wear it happily. I believe some shoe makers have noticed this. However, if all shoes were measured by inches, this couldn't be done.

In clotes, slippery sizes allow a manufacturer to make a 'largish' size 16 and selling it to people who are completely convinced they are a size 16 - even if objectively they aren't. The manufacturer can do this because there isn't an exact definition of size 16 - and it can create quite a following, because as long as a woman buys that manufacturer's clothes, she can say she's a size 16 instead of an 18 or possibly a 20.

In general, few women want to go up to a sales person and say, "My size is 52" waist and 28" leg." It's part of the culture to fudge our size, and the wide-ranging American dress sizes allow us to do this.

Now if you wonder why I'm being gender specific here - well men's clothes, especially good clothes and jeans, are sold to the inch. I know what my husband's measurements are - waist, inseam, arm, and neck, even though I'm more than a bit foggy on my own (I don't need to know my own - I know my dress size in every manufacturer I'm likely to buy from).

I'm not even going to go into cut - but the difference in how a garment is cut (or the fabric it's made from) can mean a difference in size of four sizes for me.

Is this a completely logical system? Of course not. But it's pretty low on my list of things to change. Besides with any luck, another 10 years or so will see more stores going to the Levi's standard of taking computerized measurements and making clothes to order.

(Must admit the notion of a dress that hangs 33" from everyone's natural waist is a hoot. I could possibly see it in a skirt, but in a dress? Was there any sort of waistline to the dress?)

You realize it's only women who have to put up with this, right? Men's clothiers generally do give actual dimensions.

It's grossly unfair.

And women's sizes are meaningless, in any case. One of my sisters used to do piecework for a clothing distributor; her job was removing the size labels from garments in whatever size they'd overstocked, and replacing them with labels saying the garments were whatever size they were short of.

Which brings a question to mind. I've noticed that in recent years, men's underwear manufacturers like Hanes and Fruit of the Loom are making serious inroads into the female undergarment market. Do they give actual meaningful sizes, when they're making women's garments? They certainly do for their male customers.

Hmm... What exactly is a natural waist?

Well, here's more information - which people may already have or may be more than they want to know, but it's this or wash the dishes.

Sewing clothes to fit people is more complicated than hemming tableclothes. People have all these weird little bumps and bulges and indentations all over. It's not easy (maybe not possible) to make a clothing pattern using only mathematics and a set of human proportions.

So what most manufacturers do is use a model. Not a model as in the cover of Vogue or Elle, but a person who is fairly close to the manufacturer's notion of a particular size. Your luck in finding off-the-rack clothes that fit you well depends to a certain extent on finding a manufacturer who uses a model who's shaped like you.

I don't wear Ralph Lauren - I don't know where they found their model, but I think it's Mars. I do wear Elisabeth (Liz Claiborne) because I think they've found my long-lost twin and use her as their fitting model. The Nordstrom's house label is OK, and I do pretty well with Jones of New York (must be my cousin). Citron seems to also have some possibilities.

If you're way off the bell curve as far as proportions go, you could be really out of luck.

As for the bridesmaid's dress and 'more seams' - expensive clothing lines (which often have more seams) tend to run to smaller sizes. Why? Don't know.

Serge - natural waist is usually the point most indented between the bottom of your rib cage and the top of your hips.

If you don't have an indent there, educated guesses as to your waist's location can be made by measuring two heads' heighth down from your chin.

As for the reason why it's a 'natural' waist - it's the waist that's on your body. Fashion has moved the your clothes' waist all over the torso, from just under the breasts in Regency England (a high-waisted gown) to down just above the hips, as in some jeans.

I usually say "One size fits nobody".

As far as sizing goes, the north american obsession with size (large and small) extends into clothing. I wear everything from a 0 to a 16 - but it's much easier to buy something like a 38, that's pretty much reliably the size I expect.

As somebody that's very fond of vintage clothing, it's really funny to see today's size 2 discover that they're a 1950s size 16...

I find that Lands' End is very willing to tell me the exact measurement for any part of any garment, either on the phone, via web based chat, or in e-mail. The selection of style is somewhat lacking however. I've been looking at salwars a lot lately . . .

I do wish that women's pockets would be more realistically sized.

And two out of three years in a sequence the "fashionable colors" are ones that I hate, but seem to be everywhere.

This is why I started buying all my jeans from the men's section, a few years back. What I give up in "fitted" hips I gain in being able to walk over to the rack, grab the inch measurements, try on one pair to make sure it's not doing anything funky, and then walk out with several pairs in various colors knowing they'll fit. I've also noticed men's jeans are far more durable for the price than women's. (I would not be able to get away with doing all my shopping like this if I didn't work in a place with a very casual dress code.)

I actually work for an online retail store that sells, among many other things, clothing. We used to carry "standard" T-shirt sizes, so we left it as the labels said and assumed people would know what a small, medium, or large meant. But once we started stocking baby dolls and other shirts aimed at women, we had to add a bunch of charts full of measurements, because every manufacturer goes for a different version of "medium". Heck, I found that from even the same manufacturer, I could wear a small in one shirt style, a medium in another, and a large in a third. (And then there were the sweatshirts, where a "small" could envelop and average-sized woman. But we don't talk about those much.)

As for the wedding/bridesmaid gowns, I'm told that because they're more expensive, they're also carefully marked down in size. Presumably brides are assumed to have very sensitive egos, and need to be able to fit into a dress that claims to be size 2 for their wedding, regardless of the woman's actual dimensions. Only having been in one wedding, and that with handmade dresses, I cannot vouch for this. But it seems to be the general consensus on some bridal boards I frequent. (I'm also told that very expensive dresses are similarly marked down in size, but I have even less experience with those. Hurrah for jeans and shirts forever!)

(I also seem to have the habit of ending my paragraphs in parenthetical addendums. Go figure.)

Oh, a topic that resonates with every woman! I pretty much have to try on every item of clothing, too. And let's not even talk about how different manufacturers assume very different proportions for the same size. My favorite example is to contrast (the plus lines of) Tommy Hilfiger, which is apparently is designed for the apple shaped woman, with Jones New York, which does allow for a narrow waist. As an hourglass shaped woman, I fit almost perfectly into a JNY pair of pants. If I try on the same size in TH, the hips fit fine, but the waist stands off from mine by many inches - I could fit my purse in there easily!

I actually do think it's a good idea to account for different proportions in clothing - but there's absolutely no way to account for with the current single-size-number system.

Once a guy friend of mine called and asked if I wanted to go to brunch in an hour or so. "I'm sorry, I just got to a store, and I need to leave with a pair of pants." "...And?" Arg! In that one store on that one day I was 14 different sizes. It's bullsh--.

That's why I prefer shopping by catalog, actually. In my experience the sizes are almost even through everything the catalog sells... So if I like their things enough that I figure I'll buy from them more than once, I'll buy a couple sizes in the first batch as ranging shots. Then I mail back the non-fitting things.

Actually, I almost always buy a couple sizes of everything in the order, since the difference between a 3 inch photograph and a piece of clothing means that I'm bound to be mailing stuff back anyway.

