Jeans from the 80s vs Jeans from today
Replies
-
While vanity sizing is a thing, these aren't apples to apples comparisons. Even numbers and odd numbers for sizing indicate missy vs juniors. They are cut differently, one for a woman’s body and one for a teen. No matter if your weight stays the same, it's more likely than not that your body will change shape as you age and you won't fit items from a decade ago. As they say, ”thing may have shifted during flight.”
And different brands will fit you differently than others. Because of cut, style, angles, etc. I can’t fit J Crew pants. I have to size way up at Banana Republic. Loft I size down. Designer stuff I have to go way up, except for Kate Spade, etc.
They are not all apples to oranges. Some of them ARE apples to apples. You are welcome to come over to my house and see my closet. I have clothes from the 90’s from banana republic and jcrew and gap. I still fit in them comfortably. If I shop their same size now, they would swim on me.
They HAVE reduced their sizes.
I guess vanity sizing works psychologically on some as there are people here disputing this is a thing and in complete denial. A size 2 now is really a size 00. They have gone down two sizes in the last 20years. So if you are a size “2”, it means you are a six really.
I try on jeans everywhere I go...cheap, pricey, mid range. Just to see what size I may be now (60 pounds down). In general, I am a size 4, sometimes a 6, depending on the cut of the jeans I guess. But I feel pretty confident saying I am a size 4 (dresses also are primarily a 4). I went to Old Navy the other day and tried on shorts in a size 4 and they hung off of me. Even a 2 was baggy. There is no where in this universe that I am actually a size 2 haha. So weird how they vanity size. I mean, I know I'm not a 2. I remember what a size 2 looked like many years ago. Wearing a size 2 doesn't make me feel any better about myself! Who are they trying to kid?6 -
it will depend on the rise. low, ultra low, mid, high waist. in the eighties, we had one rise, 'high' which acutally sat at your waist. a low will sit around your hips which are several inches wider than your waist so the 'waistband' must be bigger to accommodate the hip. so no, waist size will not be accurate.
2 -
You can pull 3 pairs of jeans from different brands off the rack today and they'll all fit differently. For women. My husband can wear any pants marked with his waist, never tries on anything!
A waist number like 32 refers to the size of waist tbey are designed to fit, not the fabric measurement. There is a difference. Anyone who sews will understand!
This makes so much sense and it never occurred to me before (not a sewer)3 -
I buy a lot of vintage clothes (not just jeans) and have gotten used to the idea that I am still plus sized in vintage, wearing everything from 12-18...even though in "modern clothing" I can often wear 8 and always 10. It's nuts.
Jeans especially though...the REAL original mom jeans are so triangle shaped. The ones you get now at Madewell and such, much comfier even though they have a similar look. Definitely not the same cut (thankfully)!1 -
GOT_Obsessed wrote: »Oh yeah, and those old jeans did not stretch lIke they do thsee days. You often layed on the bed to pull them on. Lol
I never laid on the bed to put on my jeans. It's quite beyond me how some people find it comfortable to wear pants that tight. I have never understood that. I despise the stretchy jeans sold today - I want 100% cotton denim jeans. Those are the best, for me.4 -
I've given up on sizes nowadays. I only buy clothes from sites who offer free unlimited returns. When I go to a store, regardless of the brand, I grab 3 sizes in each piece of clothing I want to try on (the one I think is right, one bigger and one smaller ). I have mediums to xl in my closet (sometimes all from the same store!). I have vintage size 14 dresses that fit me like a modern medium. It gives the dressing room attendants more of a headache but it only takes me about 5 extra minutes to try on a few more sizes anyway.3
-
doittoitgirl wrote: »I've given up on sizes nowadays. I only buy clothes from sites who offer free unlimited returns. When I go to a store, regardless of the brand, I grab 3 sizes in each piece of clothing I want to try on (the one I think is right, one bigger and one smaller ). I have mediums to xl in my closet (sometimes all from the same store!). I have vintage size 14 dresses that fit me like a modern medium. It gives the dressing room attendants more of a headache but it only takes me about 5 extra minutes to try on a few more sizes anyway.
I do this too. My closet is a mishmash of sizes and everything fits. When I go jeans shopping is probably the worst because I grab an 8, 10, and 12 in each style to see what works best and even with the same cut and brand you can't be totally sure sometimes!
