[HN Gopher] Sizing chaos
___________________________________________________________________
Sizing chaos
Author : zdw
Score : 141 points
Date : 2026-02-18 21:18 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pudding.cool)
(TXT) w3m dump (pudding.cool)
| polytely wrote:
| Very cool visualization, worked great on firefox mobile too which
| isn't always the case with these types of things.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted
| to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not
| for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology
| to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)
| malfist wrote:
| Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear,
| mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be
| felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor
| intensive.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've had some athletic wear with "seamless" features, but
| after sometime the adhesive lets go. Fixing that at home is
| much more difficult than needle/thread fixes for normal
| stitches. To be honest, I never even realized it was
| "seamless" until the adhesive failed. It had no factor in my
| purchasing.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| [flagged]
| i80and wrote:
| ah yes, clothes not fitting, a famously bourgeoisie problem /s
|
| As somebody with an atypical body shape, not being able to find
| things that fit is an endless source of irritation and
| discomfort
| shikshake wrote:
| I'd argue this problem is more important than most of the tech
| articles on this site. Having well-fitted clothing is a massive
| quality of life improvement.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and
| flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and
| we've already asked you repeatedly to stop.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681833 (Oct 2025)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44728916 (July 2025)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287383 (June 2025)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346650 (June 2023)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29857405 (Jan 2022)
|
| I don't want to ban you, but if you keep doing this, we're
| going to end up doing that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN
| as intended, we'd appreciate it.
| zeckalpha wrote:
| Almost like we should use, you know, units of length, when
| measuring lengths/widths/etc.
| sien wrote:
| Yeah. It's a remarkable problem. There is a clear solution that
| is happily used for men. You tell people what to measure then
| have the clothes sized for the various dimensions.
|
| Charles Tyrwhitt have this guide where they tell you what to
| measure for shirts :
|
| https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/size-guides/szg-formal-sh...
|
| and for trousers :
|
| https://www.charlestyrwhitt.com/au/szg-trousers-4-2021.html
|
| Presumably some online shops for women have something similar?
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Can confirm the utter _hell_ it is to shop for women 's clothing.
| I started transitioning at the ripe old age of 36, and up until
| that point, have obviously bought clothes for men. My entire
| fucking life I have bought XL shirts and jeans with a 38-44 inch
| waist, shorter legs. Never had an issue.
|
| Womens sizes... like Jesus Christ, I don't know how ANY women
| tolerate this shit. It's completely made up. A size 0 in one
| brand feels similar to a size 3 in another, feels similar to
| Large in another, feels similar to -1 in another. Anything you
| buy and like, you effectively have to pray they keep making
| forever, and always buy from that brand or you risk getting
| something else that doesn't fit correctly.
|
| I've never shopped a product category that feels so utterly
| hostile to consumer comprehension, except MAYBE microtransactions
| in videogames. And I'm not meaning to be dramatic, that's the
| only other type of market I've experienced in life where it feels
| like my attempts to understand what I'm buying are being
| deliberately frustrated like this.
| observationist wrote:
| It's intentional, to force you to engage a salesperson, and
| that salesperson knows all the jargon and unnecessary
| variations and how to size clothing that fits you. Once you
| have a positive transaction like that, it gives the company the
| opportunity to get a very loyal customer out of you, and it's
| the more pricey and "exclusive" brands. 100% emotional
| manipulation - they piss you off on purpose so they can seem
| like a hero and set you up with clothing that feels and looks
| good, but the specific fit will only match their numbers, and
| maybe even only their numbers for that season. How about
| ensuring that you can match someone who wears XL with an L
| right after holiday season, or hit them with an XL in the fall
| to set them up for a change during the holidays, etc.
|
| The schemes are ruthless and never end, and it's all arbitrary
| fashion. In some ways, it's a lot easier being a guy.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I mean shit, I'd happily engage with salespeople if I wasn't
| terrified of my red-state-living self getting hatecrimed if I
| go to the wrong store.
| observationist wrote:
| Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when
| you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly
| impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative
| marketing?
|
| And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > I took stacks upon stacks of jeans with me to the dressing
| room, searching in vain for that one pair that fit perfectly.
