What Makes A Medium?
Sizing makes me nuts.
Women's dress sizes (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc.) mean quite a different thing from manufacturer to manufacturer - and even from decade to decade! [Image from devoted2vintage.co.uk]
For instance, the standard size 6 waist measurement in 1984 was 23 inches. The Gap's size 6 waist measurement in 2002 was 29 inches.
When I hear a woman describe herself as a "Zero" it makes me sad (why would ANYONE want to be a zero? It's part of the not-so-subtle message from society that a woman should take as little space as possible, and a man as much space as possible... But I digress...) Vanity Sizing is insane.
There, I've said it.
I've felt for years that the best way to size something is BY THE ACTUAL SIZE. I know, inconceivable, right?
Men's pants are sized to the waist and inseam. Men's jackets are sized to the SIZE OF THE MAN!
Some women's jeans sized for waist / hip measurement, too, but most women's pants are sized either in Missus (6, 8, 10) or Juniors (7, 9, 11) and every manufacturer has a different idea of what an "8" or a "7" actually is.
I once overheard a woman say, "I was a size 16, but now I'm an 8 - I'm HALF my original size!"
Wrong. She would have gone down about 6-7" in her bust. Unless her bust was 14" to begin with, she did NOT halve her size.
But this is an insidious way for the one-ups-womanship among us to continue, a way to compare ourselves using an impossibly flawed scale.
I'm not crazy about S/M/L/XL either, but for many articles of clothing with elastic waists or loose fit, they work fine.
However, if we - especially as knitters! - have a chance to be more exact in our measurements, why not do it? Why rely on S/M/L when 34" / 37" / 40" bust measurements are available?
I size my patterns and usually provide a "to fit bust" size, AND a "finished bust" size. For instance, on a garment with about** 5" of ease, the measurements might be:
**The actual measurements change from one of my designs to another depending on the number of stitches I use, which in turn depends on the stitch pattern repeat. I also need to make the pattern 'size-able' up and down, and throw in some aesthetic choices which may differ from size to size.
I just received an email from a magazine which asked to run one of my patterns. They want to take the seven sizes I've provided and telescope them down to five sizes(!)
And they want to remove the numbered size designation and replace it with S / M / L / XL, etc.
Oy.
I just can't come to terms with an editorial "consistency" that would make a pattern weaker.
And this, my friends, is why I don't like to design for magazines very much. They change a lot of the designer's input, they put the text in their own verbiage, and the designer is the one who will be answering the questions for the next 10 years. I just got a question yesterday on a piece that was published 6 years ago.
Here's what I wrote to the mag:
Women's dress sizes (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc.) mean quite a different thing from manufacturer to manufacturer - and even from decade to decade! [Image from devoted2vintage.co.uk]For instance, the standard size 6 waist measurement in 1984 was 23 inches. The Gap's size 6 waist measurement in 2002 was 29 inches.
When I hear a woman describe herself as a "Zero" it makes me sad (why would ANYONE want to be a zero? It's part of the not-so-subtle message from society that a woman should take as little space as possible, and a man as much space as possible... But I digress...) Vanity Sizing is insane.
There, I've said it.
I've felt for years that the best way to size something is BY THE ACTUAL SIZE. I know, inconceivable, right?
Men's pants are sized to the waist and inseam. Men's jackets are sized to the SIZE OF THE MAN!
Some women's jeans sized for waist / hip measurement, too, but most women's pants are sized either in Missus (6, 8, 10) or Juniors (7, 9, 11) and every manufacturer has a different idea of what an "8" or a "7" actually is.
I once overheard a woman say, "I was a size 16, but now I'm an 8 - I'm HALF my original size!"
Wrong. She would have gone down about 6-7" in her bust. Unless her bust was 14" to begin with, she did NOT halve her size.
But this is an insidious way for the one-ups-womanship among us to continue, a way to compare ourselves using an impossibly flawed scale.
I'm not crazy about S/M/L/XL either, but for many articles of clothing with elastic waists or loose fit, they work fine.
However, if we - especially as knitters! - have a chance to be more exact in our measurements, why not do it? Why rely on S/M/L when 34" / 37" / 40" bust measurements are available? I size my patterns and usually provide a "to fit bust" size, AND a "finished bust" size. For instance, on a garment with about** 5" of ease, the measurements might be:
To Fit Bust: 31 (34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52) '' /And I count on the knitter measuring her bust, determining which size she's closest to, and working up that size.
