Why clothing sizes make no sense.

[tekla]

"It was pretty impressive, what they did," says sizing scholar Lynn Boorady, noting that they devised something like 27 different sizes. But, she says, "It was an obscene number, and obviously not useful for anyone manufacturing." It wasn't until almost a decade later that the National Bureau of Standards* (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology) reanalyzed the O'Brien/Shelton data and came up with an official system—one that has served as the basis for all future systems. Women's sizes were derived from bust size—with all other measurements based on the proportions of an hourglass figure—and represented by even numbers from 8 to 38. These basic sizes were combined with a T, R, or S, to indicate height, and a plus or minus, to represent lower body girth. The system was published as a commercial standard—a recommendation, legally required only for the pattern-making industry—in 1958.


http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/design/2012/01/clothing_sizes_getting_bigger_why_our_sizing_system_makes_no_sense_.html 🔗

Comments about this at the following link: (it's totally open with no moderation over there, so be prepared, no one is going to worry about 'feelings' - OK, you've been warned)...
http://www.fark.com/comments/6904610/Why-sizes-of-womens-clothing-are-meaningless-have-gone-insane?startid=74580418 🔗

[Pippa]

It used to be no problem, I was a size 16.  Standard Measure was a 42 inch chest.  Now more and more retailers state a size 16 as 40 inch's and a size 18 as 44 inch's.