| Over 20 years later, my hunt for the ideal pair of jeans
| continues. But now as an adult, I'm stuck with the countless ways
| that women's apparel is not made for the average person, like me.
|
| I'm a 5'6 145lbs adult male. Y'know how many clothes are made
| that fit me? T-shirts, size S, fitted; and dress shirts by
| Express. That's basically it. Pants don't fit me because the legs
| aren't short enough, the crotch isn't long enough, and I don't
| have a butt/thighs. Basically no jacket fits me. Shoes? One of my
| feet is a different size than the other.
|
| I, too, have to try on literally every garment I see that sort-
| of-looks-like it might fit. I have tried hundreds of pairs of
| jeans, dress shirts, jackets. When I find one that fits, I buy
| two of them (or every one in a different color). And then I gain
| or lose weight... and the cycle repeats. I probably own 30 pairs
| of jeans, and a closet full of shirts that I almost never wear,
| but one day might want, and will never be able to find anywhere
| else.
|
| Human bodies are diverse. Standard sizes don't work. But you know
| what _will_ give you the perfect fit? Tailoring. Buy something
| too big, take it to a neighborhood drycleaner & tailor, and have
| them alter it to fit you. It's that simple. If you're worried
| about not having "enough" clothes and want to save money, it's
| not hard to use a sewing machine (if I learned, you can). In
| retrospect, I should've used tailoring rather than constantly
| hunt for fitting clothes. But I suspect I hunt the racks for the
| same reason women do: the idea that, somewhere out there, there's
| a better item I don't have.
|
| I don't think there's a way to reform the fashion industry, as it
| produces what the market bears. You could also - and I know this
| is crazy, but bear with me - wear ill-fitting clothes. Your
| gender doesn't have to constantly strive to be attractive. We
| will be into you regardless. And if you're just trying to live up
| to your own gender's expectations... maybe it's not a great
| expectation.
| altairprime wrote:
| This post is about women's sizing, not men's sizing. I'd love
| to see a followup post by someone doing the same analysis for
| men's sizing, though!
| fishtoaster wrote:
| This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing
| sucks for women's clothing!
|
| I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though:
| "Sizes are all made up anyway -- why can't we make them better?"
|
| Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman
| can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge
| marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing
| brands?
|
| This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument
| against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some
| structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from
| happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens
| clothes have no pockets" thing!
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| same, I wonder why this is. Is it just that modelling /
| marketing is more effective with things as they presently are?
| It seems there is a market for better fitting clothes -- likely
| half (or more!) of clothes bought would make the end customer
| happier if the items just had a better fit. Why have financial
| incentives not achieved this?
| zamadatix wrote:
| In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity
| sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful
| because of the psychology around that - linking out to
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577...
| for more detail.
|
| It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable
| marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal
| for the consumer.
| apt-apt-apt-apt wrote:
| Translating the confusing science speak, basically:
|
| Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a
| size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff,
| they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for
| the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or
| book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit).
|
| People confident in their appearance are immune to the
| effect, and simply think it's sized wrong or runs small.
| maxrev17 wrote:
| As a bloke I think I can see one reason why - I buy sports kit
| the model looks good in but I won't. Every damn time! Then end
| up buying again.
| trhway wrote:
| People buy heavy SUV when compact car would do, "dress for
| the job you want", "temporarily embarrassed millionaires",
| nationalistic fervor for your country getting more territory
| when even with the current one you don't know what to do, and
| so forth... Humans are an aspirational animal, and it is
| pretty easy to sell into that aspiration be it a ticket to
| Moon or a nice looking on the model jacket :)
|
| To the commenter below:
|
| Exactly. The societies where aspirations have been dampened
| or completely suppressed have been collectivistic and/or
| totalitaristic - USSR, North Korea, etc. - ie. where
| individual will is totally suppressed.
| beeflet wrote:
| Mankind is aspirational when we are allowed to act as
| individuals. The silent majority has a different character
| because it's a simpler animal.
| jcims wrote:
| I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up
| repeat purchases.
| bko wrote:
| I think the market opportunity can be a standard and eventually
| get labels to include your standard in addition to their
| traditional labeling.