0 -
It may not be “vanity” sizing, but designers and manufacturers are having to make sizes larger so they actually fit the majority of the population. If we go back to when a 12 is like an 8 today, how would most people find clothes to wear? The most popular size is now a 12. Would that be like a 16 from the 80s? So what’s a 14 or 16?
I have lost 60 lbs and have started trying on size 8 pants/jeans to see if I’m down another size. Most are fitting well. Today I tried on a 8/29 jeans and they were too big! Eye rolll. There is no way I should be wearing a size 6! I’m still overweight by 3.8 lbs according to the BMI charts. It actually made me annoyed.4 -
Today I wore an old denim skirt that I had put away when I gained weight back in the late 80’s. It’s a 16 and the waist was a bit tight even though the hips fit smoothly. I have another denim skirt in the same style that is fairly new. It’s a 12 and fits the same as the older 16.4
-
I think the biggest difference from 80’s jeans to currrent jeans is that they added stretch (Lycra, elastane, etc.) I’m wearing size 2 jeans and I’m 47 and have had three kids. I’m also about 20lbs heavier than the 80’s when I was wearing juniors 5/6-7/8. Stores have recently started carrying all cotton jeans again. I’m sure I will be a wearing a bigger size in those. The most important thing to remember is no matter what the size tag says the item should fit you well. Who cares what size it is if you look great?! I do miss being able to gauge progress via size though. Sigh.2
-
I can only speak about men's jeans, which have always been sold by waist and inseam. The waist measurements have always been approximate at best, since even standard fit jeans sit not at the waist but just above the hips. But yes, I'm convinced that jeans run at least 2 inches larger for the stated waist measurement than they used to. My true waist measures about 33 inches, but 32 inch Levi's are very loose on me -- that's what I'm wearing right now, and they'd fall off without a belt -- and I can comfortably fit into 30 inch. I never bothered measuring my waist when I was younger, but when I was about the same weight as I am now 30 years ago, 32 or 33 inch jeans fit me just right.
I bought 2 pairs a few years back of 505 40 W. one pair sat comfortably around my waist and thighs... the other felt like they were going to crush my thighs for at least a few hours till I got them to stretch out.0 -
32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
this.. and the default fit of jeans is different now too... Most fit lower down between natural waist and hips, which would be a larger circumference measurement for the same size person than the old higher-waisted 'mom jeans'.5 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.8 -
32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.
The waist size is difference is pretty big actually. There is nearly an inch on each side. The picture does it no justice.0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »It may not be “vanity” sizing, but designers and manufacturers are having to make sizes larger so they actually fit the majority of the population. If we go back to when a 12 is like an 8 today, how would most people find clothes to wear? The most popular size is now a 12. Would that be like a 16 from the 80s? So what’s a 14 or 16?
I have lost 60 lbs and have started trying on size 8 pants/jeans to see if I’m down another size. Most are fitting well. Today I tried on a 8/29 jeans and they were too big! Eye rolll. There is no way I should be wearing a size 6! I’m still overweight by 3.8 lbs according to the BMI charts. It actually made me annoyed.
I agree with this, and my sister can wear a 0 or 2 and has mostly been underweight, but she is tall. My other sister wears a 4 at 125 lbs. My cousin wore an 8 at 160. How small are you, unless you are short, if a zero doesn't fit? Why would there need to be a lot of sizes for people who are underweight and at an unhealthy size which is just as unhealthy as being big. I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) I really don't see the vanity sizing at all. I mean the people in my life who wear 0, 2,and 4s can't really be much thinner healthfully.5 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) .
wat. Yeah, anyone larger should be covered in a king size blanket. I don't think so.
Wow...1 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
11 -
seltzermint555 wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »ITUSGirl51 wrote: »I mean even Lane Bryant only goes up to a 26/28. ( They shouldn't even go up that higj.) .
wat. Yeah, anyone larger should be covered in a king size blanket. I don't think so.
Wow...
