What’s up with pants sizes??

I've been a perfect square for decades. Always 32x32. So recently it's time to get new pants. My current pair is from Amazon so I got more from Amazon but when I put them on they felt huge. I compared the new ones - exact same make/model/size and they're huge on me. So I returned them.   

Odd. 
 

I figured I was asking for trouble getting more off Amazon so I went into target. Bought a couple pair of 32 x 32 and called it a day. When I get home, I tried them on and same thing -- they were huge on me. I began to wonder if maybe I was turning into one of those old lady performers who looks normal from the waist up but have these toothpick skinny old lady legs sticking out beneath their skirt, because I went back in and 30x32 fit perfectly. And I can guarantee you I have not lost weight. Sale was over so I declined to purchase but now I knew the new size they call "my" pants so that's good. 
 

So I went to a third store, Meijer, (that doesnt have dressing rooms) and bought some jeans in 30x32 and when I tried them on a at home it was tight like ....a 30x32! I returned those, too. I got some 32x32 there and they were just crappy so that wasn't the fix.
 

I went to Costco and once again no dressing room so I come home with 3 pairs of 32x32 that fit like...

huge.

What the actual crap. 
 

So now it's time to start measuring.

Old Amazon Lee from 2 years ago (worn a couple days in a row, so they feel stretched out) 32x32 = 35x29

New Amazon Lee 32x32 = 36x30

Meijer Falls Creek 32x32 = 32x31

Meijer Levi 32x32 = 35x31

Costco Buffalo 32x32 = 34x32

Old Kohl's 32x32 = 33x31

Obviously there's more to fitment than just that measurement, like some of these like the Meijer ones are just baggy, but this is silly. It would be cool if measurements meant something. And have they ever?

Thanks for posting , I think I will measure the pants that fit best and bring a tape  to the store ?

did you check after you washed them ?

I dunno. I've been 36-34 (actually 35-34 but no one makes those) and it's been pretty spot on for a while. I just ordered a handful online and all fit great. 

Welcome to being a healthy weight in the states. I swear this the woman's vanity sizing issues are starting to drip down into the mens departments. I am 6 foot and about 190lb's but really lean from lifting and wear a 50-52 sportcoat. Large T-Shirts were perfect before now a large feels like a extra large at best and a circus tent as worst.

Pretty much stick to Carhartt and LL Bean now as they have not changed in years and they last forever with me and I destroy clothes at the office. 

californiamilleghia said:

Thanks for posting , I think I will measure the pants that fit best and bring a tape  to the store ?

did you check after you washed them ?

Didn't try washing them. None felt close enough to right that a wash would resolve the difference. 

If you are very large human, you have no business buying clothing at Costco.  Even their smallest sizes are comically large.

I just go into Meijers and buy the "comfort fit" Wranglers. They're stretchy enough to cover two sizes. I know what you mean though, I tried on two different pairs of pants before my Miata club Christmas dinner this week. The 34/32 Lees were too tight, and the 36/32ones were the same....huh?  I try to stay with the same model of jeans/pants because just a model change from the same manufacturer will change the height of the waste, and therefore, the necessary waste size. The other thing that can happen is the manufacturing plant cuts too many layers of cloth simultaneously, resulting in the top layer being bigger than the bottom.

I remember reading an article years and years ago showing the crazy differences in pant sizes across brands. I seem to recall GAP pants being a measured 38 or 40 and indicated 32 waist. It's nuts.

I legitimately think that there are a lot of pants coming over that were converted from CM to Inches, or from Inches to CM and back to Inches, but somewhere a decimal got dropped or rounded to a point that the sizes are just ballpark sizes anyway.

I think the next pair of non-dress pants that I buy are going to be from these folks: Made in USA, $29-$60 jeans and work pants/bibs

bmw88rider said:

I dunno. I've been 36-34 (actually 35-34 but no one makes those) and it's been pretty spot on for a while. I just ordered a handful online and all fit great. 

I have a pair of 35-34 Levis, but they are hard to find.

As for the disparity between the actual size and the size marked on the nametag - I suspect some stores do it on purpose, so people can think they're skinnier than they really are.    Remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry admitted he would take the tags off his pants and replace them with tags from a smaller size pair?

I am 5' 11" and a 29" inseam?  NFW.  

32 X 29s drag on the ground.  Ok, ok, a  9 year old Taiwanese girl don't English to metric easily, , but come on!!

The only difficulty I have with pants is finding them in 30 X 30.

But shirts and jackets, different story. And as often as not, I'll try a jacket on in my size that fits perfectly, grab a different colour, same size, off the same rack, and it doesn't fit me at all.

We have a clothing chain here that's supposed to sell work clothes, but is really a women's clothing store, and they have work shirts/jackets that i really like. But I have to keep going back to find one in my size that's actually my size

As  has been said, many clothing makers fudge their sizes so we can pretend we're smaller than we are. Men, too. An XL t-shirt from the 90s is like a M now.

In the costume shop we have a few quillion dress patterns, many of them duplicates for a specific reason.  If you have the same dress pattern from the 50s and today, the sizes are different.  There is a chart on the back that you use to pick your size.  If your bust, waist, and waist-to-knee measurements are X, Y and Z, then you need to cut and build it to a size 8.  Those same measurements today might call for building a size 4.

As we keep getting fatter, designers keep changing sizes.  It's almost like sizes are graded on a curve.  In the 50s, if you were 5'5" and 150 lbs, you were average.  Now if you're 5'5" and 150, you're petite.

