Anybody besids me notice the HUGE discrepancy between pattern sizes and rack clothes sizes?

I have 34/27/37 inch measurements and fit nicely in size 8 clothes bought from the store. However, when I make clothes from patterns (Simplicity, McCalls, etc.) I need to make a size 13/14 garment (35/27/38) if I want it to fit.

What's going on here? Have rack clothes sizes changed for vanity reasons? I did check an old (1989) pattern I have and the measurements=sizes are the same as on one I bought last week, so at least in the last 15 years the patterns haven't changed.

i think they call it vanity sizing. id be willing bet a size 8 from 20 years ago =s a size 1 now. or some rediculousness

I've noticed the same thing if you look in catalogs and they list the measurements you should measure for each size and they cannot be correct. According to my current waist, hip, etc measurements I should wear at least a 20. There is no way a 20 fits me though, I boxed them up months ago and am in a loose 16. Weird.

Yes ,store bought clothing sizes have changed over the past 30 years.What 40-50 years used to be a 10 ,is nowadays a 12 or 14.
women used to smaller.I watched a report on thatnot to long ago

Yeah, I've been wondering why, when before I had kids and weight problems (like I was in the 120's with no thought about it) I wore a size 10 Chinos. Now, with wider hips and a few more lbs I wear a size 8.

So, when exactly did they sneak in the size change?

gradually, i think. the more expensive brands started it, i think... like neiman marcus, gucci, armani, etc. to give people more incentive to buy their clothes.

thats how i gained like 50lbs and never changed sizes
i am a size 12 currently in store bought things but should be wearing a size 16 or even 18 by my measurements
its alot worse in name brands but all the stores do it now to some degree i think... hardly anyone would buy there clothes if they didn't do it (sad that so many worry about what a tag says when the tag is on the *inside* shoot if its that much a problem cut the darn thing off!)
i wish that womens clothes were sized like mens at least there would be no room for vanity sizes! but can you see the woman that wore a size 4 going in and buying a size 24 or somthing? she would die first

i TOTALLY agree!

That's not entirely true, the largest size made in most pants is a 38", I used to only fit into about 20% of the 38" pants I tried on.

And in top sizes I can be an L, XL, or XXL.

There is a lot of difference in sizing.

there is a differance in cut but its still really close to a 38" though
with womens clothes there can be up to like 5 inches diffrence in one size in one store to the same size in another store
and considering that each size is an inch (for the lower sizes) thats a big deal
then on top of that you have cut to deal with some are to narrow in the hips, some to loose same with shoulders then you don't even wanna get into bust isuess!!
truthfully you can not make everything fit everyone but at least if there was some type standard you wouldn't have to go in and try on 4 sizes of somthing to find the one that is your size lol maybe they should start putting the bust / waist / hip measurements on the tags??? that would work for me

Well, I wear a size 4, and I probably wouldn't die -- in fact, I might be glad of a little consistency, because then I wouldn't have to try on the 2 and the 4 and the 6! This actually isn't uncommon with high-end designer jeans, and somehow all the models manage to survive the horrors of double-digit sizes . Getting hung up on a size is about being fatter or thinner than your norm, and about being fatter or thinner than everyone else. I personally don't care if they call it a 16 or a 79, but I did find it a little upsetting to be wearing the largest size "normal" stores carried. Likewise, some women get a kick out of being thinner than everyone else and wearing the smallest size there is, and I don't think it makes much difference exactly what the number is.

There is some discrepency in Men's Sizing, but you are correct that it is GENERALLY more consistent. There are exceptions, though. My dad has an old pair of 36 Jean Shorts he used to wear which are actually cut to 30". Shirts are the worst for men. I've had shirts which were Medium with plenty of extra room and others that were Large which had no extra room.

The variance in Men's Jeans is generally small compared to the variance in Women's sizes. Go down to Salvation Army sometime and try on some of the clothes and you'll see my point. I've seen cases where someone could fit tightly into a size 8 or 9 and comfortably into a size 10, but a size 16 for yet another brand won't even zip up. Then, there's 2 size 14 Skirts from one brand where one fits fine and the other won't even zip up. Patterns are just as bad IMHO. I've seen 2 Different Patterns cut to the exact same size. One was several sizes too large and the other was tight. But, there is one advantage to Patterns. Once you know how they'll fit, you can adjust specific areas to fit your body more comfortably than Store Bought.