|
| Figure out the variables (like shape, inseam, width, whatever
| else) for each article of clothing. Then freely distribute this
| and begin to catalog popular items. You can crowdsource some of
| this. The idea is people will look up the clothes as per your
| scale.
|
| Then after you index a lot of clothes, you can search by exact
| measurements and then you can hit up clothing manufacturers to
| use their propriety code in their marketing or promote their
| brands on your site.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >"Sizes are all made up anyway -- why can't we make them
| better?"
|
| I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I
| have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same
| webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the
| others do not.
|
| I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing
| pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the
| incumbents. I would have figured the convenience of being able
| to store a device that people have their heads down in 95% of
| the time would be sufficient to supersede more vanity related
| motivations.
| spockz wrote:
| So much this for consistency. I remember one particular bad
| occasion I went shopping for trousers in a store. I tried
| five, each had something wrong in relation with the size
| numbers.
|
| First didn't fit because it was too tight, so I tried one
| size larger. This one was even smaller than the previous one.
| So I tried an even bigger one which was only taller. Tried a
| bigger number now it was way too big. So for fun I tried one
| with a higher number which turned out to be smaller than the
| previous one.
|
| When I asked the store assistant, they shrugged and said that
| was just reality and why you need to try every item
| individually. It has to do with how much "spare" cloth the
| seamstress takes when stitching the trousers together, if the
| original piece of cloth was even already cut to size
| properly.
|
| These days I buy from the brand own size, the same item and
| it fits every time.
| dehue wrote:
| In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not
| mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and
| they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are
| stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of
| them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too
| big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which
| is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans
| where the pocket is well designed the phone still sticks out
| of the top and yet when I bend my knee it jams into my hip in
| a weird way or I cant sit down with it in my pocket. I am 5'1
| so I may just be hitting some size limitations but carrying
| around a phone in a purse or sticking it into the waistband
| of tighter pants can be more comfortable than trying to use
| pockets.
| dehue wrote:
| That's what sizing guides are theoretically for, if you add
| more sizing systems it gets even more confusing. I don't think
| the issue is as bad as the post portrays it though. Its true
| that sizes can be all over the place but like I am size small
| woman's and if I buy small most of the time it will fit or at
| least somewhat fit. I am not a standard model size either as I
| need things that are for more hourglass figure rather than
| straight but that just requires being selective about which
| styles to buy. A medium also usually fits if I need something
| looser. I double check the reviews if its online or try it on
| in person and as long as its not something that requires
| precise measurements its usually fine. For things like jeans I
| shop in person and try things on from a few sizes or just know
| approximate size I am or rely on reviews. Many items these days
| are stretchy and even when they don't fit perfectly they are
| wearable or you can return them, its not that complicated. I do
| only shop a few brands or from in person stores or I can often
| approximate sizing from how big something looks or by looking
| at review photos.
|
| The pockets thing is similar, not having pockets is annoying
| but its not that big of a deal. I rather buy something cute
| without pockets than search for something with some. If it has
| them great, if it doesnt oh well I will just use my purse.
| Barely anything fits in pockets anyways and I have a feeling
| other women feel similarly which is why many of us buy things
| whether or not they have pockets.
| jedberg wrote:
| Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or cm
| like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for marketing
| reasons, as discussed extensively in the article), they use these
| random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent and change over
| time.
|
| I think this is why stretchy materials are getting more and more
| popular. The women in my house use stretchy pants almost
| exclusively, because they are much more forgiving with body
| shape. As long as the waist fits, the rest will fit well enough.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Women's sizing is so dumb. They could just provide inches or
| cm like they do for the men, but for some reason (well for
| marketing reasons, as discussed extensively in the article),
| they use these random sizes and numbers that aren't consistent
| and change over time.
|
| Relevant: TIL that while male rowers are classified as
| "lightweight" or "heavyweight", larger female rowers are called
| "openweight" instead of "heavyweight". <https://np.reddit.com/r
| /todayilearned/comments/32p2ka/til_th...>
| dboreham wrote:
| Mens sizes have changed over time. Go get a vintage t-shirt
| from the 80s, medium size, and try it on. It'll be the size of
| a small or xs today.
| jedberg wrote:
| I meant more the pants and dress shirts, which are sized in
| inches.