79.5 (87.2, 94.9, 102.6, 110.3, 117.9, 125.6, 133.3) cm
Finished Bust: 36 (40, 44, 48, 52, 58, 62, 66) '' / 92.3 (102.6, 112.8, 123.1, 133.3, 148.7, 159, 169.2) cm
**The actual measurements change from one of my designs to another depending on the number of stitches I use, which in turn depends on the stitch pattern repeat. I also need to make the pattern 'size-able' up and down, and throw in some aesthetic choices which may differ from size to size.
I just received an email from a magazine which asked to run one of my patterns. They want to take the seven sizes I've provided and telescope them down to five sizes(!)
And they want to remove the numbered size designation and replace it with S / M / L / XL, etc.
Oy.
I just can't come to terms with an editorial "consistency" that would make a pattern weaker.
And this, my friends, is why I don't like to design for magazines very much. They change a lot of the designer's input, they put the text in their own verbiage, and the designer is the one who will be answering the questions for the next 10 years. I just got a question yesterday on a piece that was published 6 years ago.
Here's what I wrote to the mag:
I would very much prefer that you DID NOT change the measurements to sizes (SML) but would prefer you keep them as the size numbers.I haven't heard back yet, but I'm not hopeful that the pattern will be running with size numbers. Dang.
Size numbers are a more exact way to determine which size a knitter should make, and will ultimately lead to happier knitters and readers. S/M|/L is an unhelpful and VERY inexact way of determining fit.
A knitter can quibble about whether she's a M or an L, but she can't argue about her bust size. Most knitters have a measuring tape available to them, and measuring their bust is the first step in getting a sweater that actually fits.
Serious minded knit magazines that are interested in a good FIT for their readers are moving toward representing patterns in measured bust sizes.
I, myself, refuse to use S M L any longer in my sizing as it allows so much room for fudging and miscommunication.
I feel very strongly about this. As I teach around the country I bring this subject up with knitters in almost every class I conduct, and I have yet to find one knitter who prefers S/M/L sizing over instructions that are written to specific bust sizes.
It's not a good policy to allow an editorial format to supersede good fit in a knitted pattern. It may seem easier at the outset, but the follow up to correct knitter's misunderstanding of THEIR size is time consuming and heartbreaking for the knitter who miscalculated and thought she was a "S" when she's actually an "M".
posted by Annie at
Friday, July 11, 2008
43 Comments:
Interestingly, teh woman who runs the costume shop at the theater where I work tells me that "vanity sizing" has crept into men's clothes as well.
Apparently, the waist sizes of men's pants may no longer represent the actual circumference of the garment.
As you can imagine, it drives costume shops crazy to have an actor tell them that they wear a waist size 32, when the jeans they are buying are secretly 34 inches around the waist.
Well said, Annie. As a knitter, I am always SO much happier to find a pattern sized by measurements and recommended ease! Keep on keeping on!
-Lisa
THANK YOU! I am usually a medium, and don't mind if patterns list S/M/L as well as numbers (it does sometimes help me to know the designer's intent, as the amount of ease is so often omitted - a separate but related problem) but actual numbers are necessary!
{hugs} as a small petite woman i totally understand this. (i won't start on shoe sizes promise). i've been pretty much the same size (in the waist and legs) for the past 15 years, 5'1" ~ 97-105lbs, averaging the two digit side of 100.
My mum had a wonderful conversation with someone the other day:
My daughter had a rough time finding clothing that fit. After spending weeks trying to find a pair of pants that might fit [because sizes that used to fit her no longer do] she found that she's wearing a 14 these days.
The woman she was talking with uttered surprise that I had gained such a significant amount of weight since she had last seen me five years ago.
Mum smiled and added, "14 in children's".
[I used to be able to wear a woman's 4. even the hem length of petite seems to be longer these days. It's why i started knitting and sewing more...].
*sigh*. I hope they run it with the numbers because that really helps me figure out how much I'll have to adapt a pattern or not. Sure I can look at the schematics (which I will do) but having that quickly available to me makes my decisions easier and leaves me happier with the publication.
Unless the S/M/L come with inches beside them, e.g., S (31-33) M (34-37) - how on earth will anyone know what size they wear? I'm generally a 2X. Unless it's a plus size pattern. Then I'm a 1 or an X. Or, if it's a loosely fit garment, which I don't like, maybe even the L would fit me. Without measurements in inches, I wouldn't even buy the pattern, much less attempt to knit it.