The return shipping charges are a tax on females who don't want to wait around for fitting rooms at 6 items a pop.

Ah, I could rant about clothing sizing for days... and I have! I tried to figure out the "fits too small" problem with formal wear, and what I came up with was that they weren't going by "women's sizes", they were going by "junior's sizes" - a size 14 does not equal a size 14W.

I bought a formal gown a couple of years ago which I had to order via internet (because god knows fat ladies never want to dress formally, and if they do, they prefer crappy shapeless sequinned garbage bags - judging by the selection at the local department stores) and knowing that formal wear sizing was problematic, I followed the sizing chart for the brand I was buying to a T - never mind that it was a full size larger than normal. $150 in alterations later, I had a dress that had been tailored to my exact figure - a full size smaller than it started out.

Since I'm learning what fits (9 West, Macy's House Brand, some Ralph Lauren) and figuring out the clearance schedule, I'm honing my anger. I'd love it if designers of utilitarian clothing would accept that an XXL is not the same as a 2XL.

Other things I would like women's clothing manufacturers to understand:

1.) Women who don't own implants do not have breasts that are shaped like cantaloupe halves; stop putting so much fabric on the top part of the bra.

2.) Also, make those underwires shorter.

3.) Stop with the damned pointy-toed shoes already. And while you're at it, make some shoes in a wide width.

4.) Capri pants make the short-legged and normal-legged look stumpy. Make some slacks for the fat ladies that are full length. I don't care how much money you save not giving us those extra two inches of fabric.

5.) I'm fat, not a kindergarten teacher. I do not want to wear seasonal appliques or shapeless schmattes.

6.) Women of all sizes have these things called "breasts" and "hips". If you are confused by these terms, it's OK - just check out some are from the 16th century through the Edwardian Era. If all the nakey lady bits in the paintings make you feel generally uneasy, watch some films from the 50's.

And for stores:

1.) People keep touting the benfits of excercize - it helps in losing weight, they say. Well, if I can't find a sports bra that's not just a glorified ace bandage in my size, I can't really work out without endangering myself and others. Carry some useful athletic clothing in all sizes!

2.) Department stores, give us a freaking store map. Little is as disheartening as spending 15 minutes wandering around a floor full of ladies wear and realizing that my size is somewhere else entirely. If I can go immediately to the fat lady section, I might spend less time fuming that you've ghettoized me in the infants section, or housewares.

While we're at it, can we come up with a a less oblique euphemism? The "Women's Sizes" is too vague, and "Plus Size" implies that more slender ladies are "minus sizes". I vote for a return to the word "Stout". I would totally shop in a store with Stout Sizes.

I used to make a lot of shirts, and I read a lot of patterns and pattern-making books in pursuit of this. I learned that the average man needs three basic measurements for his shirt (men being essentially rectangular, absent beer bellies): arm, neck, and chest.

Women are bumpier. In addition to arm, neck, and chest, we may need bust, waist, hip, shoulder-to-shoulder, neck-to-waist, bust point-to-bust point, .... Men's shirts seldom have darts to control excess fabric; women's shirts usually do.

A fact of life: make something one step more complicated, and you get x times new interpretations of the thing. Make it 2x or 3x or size 16x and it's really no wonder you have to search an entire store for one shirt that really fits.

Except it'll be in an ugly color, or the cut won't flatter you, or ....

As Margaret pointed out, clothing lines are developed based on a set of measurements or a specific human figure (I do this stuff professionally). A current client is creating shirts for the long-waisted, athletic young woman at or above 6'. From sets of measurements and trying on of prototypes, we've found the median (bulge of the bell curve), and this establishes their "Medium".

We could arbitrarily assign numbers - "Bust 34" + 4" ease", but the line will sink or fly based on enough women trying the pieces on, finding the shirts answer their needs, and reordering other styles in whatever their size is. All pieces will be consistantly sized, but cannot be compared to anyone else's line.

Imagine developing a line of sports jackets for jockeys, again with "Medium" as the size that fits the largest percentage. Postulate that on the basis of having successfully fit that niche group, the next commission is to create a comparable line for sumo wrestlers. As men's clothing is far more standardized (where "42 long" has meaning) do a mental side-step and visualize female jockeys/sumo wrestlers, and instead of sports jackets, strapless prom gowns.

The rag trade is as full of abuses as any other, more so than many. There's frequent discussion of these issues on Kathleen Fasanella's site:

www.fashion-incubator.com

Finding the natural waist: if other methods fail, tie a piece of elastic relatively snugly in the area and twist and bend from side to side. Where the elastic settles is it.

"Traditional" sizing runs in 2" increments, and the slop factor in manufacturing is commonly 2". Commercially produced wedding gowns are often slammed out in only three or four sizes with even more variation in their cutting and sewing, as the theory is that they'll need altering anyway, and the Princess Bride isn't going to know any better.

In a store, you might find a rack with seven or eight slacks in your size, of which two or three fit right (this assumes honest labeling).

Try things on. Or if shopping online, be prepared to send things back.

Addendum on the "Bust 34" + 4" ease" - two blouses exactly fitting these parameters might still vary wildly in fit, if the model for one was slender with a large bust, and the other were for a figure with almost no waist indentation, wide shoulders and smaller bust. Or if two patternmakers were working from the same model, and one knew their stuff, and the other didn't.

Enough women, enough of the time, lie about their sizes that the exact same system that works for men fails for women. Companies that offer clear sizing don't sell as many clothes as companies that don't. It's a bottom line thing. Probably the best compromise is given by companies like Land's End, who do have clear base sizes, do provide a lot of information about cut, and will talk endlessly on the phone about precise size.

Now, if only they made some clothes that had some degree of style, I'd be happy.

There's a British Standard for clothes sizes, created after a lot of measurement and statistical analysis back in the early Fifties.

The story I recall is that, some thirty years later, it was getting a bit out of tune with the body shapes of British women. It had been created at the tail-end of the era of food rationing, when women still wore corsets, and so on.

The trouble was that the big clothes retailers, instead of supporting a revised standard, all wanted the commercial advantage of their own sizing system which worked better than that used by their competitors.

I expect they'll blame "Europe" for it.

Corporate greed can appear in all sorts of places, spilling into view like the armpits of a woman squeezed into a too-tight tank-top.

My personal theory is that women's sizing is designed to induce brain damage.

The bridesmads' gowns issue used to puzzle me before I read this post on a weight-loss forum I read (originally posted by Melissa):

"A friend of mine used to work at a bridal shop in Minneapolis and she told me something that absolutely fried my goose at the time.

Wedding dresses and bridesmaid's dresses are deliberately sized AT LEAST two sizes above regular clothing. The reason for this is that the companies upcharge for "large" sizes, often anything 14 and above. So do the math -- 80% of women are a size 10 or larger, which means that these companies can sock 80% of women buying these dresses with the "large size" fee!"

I was once drafted as bag-carrier for a dear (female) friend who needed new jeans. I swear we visited every single clothes store in Lower Manhattan that day, but we found not one pair of jeans that fit her.