I have also found strange disparities in men's pants.  I always wear a belt, mostly because I don't have an ass to hold up my pants, so I buy jeans and pants based on how the rest fits and looks.  If the waist is too big, it doesn't matter as much because it's the belt that makes them fit my waist.

The struggle is REAL. 

I've recently lost...80+ and counting. Apparently that's a thing to be proud of? Whatever. ANYHOW- I'm having to learn new sizing and it berkeleying sucks. 

I used to be a 38, probably a 40 but I refused to buy clothes because it was depressing. I'm down to (presumably ) a 34 waist. I don't know my inseam because I do not wear long pants. I I ASSUME it's still a 32, because that's what it was the last time I had to buy work pants like 4 years ago. T shirts are a large in Vans and Volcom for sure- that's confirmed by trying the E36 M3 on because my dumb ass was still buying XL's because I needs em long (I am ALL torso) and they came out looking like I was smuggling Ringling Bros. It kills me because I hate trying E36 M3 on. HAAAAATE. The worst part? I don't think I'm done. In theory I got about another 20-30 to go (which I'm hoping to hammer out before the 1 year mark in april) and that miiight put me into a 32? IDK. Ima start wearing yoga pants. MOOSE KNUCKLE OF DOOM. 

In reply to Mndsm :

I'm sorta lucky that my waist doesn't really change.  I've been as heavy as 265 and as light as 185 in my adulthood.  Currently at 220 and that's fine with me.

But it didn't matter if I was at my heaviest or my lightest, I still had a 36 waist.  I carry almost all my weight in my upper body.  I just have more or less belly hanging OVER my belt, but the belt is always on the same hole.

I do notice that jeans in particular follow trends in style.  I almost always wear 36x30, which was fine in the 90s when baggy pant legs were a thing.  Now that styles have become shorter, I often end up buying 36x32, and with "the fattening" of society, I'm sometimes buying 34x32 as pants become more forgiving.

Mndsm said:

The struggle is REAL. 

 

I've recently lost...80+ and counting. Apparently that's a thing to be proud of? Whatever. ANYHOW- I'm having to learn new sizing and it berkeleying sucks. 

 

I used to be a 38, probably a 40 but I refused to buy clothes because it was depressing. I'm down to (presumably ) a 34 waist. I don't know my inseam because I do not wear long pants. I I ASSUME it's still a 32, because that's what it was the last time I had to buy work pants like 4 years ago. T shirts are a large in Vans and Volcom for sure- that's confirmed by trying the E36 M3 on because my dumb ass was still buying XL's because I needs em long (I am ALL torso) and they came out looking like I was smuggling Ringling Bros. It kills me because I hate trying E36 M3 on. HAAAAATE. The worst part? I don't think I'm done. In theory I got about another 20-30 to go (which I'm hoping to hammer out before the 1 year mark in april) and that miiight put me into a 32? IDK. Ima start wearing yoga pants. MOOSE KNUCKLE OF DOOM. 

Good berkeleying work on the weight loss!!! The moose knuckle struggle is real. After trying eleventy million jeans on I actually had lucky brand fit me the best. The 221 original straight. Bought them directly from the store after trying on because even knowing 32x32 there was still enough variation where I put pairs back on the shelf.

In reply to clutchsmoke :

Lucky is 100% the move for long pants. I swear by Volcom hybrids for short pants- they've been my goto short pants for at least 20 years, and I moved into the hybrid line (basically regular shorts made out of swim material) when I moved to florida. Lucky have been my jeans of choice since forever. I am thankful there's still one lucky brick and mortar near me- since... y'know aint E36 M3 fit right anymore. 

One redeeming modern factor is that all the places I tried had spandex in the mix. Yesssss. I love stretchy pants.

I buy all my pants at Menards once a year. 10 pairs at a time. If they fit then that is awesome. If they are too loose I just eat more. If they are too tight then Kells gets to see me in my "Sexy Santa" phase.

I've had two pairs of jeans same size from same cut same brand and same store shelf measure over an inch different in waist. 

Cheaper pants don't have very good QC either.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

I've had two pairs of jeans same size from same cut same brand and same store shelf measure over an inch different in waist. 

Cheaper pants don't have very good QC either.

Like many things in life, you get what you pay for. Twice in my life i've had to convince swmbos that buying cheap E36 M3 is a bad plan and just buy the good shoes/belt/purse/whatever. I don't care how much something costs, as long as I only have to do it once. Replacing my wardrobe now is a complete anomaly, because I decided to not be a fat berkeley. 

Vanity?

Unfortunately, I have a 34" waist and 44" hips, so I have to walk past "slim", "regular", "relaxed" fits and cross my fingers that "carpenter" will fit. I'm still waiting for the correct jeans cut for me, which is "plumber."

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

I've had two pairs of jeans same size from same cut same brand and same store shelf measure over an inch different in waist. 

Cheaper pants don't have very good QC either.

That was the point I was trying to make. Same jacket, same size, totally different dimensions. And the thing is, this store considers itself to be higher quality, and they certainly let you know that with their prices. 

Not to belabor the point, but I'm at Kohl's right now and can fit into 30x32 because Spandex, except when one identical one was too tight. But 32x32 works again. Except when it's baggy. I brought the measuring tape but just doesn't matter, it's entirely dependent on each pair.