| slibhb wrote:
| I find it quite hard to find men's clothes that fit me and I'm
| a relatively normally proportioned man.
|
| Two pairs of the same style, same size pants from the same
| company often differ significantly. I suppose you can just
| return online orders until you get a pair that fits. But I
| prefer to shop in person and take every garment in the style I
| want within +/-1 to dressing room and pick the one that
| actually fits (if any).
|
| Because I've grown tired of this I recently bought 3 pairs of
| jeans for $600 from a company where you go in, get sized, and
| then the clothes are made to order. I don't regret it, they're
| the only pairs of jeans I've owned that I like.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I might have missed this in the scroll format but is there any
| reason not to drop the qualitative size names and just use an
| actual dimension or two?
| carabiner wrote:
| They can lie with those too:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/8srelb/info_graph...
| jccooper wrote:
| There is a problem with the number of dimensions. Even a
| t-shirt is described best in neck, chest, waist, and you could
| add several parameters for sleeves and also for heights.
| Neither consumers nor manufacturers can really handle the
| combinatorial explosion, so you have to boil it down to one or
| maybe two dimensions.
|
| But the reason even that isn't done is mostly history and
| market expectations. There are clothing categories that sell in
| actual dimensions, and (aside from the terrible dimensional
| accuracy of clothing in general) it works fine. But those are
| all on the "men's" side, and it seems the industry believes
| women will not like buying based on actual numbers.
| altairprime wrote:
| [delayed]
| socalgal2 wrote:
| This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to
| considered victims so lets make up something to whine about"
|
| A few concrete issues:
|
| (1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why
| should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be
| required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to
| care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should
| relabel the clothing, all that would do is raise the price and
| effectively make poor people poorer.
|
| (2) they show people "Americans" get heavier - That might be
| reality but maybe being reminded you're wearing extra large is a
| good thing? Like you really are "overweight" and that's
| unhealthy. You can choose to ignore that but the rest of us
| aren't required re-label you as something you're not
|
| (3) They graph high-fashion like LV and show they don't have
| large sizes. So what? Ferrari doesn't make cheap cars. I'm not
| required to make product that suits you. If you don't like what
| I'm offering, pick some other company's products. I don't like
| donuts, I don't go to a donut store and demand they offer pizza.
| Nor do I go to jeans store and demand they carry suits.
|
| (4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue? Try
| the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's what I
| do because duh!, different people and companies follow different
| patterns. Some fit, some don't.
|
| If you want to fix any of these - feel free to start your own
| clothing brand. Clearly you believe the market isn't being
| served. If so, put your money where your mouth is rather than
| requiring others to risk theirs
| zamadatix wrote:
| As a healthy sized individual I've always found buying clothes
| based on measurements rather than vanity sizing much more
| useful as well. Can't say it's enough to force the hand of an
| entire market... but I also can't point to what marking in only
| vanity sizes is providing the consumer in the first place.
| 9dev wrote:
| > (4) they complain about vanity sizes - why is this an issue?
| Try the clothing on. If it fits buy it, if not don't. That's
| what I do because duh!, different people and companies follow
| different patterns. Some fit, some don't.
|
| Many people, especially women, suffer from peer pressure. You
| just seem to lack the empathy to acknowledge that a lot of them
| really struggle because of clothing sizes, out of fear of being
| stigmatised.
| WarmWash wrote:
| Its like the pockets complaints.
|
| Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw
| off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Japan was the example that stood out to me. (It's where UNIQLO
| is from.)
|
| I'm 5'11"/180cm with US11/EU45 feet. They didn't sell boots
| that fit me in Japan. I got a deal on an "XL" jacket that the
| salesman insisted I buy, because I was the only person to have
| ever come into the store that it fit. (It's the only thing I've
| ever worn labelled "XL.")
| Rendello wrote:
| Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the
| thesis is. To me, the conclusion says:
|
| 1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary.
|
| 2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types.
|
| 3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they
| want.
| altairprime wrote:
| 0. _All_ commercial premade adult women's clothing is made
| _exclusively_ for a small minority of women with hourglass body
| shapes.
|
| The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn't realize as
| a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that
| clothing manufacturers _exclusively_ market to hourglass body
| shape alone -- which some might recognize better as "pinup
| model" proportions. As a non-hourglass along with the vast
| majority of other U.S. women, it's quite the shock to discover
| that megacorps are targeting a fraction of the market
| (hourglass) rather than the largest segment (rectangle).