She was tiny, though. If she'd been just a smidge taller she would have been in range.

Oh, THAT's what a natural waist is... Thanks, Margaret. When I first read that, I was reminded of a book of fashion photos of the early 20th Century. There was one of a woman with such a waspish waist that there was no way it could be natural. Somebody then suggested to me that the woman had probably had her lowest ribs removed. Sounds rather extreme. But no worse than some things done by surgeons to women today.

I wonder what size of clothing Keira Knightley wears. Like my youngest sister-in-law, she probably wears 'beanie'.

it can create quite a following, because as long as a woman buys that manufacturer's clothes, she can say she's a size 16 instead of an 18 or possibly a 20.

And this is why I can't wear many lines of clothing: because I genuinely am a size 4. When I try on a size 4 and could fit one or more volumes of the Baroque Cycle in the waist of the pants or skirt with me, I know that the line has given in to hopelessly large amounts of vanity sizing. (My mother knows of Neal Stephenson mostly through standing outside fitting rooms and hearing me call out, "No, Ma, it's no good; the brown skirt's a Neal Stephenson again," as a reference to this problem.) It is okay to be a size 20! It is okay to be whatever size you are! "Size 4" is supposed to be a useful guide to fitting clothes, not a compliment!

I have a friend who genuinely is a size 0 (she is under five feet tall), and she's pretty much sunk -- she's been vanity-sized into the children's department, and she's not shaped like a child.

My most recent complaint is that larger women are not gorillas and smaller women are not tyrannosaurs, so if they could stop making sleeves that way, I would be much happier. But I would gladly pretend that all my sweaters were meant to have three-quarter sleeves if only they would stop upsizing things.

nerdycellist: People keep touting the benfits of excercize - it helps in losing weight, they say. Well, if I can't find a sports bra that's not just a glorified ace bandage in my size, I can't really work out without endangering myself and others. Carry some useful athletic clothing in all sizes!

Try Title Nine Sports or Athleta. They both are women's sport retailers and have a fantastic selection of bras that are not the glorified ace bandage in lots of sizes. There's one Title Nine sports bra that I like so much I wear it as an everyday bra.

Mystique. Plus trying to disguise the self-evident fact that they are mass-producing clothing to fit people who are not mass-produced, and that therefore if anything ever fits anyone properly it's a minor miracle. Not to mention the fact that the actual garments may well be being made in a country far, far away where English is seldom spoken and the British and American sizing systems unheard of.

What does "free size" mean?

Oh, and: the one shirt I have that says, "One size fits most" would not, I estimate, fit anything above a size 10. So really it should say, "One size fits some," or possibly even "One size fits a few."

I've found "one size fits most" to be anything from an L to an XL from the same retailer. I believe these tags should say "...but not mary" on them to save me the trouble of trying them on.

The only way to get any joy from catalog clothes shopping is to treat the purchasing experience as a (very slow) trip to the dressing room. Order a bunch of stuff, try it on the second it arrives, and return everything that doesn't fit. I have a friend who does this religiously and she's able to find things that fit great despite being petite & having a big ol' butt.

My particular woe is that garment makers clearly believe 1. zaftig women are proportionately much wider than slender women, so shirts fit like big flappy boxes, and pant legs make me look like I'm ready to dance a hornpipe; 2. all shirts should end at my belly button, instead of at my hips, because that's the most flattering look on a round person 3. All shirts that are long enough to be sensible should be tailored to fit the chest and then hang straight down from there, because women like to look pregnant when they're not; 4. shirts that are actually tailored to fit ample bosoms should forego darts in favor of lacy set-in cups with gathers, for a subtle, professional look.

In my experience, part of the issue with wedding dresses and bridesmaid is that they seem to be sized along pattern sizes, and pattern sizes tend to be pretty stable.

Now I haven't sewn for a couple of years, but patterns give measurements in inches, and from that I know that while I may be a size 8 if a buy a pair of pants, according to my pattern measurements I'm a size 12 or 14.

The theory I've heard most often is that vanity has pushed women's clothing sizes down, down, down. That women want to wear smaller dress sizes, so the manufacturers take last decades 10, and call it an eight, and after several years, things have gotten ridiculous.

And as far as on-line, I'll second the pervious Land's End comment. You can enter your actual measurements, and get what your size should be in their tops, bottoms, and dresses, etc.

The "dress hanging 33" from natural waist" means that the part of the dress that is below the natural waistline on the dress is 33" long. There may be a seam at the natural waist, there may not, but there is a point in the design where it changes from "fitting bumpy upper body" to "fitting differently curved lower body". It probably doesn't match where the client's waist is, but it's a start.

They can't tell you how long the dress is because *they don't know*. (The dresses are bagged at the plant, and they'd have to go find a dress in the size you want, take it out of the bag and measure it (and the dresses are probably not at the customer service center anyway).) The bodice part of the dress is going to be a different length on every size (assuming any kind of rational pattern-making), so the shoulder to hem length will be different for every size.

They used to say things like "mid knee" or "mid calf". At least they're giving us a number now -- "knee length" skirts generally come to 3" above my knee (and I'm only 5'6"). I generally take the "length from natural waist" number as a reference. IOW, a 33" skirt is going to be shorter than a 36" skirt and longer than a 29" skirt.

Yes, this is why I can't buy clothes online.

Also, in a city that is about to spend five months below freezing and a lot of that time below minus ten, why can't I find trousers that are a) warm, b) have pockets, and c) aren't designed for someone six feet tall. The six feet tall ones are in sports shops, cost the earth, and say "puma" or "adidas" which would not be my preference, but I'd put up with it if they had them in a reasonable size.

The really weird thing is that when I go into shops that sell new women's clothes, I can't find any pants sized to fit me at all, at any price, but when I go into second-hand clothes shops I have no problem. Clearly there are women my size and shape with better shopping fu who frequently buy and discard clothes. Thank goodness for them, anyway, or I'd be a hissing and a scandal, not to mention cold.

Renee --

If the man's shirt is going to fit, you need neck, chest, waist, neck to point of shoulder, sleeve, which is measured on the arm neither outstretched nor relaxed, width of back, width of waist at the back, height of back (which is the vertical distance between those two) and circumference of the wrist. Serious tailors will look at other things, too, like the set of the neck.

I pay 140 CAD and up for dress shirts at places that take all those measurements; I don't care, because they fit and they'll last and I don't, after all, need many.

Mountain Equipment Co-Op -- which is where I get most of my clothes -- seems to size things for relatively small people; I usually wind up with XL or XXL in tshirts and sweatshirts and such. They have decent 'this size is this single measurement' charts and the concept of tall pants, so I only sometimes wonder about who their default tiny person is who takes a medium.

Labels I've seen in recent years just say 'One Size' and make no testament as to fit whatsoever. :)

Men have it easy, I'd say. But I always have a hard time with long-sleeved shirts because of the above-average length of my arms. Which is one reason why I prefer wearing short-sleeved items.

Speaking of clothes and those who design them...

