[quote]The little number on the tag on a pair of pants that indicates size can mean a lot to a person, and retailers know it.
That’s why, in recent years, as the American population has become generally more overweight, brands from the luxury names to the mass retail chains have scaled down the size labels on their clothing.
“You may actually be a size 14 and, according to whatever particular store you’re in, you come out a size 10,” said Natalie Nixon, associate professor of fashion industry management at Philadelphia University. “It’s definitely to make the consumer feel good.”[/quote]
Has anyone else noticed this? I have a pair of “28” shorts to prove it.
Hopefully they start selling Medium shirts as XXL so that everyone can be swole too.
Joking aside, this is (at the same time) the dumbest AND smartest thing ever. I just can’t believe that people think that eating a triple whopper and three orders of nuggets made them loose two pant sizes.
I just hate the thought of this because it screws you up when you’re trying to buy clothes after/while losing weight it makes it damn near impossible to figure out what size to wear.
Yeah, it is getting pretty ridiculous. It seems men’s pants are now always at least 2" larger in the waist than the nominal size, and sometimes 4". Shirts are also now often larger than what would be traditionally expected for their labelled size.
It’s not a practical problem: just one of those stupid things.
this sounds like the stupidest idea ever (in the long run)[/quote]
Rico, I think you might be having problems with understanding given your brain’s gone missing. Clothing has never been a straightforward industry, won’t ever be.
I’ve noticed significant variability in different brands of pants that are the same size.
On another note, I never understood the use of numbers for woman’s clothing. How the fuck can you be a size 0? Doesn’t “zero” imply a non-present quantity?