I hope the magazine understands that!
Thank you. I had a forehead-slapping moment earlier this week: I buy almost all of my clothes, including shoes, online, because that is where I can find styles I like that fit my tall, curvy self. Even with vendors I've used for years, and even when size charts are available for a given item or designer, I often order multiple size of the same item, then keep the one that fits best. My partner needed a pair of dress trousers, so I convinced him to order something online. (He doesn't shop much, period.) What size should he get? 36W. Why? Because his waist measures 36", and 36W fits a 36-inch waist. No guessing. No fretting.
I am happy that you're insisting on the wider and more accurate sizing for your pattern. Knitters are smarter than many mags seem to think. Give me garment measurements, body measurements, a schematic, and, where appropriate, charts as well as words. With that basic information, I can adjust fit if necessary, calculate ease, and select the right size--and I have NO formal textile training. Just a brain that works and a body that refuses to wear clothes that don't fit.
It seems to me that knitwear magazine editors who attempt to take true fittings out of patterns are drastically out of touch with knitters. This is not the 1980's and we are not all wearing leggings with giant sack like sweaters that go to our knee's anymore.
As a consumer, sizing drives me beyond nuts. The garment industry is totally sexist. A man stays his size forever unless he changes his shape in some way. A woman's size varies with fashion and what someone determines a woman "wants" to hear -- that she is a smaller size than in fact she is. How can they treat us as idiots? Catalogues are becoming a little better; they know that weird sizing makes for lots of returns. But some companies' S or M fluctuate widely.
How can a magazine rewrite your pattern to suit its (vague) standards? I suppose they could add (S), (M), etc., if they felt it necessary, but why? You should be able to add a note at the beginning of the pattern that you aren't responsible for unauthorized editorial changes.
And why do women stand for it? That's the real qy, I guess. Maybe that's one reason that L.L. Bean is my couturier of choice. Rant not over but I'll stop.
I totally concur! I generally think of myself as a lasies large, but lately I've been going with medium. If I saw a pattern sized SML I would make the M or L size, but when I made my last sweater (from IK) they had bust sizes and the second smallest size was the right one. I never would have chosen to make the "S" if the first one might be thought of as "XS".
I so agree with you, Annie.
Stick to your guns. I haven't embarked on sweater knitting yet, in part because of fear of bad fit. I don't think I'd even attempt a pattern that didn't have bust measurements.
Annie, you are brilliance laced with common sense and honesty! Thank you for saying what many of us are thinking.
AMEN!!!! The magazine obviously doesn't understand how much more difficult they are making things (I prefer to think that to thinking they just don't give a d***). I would love it if ALL patterns and clothing did away with the useless S/M/L 6,8,10 designations in favor of actual dimensions. I dread clothes shopping knowing that I am going to carry at least 2 sizes of everything into the dressing room because the sizes vary so much.
Please let the magazine know about the feedback you are receiving.
THANK YOU. I am so sick of women's sizing in clothes, and I was shocked when I first encountered S/M/L sizing in knitting patterns. I thought one of the obvious points of knitting was so we could have well-fitting clothes? S/M/L doesn't help that at all. So thank you so much for being a designer that doesn't agree with that system!
I also would like to express my thanks to your thoughts. I have the hardest time with clothes sizings. I am learning to sew so that I can have the clothes Iwant with the fit I need. Thanks again for your wondeful comments.
Totally with you on this, thanks for standing up for what makes good sense.
Yes, yes, yes. Thank you for the common sense approach to sizing. If only it would take with publishers and manufacturers. Yes, they do have a page in nearly every catalog that can be used to figure out sort of what a 8 or a 16 or 20 is but there is no reason for it to be different.
It would be nice to know that a 36 is a 36 is a 36 no matter who made the top.
Annie -- Kudos to you! I can still wear my 10/12 from years ago yet when I shop these days these same sizes don't fit (too small!). and I am sick and tired of going to independent "dress" shops to have my window shopping disdained because I don't fit the "mold." Hoping to find and tailor in the WDC area; in the meantime, will continue to knit my "knits!"