I'd love it if designers of utilitarian clothing would accept that an XXL is not the same as a 2XL.

So, what is the difference?

Serge: I have a similar problem, in that I either (and this is mostly a problem with coats) have to get a coat that has sleeves that end halfway down from my elbows, or one where I can fit another person inside it, and doing up the zipper (experimentally verified, with four different girls). I've gone for the latter, every time.

I'm 4'11".

I hem.

Jo Walton - do you wear long underwear under trousers?

Clearly, if women's clothing retailers let you know the exact measurements of their garments, then the terrorists will have won.

Also, on bridal and bridesmaid gowns, they are also "upsized" so that the shops can soak you for alterations.

"You realize it's only women who have to put up with this, right? Men's clothiers generally do give actual dimensions"

Generally, and some men do. Like me. And even when actual measurements are given, sometimes the fit is off. I find it happens most with pants; I wear a 30Wx30L, which is often the smallest many labels produce (sometimes I can find a 28Wx30L, which is preferable). Even with that size, however, it's a crap shoot.

What pisses me off lately is all the different "fits" now. Slim fit; Casual; relaxed; loose; individual; classic-- I get head-explodey just thinking about it.
I'm lucky that I have a few pairs of pants that fit remarkably well. The rest aren't bad, so I just wear those to work.

And that's not even worrying about shirts. I have a slim, very athletic frame, and most ready-to-wear, off-the-rack shirts are either too tight across the chest, short in the sleeve, or close around the neck.
Still being on a limited income, I can't yet afford tailored clothing. But one day I will, and I'm going to love it.

I recently got an enlightening education from a friend about what it's like to be (naturally, in her case) very well-endowed and trying to buy shirts. She's often showing her midriff, not because she *wants* to, but because her breasts are taking up that much of the shirt. She also has problems with her cleavage getting cold in the winter. Not a set of difficulties I was aware of, since I'd need about three sets of implants to look like she does. (They once weighed her breasts to make sure they weren't going to cause her back problems. They aren't -- barely.)

While I've ranted before about what we so laughably call the women's sizing system, it hadn't actually occurred to me that part of it has to do with the variability of women's shapes, which a couple of people have mentioned above. It's hard to standardize when there are so many measurements that play a part. Which is not to say the industry couldn't be a little less arbitrary -- of course there's room for improvement. But I guess sizing things based on a few measurements wouldn't fix the problem, as much as I might like to think it would.

Actually, men's clothing has vanity sizing in trouser measurements, though Levi's is still honest. Eddie Bauer and LL Bean both have jeans that fit me, but are sized 2 inches smaller than either (a) my information with a measuring tape, or (b) Levi's button-fly.

What Graydon has written about men's dress shirts is totally true; my neck is a bit over 16 inches around, and my arms measure 33 inches, but a 16/33 shirt on me has far too much fabric in the body. When my neck was slightly larger and I tried 16.5/33 shirts, I could button the body around me and Lara both. Hilarious, except when I had to wear them in earnest. And every shirt I've ever owned bunches up behind the collar because (I'm told) I stand too straight for my shirts.

Oh, and those 'Custom Shop' shirts? Don't. Hold out for real tailoring or nothing, is my advice.

Lara has taken to periodically ordering clothes from a mail-order tailor in Thailand. This after she worked out that the cost of a trip from Boston to New York for a failed shopping weekend was more than the cost of an inexpensive custom suit. The downside, of course, is that you'll get results that mirror your ability to get accurate measurements.

She also makes her own clothes, using pattern-drafting software. It's not cheap in expense or time, but she think's it's worth it, since she can make herself all-cotton bras that really fit.

Delurking.

Serge writes:
Oh, THAT's what a natural waist is... Thanks, Margaret. When I first read that, I was reminded of a book of fashion photos of the early 20th Century. There was one of a woman with such a waspish waist that there was no way it could be natural. Somebody then suggested to me that the woman had probably had her lowest ribs removed. Sounds rather extreme. But no worse than some things done by surgeons to women today.

Please. Can anyone show any evidence to prove this is not simply an urban myth propagated mostly by drooling male corset fetishists? Any evidence at all that people were doing major abdominal surgery on a cosmetic basis in the 19th and early 20th century? Even one example of an actual person having this done?

A close look at period photos, especially fashion shots and the ones on naughty postcards, will reveal that they had primitive retouching capability and used it extensively on women's waists in those shots. It's possible to get a wasp waist today on a man or woman (Fakir Musafar has done this - see The Perfect Gentleman) but it requires some genetic luck in having the right shape to start with and long-term regular corseting (23+ hours/day, including while sleeping). No surgery required; bodies are malleable. Wearing corsets from childhood did much of the job at the time.

There's also an element of visual illusion in a front-on view because of the contrast with the bust and hips; look at a corseted woman from the side and she looks thicker waisted than normal - the corset makes her waist closer to cylindrical by pushing the flesh around.

I wonder what size of clothing Keira Knightley wears. Like my youngest sister-in-law, she probably wears 'beanie'.

My mother and I had precisely the same horrified reaction - her dresses hang so badly ("like sacks", was my mother's comment) on her skeletal body that you can't tell that she's female (or postpubescent) and you can't tell what historical style the dresses are supposed to be. They should've taken the period solution and stuffed the tops. She'd have been a fright in period - the type of body caricatures were made for.

As long as I'm delurked:

Marie Brennan writes:
I recently got an enlightening education from a friend about what it's like to be (naturally, in her case) very well-endowed and trying to buy shirts. She's often showing her midriff, not because she *wants* to, but because her breasts are taking up that much of the shirt.

It's possible to not only be different sizes top and bottom but to be different sizes front and back. There's no good fix for that short of custom dressmaking.

She also has problems with her cleavage getting cold in the winter.

Tall-size turtlenecks are her friend.

Mris wrote:

I have a friend who genuinely is a size 0 (she is under five feet tall), and she's pretty much sunk -- she's been vanity-sized into the children's department, and she's not shaped like a child.

... and let me assure you that "under five feet tall" (or slightly over) doesn't mean that you can't have breasts and hips - no matter what the clothing manufacturers think...

Pattern sizing is an interesting 'art' - and often done terribly.

I'm tired of having to try on a half dozen pair of pants, all labeled 18-20W, and have only one pair actually fit.

I remember when I could walk into a store, find pants I liked, try them on, and if they fit, I could go pull one each of their different colored sibs, buy them and take them home - KNOWING THAT ALL OF THEM would fit...

I do not like clothes shopping anymore.

And would someone explain to me WHY I can't find anything but Capri pants or shorts for summer?

I work in an air conditioned office and would really like full lenght summer-weight pants. I haven't been able to find any for about 2-3 years now.

(Need I mention that Capris do not fit the office dress code?)

This is why I'm learning to sew. My hips are one size, my natural waist is two sizes smaller, and my bust is right inbetween. I'm also extremely short-waisted and relatively short, so that can also make things difficult. And I like very plain and modest clothing (except when I'm being deliberately immodest, which isn't very often), and that's hard to come by in my size, because I'm not into appliqued kittens or sequins.

So, yes. Learning to sew. And someday soon, I will have a number of pairs of work-appropriate pants that fit me properly. I will say, too, that taking my measurements has been a strangely freeing experience. They are what they are and I need to acknowledge them if I want the pants I'm making to fit. No value judgement required. It's a good feeling, after years of feeling inadequate because of all the stores in the mall, only Lane Bryant has clothes that will fit.

Can anyone show any evidence to prove this is not simply an urban myth propagated mostly by drooling male corset fetishists?

Snopes has a page. Although the meme doesn't seem to necessarily be the work of fetishists, male or female.

My mother claims that there is a department dedicated to discontinuing any style that actually fits--it's affiliated with the department dedicated to discontinuing useful tools. To my dismay, I've discovered that the department now discontinues any fashion that fits me as well.

Oh, and as a short woman, I also resort to hemming.

Actually, Susan, it was a woman who suggested the rib-removal upon seeing that photo when I gave her the book it was in. Also, it's been a long time since that happened, but I seem to remember that it was a street scene and an angle that wouldn't lend itself to an illusory perception. But it was a long time ago.

I had no problem guessing that Keira Knightley was female and postpubescent, especially as Guenevere in King Arthur. Your comment that she'd have been a fright in period makes me smile because it reminds me of Raquel Welch. She was talking about The Three Musketeers and how the fashion of the era was a bit problematic for someone like her who has, and I quote, "...a full crowd on the balcony..."

You too, cd? There are advantages to being able to play an extra in Planet of the Apes, like when one must grab something from a tall cabinet. When it comes to shirts and coats though...

Jill Smith writes:
Try Title Nine Sports or Athleta. They both are women's sport retailers and have a fantastic selection of bras that are not the glorified ace bandage in lots of sizes. There's one Title Nine sports bra that I like so much I wear it as an everyday bra.

Aww, what cute li'l bras those sites carry! Most of them don't come in anything larger than a C, but there is one style (of all of them on the two sites) that's only two sizes too small for me!

Last time I tried buying sports bras I went to one of those giant emporiums with professional fittings, found a style which fit after extensive alterations (which were not free), and acquired two sports bras which give me exceptional cleavage and a lot more bounciness when I walk than a normal underwire bra. That's what sports bras are supposed to do, right? Ace bandages are starting to look sort of good. My current solution for situations when I'm going to be jumping around involves a combination of two underwire bras, one of which is several sizes too small, and a very tight bodysuit. Quite seriously, Victorian underwear is more comforable and considerably more effective. Unfortunately, it looks funny under modern clothes.

The problem is that bra technology fails at a certain weight class. I can't convince any of my engineer friends to address this.

Well, part of the problem is that *most* clothes are designed to have a certain amount of ease, which can vary depending on the style and intended fit. That means that if you go by actual dimensions, you might get something too small, if you don't take ease into account. Not that most people seem to realise it. The number of people I see wearing clothes that are straining at the seams...

Another problem is that the women's garment industry doesn't follow any kind of engineering standards, like the IT industry does (sometimes). That means manufacturers can do whatever the hell they want.

A third problem is that manufacturers have been changing sizes so people won't realise that they're not as thin as they used to be. So you end up buying a size 2 because that sounds really good, even though you should be a 12 or a 14. (I don't think we have those wacky sizes in Canada. At least any time I've seen something that was a size 2, 4 or 6, it looked like it would *maybe* fit a 12-year-old.

The fourth problem... Well, people are kind of dumb sometimes and they write wacky things in their catalogues.

It's all part of A Nefarious Plot (tm).

Then there are the non-existent sizes. I don't know if there are non-existent sizes in men's clothing, but for women, the non-existent size is the size between misses XL and women's 1X. You'd think the largest misses size would be one size smaller than the smallest women's size, but no-o-o-o-o. To be fair, some manufacturers have started filling in the numerical gap with women's X or 0X, but then some of those have reinterpreted the size equivalencies so that the new X is the same size as the old 1X, which leaves the same gap in actual sizes. sigh. While this usually happens in women's sizes, just yesterday, I noticed that Target had some misses turtlenecks in misses XXL, which turned out to be the missing size, but this is not the same as Old Navy's XXL, which is at best everyone else's XL or maybe even L (it's pretty skimpy).

In women's shoes, the nonexistent size is 9-1/2. As in "whole and half sizes 5-10, except 9-1/2". At least shoes usually come in my size (6-1/2 medium).

It's a plot, I say!

Is anyone "normal" size? I doubt it. But as a somewhat stocky petite, I've had great luck with the Land's End catalog. Turtlenecks where I don't have to roll up the sleeves by three cuff lengths! Pants that don't spill over my ankles! And since I get cold easily when it's under 60 degrees F, I adore microfleece. ("Warm face, warm hands, warm feet" are lyrics I really identify with.) Shoes are a bit more problematical, since I have wide feet, but the stores are rarely any better. One pair I ordered nearly fits, and the other should fit with inserts at sole and heel (I hope). Best of all is the Overstock section, where I recently got a $5 turtleneck, nice color and fit, and another for $9.

"Fashionable colors," however.... For the past year, various hideous shades of green have been in vogue, and they nearly make me nauseous. Deep aqua (my favorite), has vanished entirely, so I may have to wait indefinitely for that microfleece petite medium robe that *won't show coffee stains*.

And we're all still waiting for nanotech to provide low-cost instant clothing in our size and shade of choice. One day, maybe.

Nanotech clothing, Faren? It'll probably be using a Windows o/s. That should be interesting, especially when it crashes.

And while you're at it, make some shoes in a wide width.

I would add, there are women with feet shorter than size 7, and some of them have really wide feet as well. I get tired of trying to find size-3 shoes that don't have flowers, Barbies, or princess-portraits on them.

I'd like to remind manufacturers that 'junior', 'miss', and 'woman' in clothing are size ranges, not age ranges: you can be a twenty-something junior, or middle-aged and a 'miss'. (Being 5'2", somewhat-overweight, and mid-50s in age, I want comfortable clothes that fit decently and look good. I work in a 'business-casual' environment, so lace and ruffles are a bit out-of-line.)

As-built sizes seem to reflect the country of manufacture: some countries definitely 'run small'. I intend to use some of my reasonably-well-fitting clothes to make patterns. I'm also considering Sandra Betzina's patterns. (I also have a copy of Body Mapping, which helps you to get a decent basic pattern to start from.)

Susan --

I have seen someone get good results with a very long 8" ace bandage in the sports bra application. (Jan the Valkyrie; she looked noticeably different when not bound up, but also ran assault courses, etc. without difficulty.)

There are also (as I'm sure you're aware) the Decent Exposures 'made from velour intended for tarpaulins' bras, which some have reported good success with.

