Whether I am in the hairdressers or a bar, the inevitable question arises... "so what do you do?"

Ensuing which, after some preliminary questions regarding my label, invariably the conversation turns to laments on how different the sizing on clothes is these days making it impossible for the average consumer to choose their appropriate size and stick with that size from one retailer to the next.

Rather than discussing the ins and outs of how sizing and fit is achieved from a technical pattern-cutting viewpoint, I agree entirely with their views whilst subconsciously trying to size them up in my size chart in comparison to the retailers they mention. I have found that educating someone, outwith the fashion industry, in the art of pattern-cutting and fit is as beneficial as explaining to a camel not to spit in peoples faces! It simply doesn't work.

Propelled by this hot topic and from my own customer queries, I launched into my own investigation. Armed with a tape measure I have scrutinised high street retailers' garments and compared them against their own size charts. The astonishing fact is that, for some of the suppliers targeting the 25+ consumer, their sizes are so generous that they allow customers to fit into garments two sizes below their actual recommended size thus leading to the phenomena of 'Vanity Sizing'.

With this in mind, I questioned the legality of whether this was classed as mislabelling and if there were any regulations which suppliers were governed by with sizing in regards to the amount of Ease one can allow.

Further suggested points for the article...

The conclusion:

1) the average size 16 with wider girth vs size 12 with 1950 hourglass figure.

2) the new voluntary system introducing icon not size labels as we know it with option for set parameters ex Bust 86-90.

3) the loop hole - no regulations setting a maximum ease allowance

4)ease and bias leading to vanity sizing regardless

5)choices- recognise the change in sizes and either re-educate the masses or join the vanity size craze.

Nick Fenner of Fladgate Fielder has provided us with further information;

Standard British Sizes 8-10-12-14 etc were based on a 1951 survey and imperial sizes. Those standard sizes are  generally  considered to be outdated because the size and body shape of the average female have changed. While some labels have stuck rigidly to the standard sizing, there has been a lot of interpretation (sometimes referred to as vanity sizing)   going on. As the clothing sizing standards are not themselves compulsory and are designed to help customers and retailers choose clothing that fits, being generous with size descriptions is unlikely to land retailers in serious difficulty.  But note;

1. Sales of goods law says that goods must comply with their description. If a retailer refused to refund a customer in respect of a garment which was inaccurately labelled size wise they could demand their money back.

2. The Trades Descriptions Act 1968 makes it a criminal offence to mis-describe a product " to a material degree". That said, I doubt Trading Standards officers are going to be spending too much time investigating some generous sizing when it is so prevalent on the highstreet and the sizing standard is known to be open to interpretation. Also customers are not being mislead unless they are persuaded to buy clothes that do not fit-hardly a good selling strategy.

All this uncertainty is  set  to change  over the next year or two with the introduction of a new European standard ( BS-EN 13402-3) .  The actual number is going to go and be replaced by a pictogram of a lady with metric numbers denoting a 'primary' and 'secondary'. For size 14, there would be an arrow pointing to the bust saying 90-94. Depending on the design it could also point to the waist or the hips. Here is a link which shows some examples and how the measurements are to be taken: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/download/bodydim.pdf

Here is a link to a 2003 BSI press release:

http://www.bsi-global.com/News/Releases/2003/October/n3f9953e58c3df.xalter

The new BSI standard will still be voluntary but when applied will leave less room for interpretation as the pictogram will contain the referable measurements in cm's.  What manufacturers should not do is simply take what they have been selling as a size 12 and use the metric conversion of the British standard without referring to the corresponding  BS-EN 13402 body dimension.

I expect there will be a transition period when garments are labelled with a number and the new pictogram.

Nick Fenner provided fashioncapital with further information on theh increase in average size since 1952.

Nick Fenner
Fladgate Fielder
Direct: 0207 462 2276
Switchboard: 0207 323 4747

Charlotte Keating