Annie, What kind of idiot editor would want to reduce the sizes offered from five to seven? I thought people were waking up to the fact that we women come in a wide range of sizes. When you have already done the hard part with the math and sizing, it leaves me speechless that they would buy the pattern then throw part of it in the trash. It is like cutting down a flawless diamond. WHY?
Good for you! You are absolutely right and thanks for always standing up for yourself to the benefit of others as well. :)
All of the magazines I subscribe to have both - SML sizing AND measurements. I never, ever look at the sizing; I jump straight to the measurements.
S/M/L doesn't really tell me anything, especially when I have to take one of S and one of M into the fitting room to see which one its better on me. Even in Petite sizing. I'm very familiar with my measuring tape and I can figure out which size I want to knit simply by looking at the offered sizes and deciding how much ease I want. Kntting magazines need to trust their customers more in determining what they themselves want to knit from the offered patterns.
I agree with you completely. The first thing I check in a pattern I like is the actual measurement around the bust and very often it's not there, which leads to hours of debate and consideration. It's all especially maddening when the XL turns out to be two sizes smaller than me - don't they realize that they're insulting so many people?
And you spelt 'supersede' correctly - Annie, you're a wonder.
from 7 sizes down to 5?
why? when you have already done all the math?
why make it less likely to fit and please more people?
(i could understand if you only had 5 sizes, (because the pattern repeat made more sizes un workable) but when you have already done the work, and made a pattern that will fit a HUGE range of women why get rid of 2 sizes?
(oh, i know, knitters are alike, --include our sizes.. we only come in limited sizes, and we want only limited choices.)
(i am sure some editor worked the numbers on your pattern, and decided all the extra number (and comma's) created to many characters, and brought you over the alloted 2 pages, and they weren't willing to give you another 1/2 or 3/4th of a column. (they need it for some other pattern in a limited size range, or with some other deficency..)
it is any wonder we old time knitters have learned to knit with out patterns?
knitting zines are interesting but less and less worth subscribing to!
Annie, stick to your guns!!! SML ranges cause us to choose the wrong range because of the judgment inherent in the size - who wouldn't reather be small than large, or worse yet, extra large!! When we choose our bust size, we choose our bust size. We all want a big bust (at least we did when we were teenagers). We have to stand firm against the industry - otherewise even sizing has the potential to tell us we are not good enough, when in fact we are!!!
Your column and the comments here should be required reading for every knit magazine editorial board.
You go girl--I'm with you on this one. I HATE shopping for clothes because I can never find anything to fit, so I just make most of my clothes, knit and sewn.
Even with 'standard' patterns I ingore the size and check the measurements. I can wear anything from a M to XXL. Geez people, get your crap together.
I much prefer your method of using the actual body measurements.
Annie, don't change!
Huzzah! I agree with Maureen Moran. I remember seeing a pattern for a top in Vogue Knitting where the XL finished bust size was 38"!!!! Gimme a break! I also applaud you giving both the actual body bust size & the finished garment bust size. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is not very confident in deciding how much ease a garment should have. So even if the finished size is given, I sometimes dither about which size to make. I wish more designers would do the same.vezsnnxi
Good for you Annie! This has been on my mind, because over the last few days I've been trying to get some pants & shorts for my almost 13 yr old daughter without taking her along (no time!). The ones she owns and wears regularly are all 1s or 3s. The first batch I brought home were all 3s--and she couldn't even pull some of them up. Better luck with SOME of the next batch--all 5s. But witnessing her growing dismay over having nothing fit broke my heart--been there! It was like a really negative rite of passage. Of course we talked, and I explained the size thing, and we blamed the "stupid store," but I hated to see that self-doubt planted.
The kicker? When I was her age, I wanted desperately to be a size 7 so I could shop at the 5-7-9 Shop like my best friend. But, I was an 11. AND, my mother swears my girl is the exact size now that I was at her age.
Thanks for being a voice of sanity!
Apparently this is a touchy subject! And I completely agree on how the s/m/l/etc. causes confusion. I can fit into a S, M or L depending on the garment, which drives me nuts. Yes I weigh more than I used to but I'm still just 5' tall and small boned. I am NOT a large person! If I'm considered 'L', what would an average or large woman wear? Ok, enough ranting. Thanks, Annie for voicing this!
I'm 18-months pregnant, and at that stage where I'm about to burst out of my size 10 Dockers capris, but am not quite big enough for maternity things. So, I recently picked up three new pairs from three different designers -- two in size 12, one in size 14 (I chose these for their drawstring waist). NONE of the new pairs fit. My size 10s seemed downright comfortable in comparison, so I'm going back to them.