My proof of down-sizing sizes - the movies. In Pretty Woman and Fabulous Baker Boys there are scenes where Julia Roberts/Michelle Pfeiffer are trying on dresses. Someone asks if they wear an eight. Julia/Michelle snaps back "a six!" Stuck in my mind because it was the exact same scene in two fairly contemporaneous films. About a decade later, saw one of those Ashley Judd thrillers. She's buying a dress. The shoplady asks "a two?" Ashley snaps back "a zero!" Is Ashley Judd three sizes smaller than Michelle Pfeiffer? I don't think so.

As for myself, I've had good luck with Land's End plus sizes, with one exception - anything with a scoop neck is cut so wide that it exposes my bra straps. LLBean was great, but they've cut way back on their plus sizes.

If you're in the Boston area, Lady Grace rocks for really large bra sizes - and they carry sport bras. The fitting ladies are great. They have a web site, but I've only shopped in person.

I've read about size deflation. Clothing companies will make bigger clothes with smaller size numbers to sell more. The fun part is when they actually get to the small sizes. I've seen Size 0, and even negative sizes.

I found this article about it:

As Waistlines Grow, Dress Sizes Shrink

I would add, there are women with feet shorter than size 7, and some of them have really wide feet as well.

My mother has the opposite problem: she wears 10 1/2 AA. Most women's shoes don't come in 10 1/2--it's half sizes up to 10, then skips to 11. Plus she has a 5A heel and *always* needs heel inserts.

--Mary Aileen

I am, mostly, these days, a size 12. Not entirely--in some things I am still a 14, because many 12s do not have room for my tush . . . but then I need darts and/or a good belt at the waist, and the pants look funky anyway. So mostly, I'm wearing 12 pants.

But on top, since I'm in the well-endowed club, I'm all over the place. Some M, some L, the occasional XL, some 12, some 14.

The last time I went bra shopping, at Macy's in Manhattan, I had 3 bra ladies helping me, and they flat-out did not believe what size I was. Small band + big cup size does not compute, apparently. They kept remeasuring me and looking at me and saying things like, "but you don't look that big!" Which is kind of hard for me to understand, because I look plenty big to me, lol.

My other problem? I'm long in the torso and short in the leg. So capri pants hit me at the ankle, which is just fine in the summer, but regular pants are nearly always long to one degree or another. Technically, I'm a petite, but a size 12P doesn't have the hip and tushy room I need. And blouses, as someone already mentioned, tend to run a bit short at the waist because of the uplift provided by my bosom and the fact that I'm long from the shoulder to the hip.

My mother is 5'4" and long legged, I'm 5'3.5" and long in the torso (though still too short for the majority of bathing suits). Standing, she is taller than me by a smidge. Sitting, I'm at least an inch taller than she is. She can't find pants either--she's a 0 or a 2 but everything's too short--or bras, because she's a C cup.

Has anyone seen inexpensive women's sweatpants with pockets? I'm in desperate need of a pair of sweatpants with at least one real pocket. I live literally across the street from my gym, and I hate the idea of having to put on a coat, get a locker, etc., all of which I could avoid if I had sweatpants with a pocket in which I could put my gym membership card and my housekeys.

As a smallish petite, lately I've given up on shopping for jeans altogether and have simply switched over to long skirts worn with untucked tops; the combination offers a bit more flexibility than jumper dresses (or "pinafores" for the Brits, iirc). Various extra layers can be worn both above and below for added warmth; knitted wool skirts make wonderful winter petticoats over a non-itchy cotton/rayon layer or even long underwear (if the hem is sufficiently low and/or the boots are sufficiently high). However, this obviously might not work for everyone's workplace, gender, etc.

So there really are negative sizes now? I was wondering when that would happen, ever since I saw my first size-zero. Sheesh.

My proof of vanity sizing over the past 20 years? Me. I weigh 20 pounds more than I did in my junior year of high school. My waist is 4" larger. And yet my jeans still say size 5 or 6. I am not fooled. I still HAVE a few pieces of clothing from then, and THEY don't fit any more. Which is truly odd, in the case of the prom dress, because where the 1986 Gunne Sax size 7 fails to zip is across the BACK, after the waist, and yet I am wearing a SMALLER bra size than I did then (the effects of nursing) ad THOSE go by inches.

However, this did not daunt me. Since I was using the prom dress as a goth-club costume item, I put six safety pins on each side of the zipper, and used them as lacing eyes, and laced it shut with a black shoelace. Effective!

patterns for larger-size women's clothes (and not bad looking either): Sew Grand Patterns http://www.sewgrand.com/

Dresses, skirts, shirts, pants. They have mail locations in both Canada and the US.

Serge: I have long legs and arms (I would estimate my arms to be 28" or so from shoulder to fingertip, and my legs are almost 4 feet from hip to floor), and an average-sized torso (when we sit, I'm about as tall as my father - when we stand I'm almost a foot taller!). Plus, I'm skinny. But yes, it helps immensely when I need to get stuff from high shelves.

I wonder if there're any photos of me when I have my oilskin coat on and a girl friend under it, with both our heads sticking out of the neck? It looks mighty peculiar...

Alas, I have been blessed(?) with an hour-glass figure. And while I am overweight, my waist IS 10 inches smaller than my bust and hips...

I don't think they make *anything* for this figure type.

I have been working on losing weight the last couple of years and have gone from 22-24W down to 18-20W. I actually got into a pair of 14-16W pants a month ago, but they were just a smidge too tight.

Ah well, maybe by Spring...

I'm 6 feet tall, cd, with long arms and long legs, but every once in a while I come across women who're shorter than me and yet their hips are as high or higher than mine.

Maybe you guys can help me - my tall, thin husband can only wear tall sizes. He does all right with LL Bean and Eddie Bauer, but he says he's tired of looking like a lumberjack. (his words- I like the look) Is there a resource any of you know of that sells tall men's clothing that is not also "big" men's clothing? We're talking 32in waist with a 36 to 37in inseam, and his arms are really long. He says he's tired of cold wrists.

One more thing, cd... I've always wondered what I really look like to others, which is why I'd ask my wife if this or that actor has my body type. Unfortunately, she doesn't think I'm built like Hugh Jackman. Anything but. She thinks the closest to my type is Mark Alaimo, who played Gul Dukat on Deep Space 9. She did reassure me that I don't have the latter's giraffesque neck.

The last time I went bra shopping, at Macy's in Manhattan, I had 3 bra ladies helping me, and they flat-out did not believe what size I was. Small band + big cup size does not compute, apparently. They kept remeasuring me and looking at me and saying things like, "but you don't look that big!" Which is kind of hard for me to understand, because I look plenty big to me, lol.

Melissa -- me, too: Macy's bra ladies are horrible about arguing with small band/large cup sizes. It was as though I had gone in and announced that I was the Queen of Air and Darkness: they just kept repeating that I didn't look it, with tones implying "doesn't exist anyway." When we lived in the Bay Area, they would try to sell me larger band/smaller cup sizes even when they had measured. "It's the same thing anyway." Uh, no. Going up two band sizes and down two cup sizes is not a well-fitted bra, and I'm not paying $N for bras that don't fit.

I go to the store and get several pairs of jeans from the rack, around what I think is my size. I try them on. If any fit, I set them aside. Put the rest back. Take more. Repeat until desired number of pairs is achieved.