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of
| plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed
| for hourglass physiques.
| imagetic wrote:
| It's cool to see pudding.cool making the front of HN regularly.
| uberman wrote:
| Great visualizations but you can't buy a shoe without knowing
| that a 10 in one brand is not a 10 in a second brand or that for
| example you need to size down when ordering Dr. Martens then
| there is no way to expect clothing to be more accurate than a
| shoe.
| mcgrath_sh wrote:
| Sure, not every shoe brand is equal, but if I know I'm a 9, I
| can _generally_ start there and find a shoe plus /minus a half
| size. I have yet to go into a store and wind up in a shoe that
| is 3 sizes larger than what I thought my size was. Or 3 sizes
| smaller. Or a size 8 in one shoe from a brand and a 10
| different shoe. I can order Nike/Jordan brand shoes without
| trying them on and they fit. Have done it for years.
|
| I went to re-buy the "same" jeans ~8 months after my initial
| purchase and the size I was wearing didn't fit in the new
| jeans. Tried another pair with a different wash and was back to
| the original size. I have tried on jeans from the same brand
| with similar cuts and came away two sizes apart. I can swing
| several sizes as a _starting_ point between some stores. I get
| it, not every jean is going to be identical, but it isn 't a
| ridiculous ask to be able to have a size I can start at and be
| within a size of what I need.
| astura wrote:
| >By age 15, most girls have gone through growth spurts and
| puberty, and they've reached their adult height.
|
| >Many have started to outgrow the junior's size section.
|
| Ummmmm.... What? I wore junior's sizes well into my 30s. Am I
| really that much of an outlier?
| miav wrote:
| It is genuinely incredible how well-fitting clothing is only
| generally available to some one-third of women who fit well into
| the anticipated height-waist ratio. Petite options exist in some
| places, but god forbid you're tall - your choices will be limited
| to "too short" and "too short and also too wide" if you try to go
| for a size up.
| ggm wrote:
| Regulate now. You would think it actually levels the playing
| field for everyone.
|
| Never got this, nor the bizarre dysfunctional pockets on womens
| clothes.
|
| In wartime/rationing, the government stipulated hem size, banned
| turn-ups, oxford bags, specified jacket lengths, cloth weights.
| For working class people, clothes IMPROVED. (de-mob (de-
| mobilisation) suits were for some working men the best suit of
| clothes they had ever owned)
| Animats wrote:
| You're not supposed to talk about this. Someone I used to know
| was fired from the New York Times for saying too much about
| it.[1][2]
|
| [1] https://fashionschooldaily.com/cintra-wilson-vs-jc-penney-
| th...
|
| [2] https://archive.is/md8qw
| magneticnorth wrote:
| "The average woman's waistline today is nearly 4 inches wider
| than it was in the mid-1990s."
|
| I assume they mean circumference rather than diameter, but this
| is still a shocking increase in only 30 years. I knew the obesity
| epidemic was an ever-increasing problem, but this really puts it
| into perspective. I wonder if we'll ever fully understand the
| causes behind this rapid shift.
| steanne wrote:
| part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an
| aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as
| women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total
| population would still be up.
| Galaco wrote:
| At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and
| larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other
| reasons reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system
| for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a
| method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed
| photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for
| those who couldn't/wouldn't take photos of themselves (privacy
| was important to us, and there was no need to undress).
|
| We were able to give details about fit comfort across many
| measurements for each size, but this feature was basically
| unused. 99% of users used the statistical average body of
| themselves instead of themselves, which actually exacerbates the
| body type problem.
|
| Another interesting thing about the industry and the grading
| process we learned; many retailers had no measurements for their
| own clothes except the reference size. This was much more common
| of higher end brands.
|
| 1 last thing; some global brands actually have the same size name
| on the same product represent a different size in different
| region (eg an SKU in size S in US may have different measurements
| to the same SKU in S in Asia)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-18 23:00 UTC)