While I'm here, THANK YOU for adding recommended ease to your patterns. I'm looking forward to making your Sideways Spencer Redux soon (yes, even though it's 100 degrees outside and I'm pregnant), and even though it might be snuggish now, I know what size will work best post-baby, too. :)
I totally agree that S/M/L is totally inadequate without measurements and some indication of intended ease. I also agree that it is your right, as a designer, to insist on the instructions that work best for knitters.
But I think it is seldom noted that standard measurements are for the widest part of the bust, but assume that the cup size in an A or a B.
So the key measurement for fit in standard patterns is not at the widest part of the bust, but at the bra band + 2 inches; sizing is averaged out for an A or B cup.
Women with a larger bust will find themselves wearing a tent--too large across the back especially, often at armscyes and sleeves, and too wide in the shoulders--if they go by bust measurement without modifying the pattern somehow.
Short-row shaping doesn't work for stripes and can be tricky with complex vertical patterns such as cables, recalling that you need to add one inch of length for each cup size above B.
There's no substitute for careful measuring, and working with large sheets of graph paper for planning pattern modifications.
Standards also call for a hip measurement that is approximately 12" larger than the bust measurement, and I see a lot of sweaters that fail because that may be a standard for patterns, but not for actual human beings.
It surely helps to widen the hip measurement in consideration of both your actual measurement and what you'll be wearing it with, and then to narrow toward the waistline to give the garment a flattering shape without extra bulk.
What are the magazines thinking?
I was looking at knit jerseys in a store recently. I picked up an extra large Ralph Lauren. It looked small to me. It measured 18" across the bust. That is 36" around. Extra large. sigh.
Give me schematics with numbers any day!
THANK YOU!!!
As an adult, I've always been a little on the busty side of life...having kids just made it a little more so. Without bust measurements included trying to work an already designed pattern is frustrating as heck. Depending on how the size is defined I could be anywhere from a Medium to an Extra Large...that's a huge difference.
Knowing the actual measurement of the bust on a project helps so much, it's unbelievable. Though I will say that "pat" is right on how many patterns are sized so that the bust averages out to an A or B cup. Larger busted women, especially those in the D-G range, are often pigeonholed into tents when they very well may have some curves to show off. Somewhere, somehow, someone equated bigger bust with overweight or lack of feminine figure.
Granted...my curves have reversed a bit for the pregnancy, but come November...I'm shopping for a new sweater pattern!
Amen and well said, Annie! Rock on! I just IM'd my friend the info you gave about how sizes have changed over the years with the comment "this is what we have been eating our hearts out about for so many years!"
P.S. I just finally got the "Medium" reference... You crack me up!
I agree that sizing S,M,L is completely inaccurate. I was just looking at the latest issue of a well-known magazine. Size L is translated as bust sizes 40", 43", 46 1/2", 45 1/4", 45", and 47 1/2". This is only a sampling of this issue. How can a knitter rely on such variation? Do I wear a L, XL, or XXL? I don't know!
Another knitter in your corner, Annie - in case you are keeping track so you have more evidence when the issue next arises with a magazine!
Brava, Annie! I could rant, too, but won't ... but I guess I won't be buying that magazine!
--Lisa from W Mass
Couldn't agree more! I hate having to try on several sizes of the same garment (you never know what will fit...M? L? XL?), and having to knit several sizes would be even worse. I'm all for sizes that relate to reality!
Way to go Annie! As a machine sewing teacher I couldn't agree more. Inches size does matter if you want a well fitting garment. I also NEVER knit a garment in s/m/l sizing. Too much love to put into something which may or may not fit. Accurate body measurement in addition to finished garment measurement is the key.
As a crocheter who sometimes reads your blog, I say AMEN. I consider myself to be generally a size M, but it depends on the garment. The nature of the fiber, how the garment is put together, how it hangs, how form fitting it is all impact whether I should select S M or L.
What seems to be forgotten by the publisher is the big difference between clothes shopping and making your own. At the store, it is easy to try on the next size up or down to get the best fit.
Knitters and crocheters, however, want to get the right size from the start and not have to hope they picked the right SML size. We love to stitch, but who wants to redo a large chunk of their project?
I'm all for the use of measurements for pattern sizing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home