As some of you know, I recently lost a WHOLE LOT of weight. I discarded all my clothes that fit at my former weight, to prevent backsliding. I also went down more clothing sizes than I did body sizes; I no longer have the emotional need to wear baggy clothes to conceal my body. Also a tight garment over muscle and skin may mark the skin slightly (I'm very fair and my skin is sensitive), but doesn't HURT.

I will NEVER shop for anything that has to actually fit over the Internet. Or by catalog. I'm rather oddly shaped too, and my butt keeps getting narrower but bigger front-to-back, as the squats work. Besides, there's no way of telling how I'll look in something until I try it on. And I want to actually TOUCH it and decide whether I can stand the texture of the fabric.

Hehheh, if anyone can find something to "fit over the internet," call me. That would be huge!

An additional challenge can occur when one lives in a country with a dominant genotype, and one does not match that genotype. I live in Scotland, where women tend to gain weight around the midriff, but my hips started in Germany and seasoned in the US for three generations. Shopping for trousers can lead to a black depression that lasts for days.

Solutions? I've tended to shop when I'm back in the US, where mixed genetics mean a wider variety of fits (Jones New York uses my cousin, too). But the move toward smart casual means that I can't buy trouser suits for work any more. I can't seem to tailor trousers to my satisfaction, though I can sew well enough to make a fitted jacket in a week of evenings. (Probable diagnosis: the problem is with my head, not my hips.)

My next attempt, when I get my passport back from the Home Office, is going to be a trip to southern Germany, where (maybe) I will match the local genotype well enough to buy clothing!

(And sewing in the UK is complicated by having to know, without any indications in the pattern books, which manufacturers use US sizes (wherein I am a 10-12) and which use UK sizes (making me a 16-18). Frequent errors have taught me a lot about upsizing and downsizing, but that's a lot less fun than getting it right the first time.)

A couple of times, my wife tried to get me new shoes by way of the internet. I thought the old ones were just fine and still had a lot of life left in them. She disagreed. But after having to send them back every time, I made her realize that standard stuff never fits my feet right and that I have to actually try them on.

For me to find things that even approach dress shirts, I have to buy from Bravissimo.

Considering that I'm in the USA and they are in the UK, this can be frustrating, to say the least. Garments that look cute on their 'Curvy' models look like sacks on 'Super Curvy' me; Bravissimo's three variations for each shirt size -- Curvy, Really Curvy, and Super Curvy -- has been a blessing for getting shirts that don't get gap at the bust or flap at the waist, but that's still a limited range of shirts.

What I want to know is why the only shop I know that cuts specifically for curvy women is in the UK? The US has several times the population (and thus should have several times the amount of seriously curvy women), so why is no one doing the same thing and selling shirts here?

abi, years ago a company I worked for had a Japanese partner company, and sent a representative to the US for several months. Murakami-san was average size for an American woman, and was absolutely thrilled to be able to buy really nice clothes that fit! In Japan, of course, she was considered huge, and if you think Western fashion is cruel to large women, you haven't been to Japan (at least as she told it).

And she wasn't chubby. She was just tall, with a medium frame. Apparently she was supposed to be ashamed, and wear dull clothing to show her contrition for being born the wrong size.

Argh. sb "...had a Japanese partner company who sent a representative..."

Sports bras -

The decent exposures ones look mighty comfy, but not up to any stress my bosoms may put them through. When I was "thin" (as thin as a girl with Eastern European Peasant and Samoan blood can get) I wound up wearing a combination of three bras for my tap-dancing class; one sturdy, snug fitting underwire bra, one compression sports bra with standard back and one compression sports bra with a racer back.

That was two cup-sizes and two band sizes ago. You'd think that with the problems I'm having finding any bras that fit, I'd be tipping over from top-heaviness, but they really aren't that bignormous - just enough to make me hour-glass shaped.

I think my problem is perhaps less with clothing manufacturers and more with store buyers. I know there are probably heavy duty "encapsulation" bras that fit me - they're in the Juno catalog. But I rarely have the discretionary income to purchase three bras in likely sizes in order to find the one that fits, and then the extra few bucks (and time when my post office is open and has parking) to ship back the rejects. It's the same with shoes. If stores would just carry a few of these - even just fit models that I could order through them - I'd be a lot less cranky.

I am built like a (busty) tyrannosaur, so all long sleeves hit me at my knuckles. I'm thinking of bringing out my leather bracers from my ren-faire days to compensate. On the other hand, 3/4 sleeves look just as silly on me as capri pants; just short enough to look a little shrunk. I'd also like skirts that hit me at, or slightly above the knee, since my legs are a pleasing shape, even at my size. Under the knee skirts also contribute to making me look stumpy.

But then I too am learning to sew, partly for costuming interests and partly so I can have some clothing in flattering cuts and colors and appropriate to my "age" (immature) and social status (Single Nerdy Female seeks SNM.)

Xopher,

Your story reminds me of my Scottish mother in law, who can reach 5' tall if she wears 2" heels. She used to live in the Netherlands, which has the greatest average height in Europe.

When she came to San Francisco, with its large (numerically) Asian population, and saw clothes that were actually too small for her, she burst into tears. Literally.

neotoma,

I have often noticed that British manufacturers shape their clothes more. They tend to use more darts and curved seams, and place them better. One suit saleswoman I met said it was the last remnant of the Saville Row tradition.

On the other hand, the fabrics they use are often horrible. It's harder to find unblended fabrics, or ones that are all-natural, both in manufactured clothing and in cloth shops.

I agree about the madness around women's sizes and the difficulty of defining what a good fit means, but the other problem is the cost of imposing a system on a huge amount of non-systematic stuff.

I'm not sure how many different garments (counting every size of a distinct style as a separate item) a typical clothing manufacturer offers, but I bet it's between the tens and the hundreds of thousands.

Would you rather set up the system to figure out what the true measurements of all that is with new stuff getting added frequently when you're not sure whether your customers will care or if you might even alienate some of them, or would you rather think about the new spring line and your current quarrels with your distributors?

You could set up a system to just measure new items as they're added, but would it be ugly to have measurements for some of your clothes and not others?

None of this is impossible, but I can see how it takes enough initiative that it's not likely to get done.

Serge, re: Keira Knightley -

She did look lovely as Guinevere, but in the recent iteration of Pride & Prejudice, they costumer needed to be hauled out and smacked. Most of her gowns were ill-fitting, to the point where there was one scene where Mr. Darcy could have just leaned over and dropped a small squirrel down her bodice and no one would have noticed.

I understand the Bennetts were not well off, but I'm sure they could afford a few inches of thread to close the massive gap between her bodice and her chest.

Otherwise, a great adaptation, if you can get over the repetitive and loud score and occasionally unflattering Elizabeth Bennett costuming.