I am big. I just think it is a wake up call to not fit in sizes that are plus size and it would help some bigger people to not experience the suffering of being big if they stopped at a smaller size and get the wake up call sooner. I got to a 26/28 and knowing I couldn't get any bigger halted my weight gain. I just wish that would have happened sooner. It is a lot of pain to be over 300 lbs0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »I can only speak about men's jeans, which have always been sold by waist and inseam. The waist measurements have always been approximate at best, since even standard fit jeans sit not at the waist but just above the hips. But yes, I'm convinced that jeans run at least 2 inches larger for the stated waist measurement than they used to. My true waist measures about 33 inches, but 32 inch Levi's are very loose on me -- that's what I'm wearing right now, and they'd fall off without a belt -- and I can comfortably fit into 30 inch. I never bothered measuring my waist when I was younger, but when I was about the same weight as I am now 30 years ago, 32 or 33 inch jeans fit me just right.
I bought 2 pairs a few years back of 505 40 W. one pair sat comfortably around my waist and thighs... the other felt like they were going to crush my thighs for at least a few hours till I got them to stretch out.
Check the labels for where they were made. Levi's are no longer made in the US, but all over. I have Levi's made in Mexico, Egypt, Honduras, and Bangladesh, and they all fit differently. (And are of different quality. The zipper broke on the Bangladesh-made jeans a couple of weeks after I bought them.)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MistressSara wrote: »Here's another complication: I once saw a video of a stack of garments being cut- the pieces on the bottom came out a different size than the pieces on the top. It's an expected variation.
Yep. I experienced this at Ann Taylor. I tried on a pair of jeans that fit me perfectly, so I grabbed a second pair of the exact same style and size. After I got home I put on the second pair and it was WAY to big on me. I wasn't happy heading back to the store to return them.3 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »MistressSara wrote: »Here's another complication: I once saw a video of a stack of garments being cut- the pieces on the bottom came out a different size than the pieces on the top. It's an expected variation.
Yep. I experienced this at Ann Taylor. I tried on a pair of jeans that fit me perfectly, so I grabbed a second pair of the exact same style and size. After I got home I put on the second pair and it was WAY to big on me. I wasn't happy heading back to the store to return them.
Same thing happened to me at Ann Taylor Loft! Except the pair that fit me must have been from the "bigger" batch. When I went back to grab more of the same size, they were too snug.
0 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.2 -
I remember noticing the size issue when I was a kid in the 80"s though too. I remember very specifically realizing that name brand pants were much smaller than cheap ones, which is funny, because now it seems to be the other way around.1
-
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.
Yes, these are US 8.0 -
ITUSGirl51 wrote: »
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
I don't deny vanity sizing is a thing. But I also don't believe a size 6 necessarily means you need to diet. I'm 5'2, 115#, size 8 jeans. I'm well within the healthy BMI range and fairly happy with my stats. (apologies for the crappy pic!)
Are those US 8 jeans? I’m 5’8” wearing size 8 jeans and I’m not as slim as you. A UK 8 is like a US 4.
Yes, these are US 8.
I own a random size 8 dress that fits me too. And I'm currently a size 0. So what!
I'm 5'2" and the most I've ever weighed, aside from pregnancy, was about 125. Even then I was never a size 8.
Not to call *kitten*, but... never mind. Yup, *kitten*.
6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »32W is supposed to be a measurement, not like the size 6/8/4 you often see in women’s clothing that change brand to brand. Have you tried measuring the waist band to see if it is in fact 32”?
This was my thought as well. Vanity sizing usually applies to sizes (6/8/4) not to inch measurements. That's weird, although in the picture the waists of the jeans don't look much different.
Nope, vanity sizing is about the same in the 'waist measurement' sizes as well: this image is from an Esquire magazine article from 2010: http://ckthomascustomapparel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/vanity.jpg
0 -
Why people that post here are in denial that this is a real thing is beyond me. I don’t care that I’ve seen sizes shrink per se. but it is kind of funny. No offense, but today’s size 6 means you probably are on a diet.
Or you're more than 5 feet tall. I see plenty of people that are a size 6, 10, or even 14 that don't need to diet. But they're 5'8, 5'10 or 6'1. Not everyone is meant to weigh 100lbs. Health BMI for me (haven't been there in years! but it exists) is 170 lbs. I'd still be at least a size 12, and I wouldn't be on a diet.
If this was true, there would only be size 0 in the petite department. But petite clothing is for 5'4" and under. Plenty of 00's, 0, 2, and size 4 in the regular ladies department for women 5'5" and taller.
0 -
Also, my point is not that all size six women need to diet. My point is that vanity sizing is a real thing, so whereas a size six used to mean you were as thin as could be, now you will find *some* women wearing a size six on a diet. And not because they are anorexic.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions