Vanity sizing, also known as size inflation refers to the phenomenon of ready-to-wear clothing of the same nominal size becoming bigger in physical size over time. This has been documented primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom. Vanity sizing tends to occur where clothing sizes are not standardized, such as the U.S. market.[verification needed] In the United States, although clothing size standards exist (i.e., ASTM), most companies do not use them any longer.
Size inconsistency has existed since at least 1937. In Sears's 1937 catalog, a size 14 dress had a bust size of 32 inches (81 cm). In 1967, the same bust size was a size 8. In 2011, it was a size 0. Some argue that vanity sizing is designed to satisfy wearers' wishes to appear thin and feel better about themselves. Designer Nicole Miller introduced size 0 because of its strong California presence and to satisfy the request of many Asian customers. It introduced subzero sizes for naturally petite women. However, the increasing size of clothing with the same nominal size caused Nicole Miller to introduce size 0, 00, or subzero sizes.
Although more common in women's apparel, vanity sizing occurs in men's clothing as well. For example, men's pants are traditionally marked with two numbers, "waist" (waist circumference) and "inseam" (distance from the crotch to the hem of the pant). While the nominal inseam is fairly accurate, the nominal size may be smaller than the actual length by more than an inch in U.S. sizes. In 2010, Abram Sauer of Esquire measured several pairs of dress pants with a nominal waist size of 36 at different U.S. retailers and found that actual measurements ranged from 37 to 41 inches. The phenomenon has also been noticed in the United Kingdom, where a 2011 study found misleading labels on more than half of checked items of clothing. In that study, worst offenders understated waist circumferences by 1.5 to 2 inches. London-based market analyst Mintel say that the number of men reporting varying waistlines from store to store doubled between 2005 and 2011.
- Schrobsdorff, Susanna (Oct 18, 2006) Fashion Designers Introduce Less-than-Zero Sizes Newsweek.
- Helser, Linda (2004-01-14). "VANITY SIZING ALIVE, WELL GARMENT MEASURES CONTINUE TO BAFFLE MODERN SHOPPERS". Arizona Republic (Phoenix).[dead link]
- D'Angelo, Jennifer (2002-07-15). "Flattery Gets Designers Everywhere". Fox News.
- US standard clothing sizes are no longer used by manufacturers.[dead link]
- Clifford, Stepanie (April 24, 2011). "One Size Fits Nobody: Seeking a Steady 4 or a 10". New York Times. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
- Kinley, TR (2003). "Clothing Size Variation in Women's Pants". Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 21 (1): 19–31. Subscription required.
- Sauer, Abram (September 2010). "Are Your Pants Lying to You? An Investigation". Esquire.
- "Wrong trousers on the High Street as men fall victim to 'vanity sizing'". The Sunday Telegraph. September 2011.
- Johnson, Kate (2006-05-05). "As waistlines grow, clothing sizes shrink incredibly; 0 is the new 8". Boston Globe.
- "Study questions the sizing methods in women's apparel". Web2.unt.edu. 2003-12-16. Retrieved 2013-03-14. Press release.
- Rickey, M (2007-09-22). "Vanity sizing". The Times (London).