Yes, nerdycellist, Keira was lovely as Guinevere. (And she was 19, I was embarassed to find out later because that makes me a dirty old man.) As for Pride and Prejudice, a squirrel down her bodice would definitely be noticed, what with such a willowy figure. I wouldn't be surprised that her ill-fitting dresses were indeed there to indicate the Bennetts weren't doing too well. Heck, noticed how none of them seemed to know about brushing one's hair once in a while. Then again Darcy's hair was also rather messy and he could afford a comb. (Recognized the actor, by the way?)

Victor S: Actually, men's clothing has vanity sizing in trouser measurements, though Levi's is still honest.

I dunno about that. Levi's has shocked and disappointed me. I bought a pair of Levi's carpenter shorts and loved 'em. Six months later, I picked up a pair of Levi's worker shorts, exact same waistband size, and didn't bother trying it before bringing it home. The damn thing barely stays on my waist. I look like a middle-aged gangsta wannabe when I wear it.

I knew upsizing had gone ridiculous when I was trying on suit pants in Ann Taylor and the woman suggested a size 2. I'm a size 6-8 normally, and even that is upsized - when I was last at this weight I was a 10-12. (I eventually bought a 4.)

My personal peeve is that I'm different sizes top & bottom now because of upsizing, so anything that's sold together is hopeless. Though it was always a problem -- my bust is a relatively stable (large) size but my hips etc. are nonexistent.

When I was in Japan I couldn't find anything that fit. I had to mail order stuff to a place in the US who could then ship it to Japan.

A lot of Japanese women have a tough time finding clothes that fit them here in the US. Banana Republic fits them perfectly, and I wonder if they designed their clothing with the Asian market in mind. When I worked in SoHo there was always a stream of Asians buying clothes from their store on Lower Broadway.

nerdycellist,

I wouldn't be so quick to assign blame only to the buyers; I know that when I (up until last year) worked for a clothing manufacturer, we cut, and therefore sold to buyers, only in certain size combinations -- so a misses pant that came in sizes 6-16 could only be purchased in some multiple of 1-2-3-3-2-1, for example, and if the store sold out of just the larger sizes, to restock they had to buy the whole set again. Most collections, even designers' ready-to-wear lines, are set up in similar fashion for ease of manufacturing, and I know that shoes work the same way. The only way I've figured out to get around this, if you're on either end of the scale, is to make friends with the buyers and/or the receiving department at your favorite store, so they can let you know as soon as a shipment comes in, or set your size aside for you.

Jenny Rappaport,

I had a related, but different problem with a bridesmaid dress a few years ago -- as the wedding was taking place 3000 miles from what was home at the time, I had to take my own measurements and order the dress over the phone, and when I finally got out there the thing (ordered by the shop, working from the measurements taken here by a good tailor and read to them) could have fit two of me into it. I had lost some weight in the intervening months, but went down only about half a pants size, not enough to explain the astonishingly bad fit.

Insult to injury, that particular shop's seamstresses turned out to be not very good, so I speak from experience when I say that princess seamed garments need to be taken in on all 6 seams to look right. Luckily, the bridal party at the wedding was such a sartorial disaster (two styles of dress in three different colors, oy!) that my dress didn't particularly stand out. As it was, we attendants definitely did our part to make the bride (in her $1500, tailored-elsewhere dress, thankyewverymuch) look gorgeous.

What I found mind-boggling was when I recently auctioned off some clothing on ebay: I painstakingly measured things like chest size, waist, and sleeve length on those items with dubious sizes such as "one size" or S/M. I received quite a few emails asking what number size they were! Actual inch measurements didn't seem to register with those people. Crazy.

How large is "one size fits most"? Too large for me, nearly always. But at least it doesn't tick me off as much as "one size fits all".

Incidentally, I need to give props to L.L. Bean and Lands' End, whose customer service people can look up and tell you things like the front and back rise on a pair of pants.

Is anyone "normal" size?

I guess we've answered your question, Faren.

Bras. A very tiny, but well endowed friend of my put up an excellent resource for bras here:

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~cat/bra.html

I tend to mail order my bras from Bravissimo in England. They've also got amazing sports bras that support my 38 F balcony section even while hop-skip-jumping around. Okay, the shipping is hideous, but the customer service is well worth it for me. I haven't found any store comparable in the U.S.

Serge writes:
Yes, nerdycellist, Keira was lovely as Guinevere. (And she was 19, I was embarassed to find out later because that makes me a dirty old man.) As for Pride and Prejudice, a squirrel down her bodice would definitely be noticed, what with such a willowy figure.

My mother (post-double-radical-mastectomy) and my sister (diagnosed anorexic; about 5'8" and 105 pounds) both have more bosom than Keira in P&P. Your taste is your own, of course, but within the period she wouldn't have been attractive and would probably have availed herself of the period equivalent of stuffing her bra and adding frills on the bodice to make it look like she had a bosom. The styles don't work on that sort of body.

I wouldn't be surprised that her ill-fitting dresses were indeed there to indicate the Bennetts weren't doing too well.

Then someone didn't read or didn't care to follow the book. Oh, to be doing as badly as the Bennetts. I haven't looked at the exact conversions lately, but from memory, here's income for the characters converted into rough modern equivalents:

Darcy: 10,000 pounds/year = ~US$1,000,000
(that's just income, not counting his property). Definitely a good catch.

Bingley: 4,000/yr - ~$400,000, not too shabby either.

Mr. Bennet: roughly 2,000/yr = ~$200,000/yr, which is a level of poverty I'd be delighted to become accustomed to, even for a family of seven. Again, that's just income, not property.

Mrs. Bennet: 5000 pound marriage settlement (~$500,000), which she can't touch the principal of, but does have an independent income from the interest of about 5% - ~$25,000/year. Mr. Bennet can't touch this, and she can pass it on to her children.

The Bennets' problem is not current poverty, but the entail (inheritance by next male heir only) of the estate - when Mr. Bennet dies, Mrs. Bennet and the girls will be stuck living on her ~$25,000/year, which would indeed be challenging for six people, not to mention a major comedown in style of living for her (considering her marriage settlement, her family of birth must have been fairly well off as well.) Or they could try to mooch off relatives or work as governesses (one can just see Kitty or Lydia!) It's a serious concern. Lizzy marrying Mr. Collins would have kept the money and property in the family. But they aren't poor at the time of the story except by comparison to Darcy and Bingley; the panic is for the future.

(If Mr. Bennet had died and left his widow with five unmarried daughters, the girls might have been tempted to quietly bump off mum and split her portion between them.)

As to the dresses, the book at least has them retrimming hats, and it's almost beyond belief that they wouldn't have been capable of making their own or at least doing substantial alterations. Those are standard female skills for the time period.

Heck, noticed how none of them seemed to know about brushing one's hair once in a while. Then again Darcy's hair was also rather messy and he could afford a comb.

Carefully disordered hair was something of a fashion fad for at least some of the time period covered by the costumes. The most shocking hair scene to me was Lizzy's arrival at the Bingleys' with her hair hanging completely loose.

Re P&P: I haven't seen this version, but I don't remember anything in the book about Lizzie out on the moors. I had the very strong impression that the Bennet family lived somewhere in the south of England (