I was cruising the world wide web today looking at some clothes. At Old Navy, I decided to look up the size difference of a 20 women's and a 20 women's plus. Because, while all my pants I am wearing are a 20W, I have some 20's from old navy that I wore about 7 years ago...before they started carrying their plus sized line. And those pants won't even zip!!!
So, remember...my current measurements are:
Waist: 39" (I measure the smallest part of my stomach)
Hips: 50"
Leg: 31"
Old Navy's measurement for women's pants (not the plus size line) are:
Waist: 39 1/2"
Hips: 50 1/2"
For Women's plus:
Waist: 41 1/4"
Hips: 50 1/2"
Thigh: 29 1/2"
So, according to that, I should be able to fit into a "regular" size 20. But this is far from true if the pants I have Old Navy, circa 2002, don't even fit. Maybe they were smaller back then? HMPH...
So, for SnG's, I looked up Lane Bryant's measurements for a size 20.
Waist: 40
Hips: 48
Thoughts?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amy -
ReplyDeleteYou're reminding me that I need to do my measurements! I know the surgeon did a few at my consult which is great because I'm sure I've lost a couple inches on this pre-op diet!
I've got to think it's because Old Navy 20's were smaller in 2002. The news talks about how much "bigger" we're getting as a society, maybe clothing brands are expanding their measurements for each size to accomodate that?!?
Or did you dry those pants?? ;-)
Why, when I read your title, did I instantly get a sick feeling like you caught me in a lie? I have issues...
ReplyDeleteNo thoughts on the sizes... I wish there was a universal size for every store.
I agree with Tiffani - why can't women's clothes be universal darn it?!?!? I would guess that your ON from a few years back were cut differently then... maybe they've adjusted what a size 20 is, because I'm fitting in them now too but back when I was this weight before, I didn't... who knows!
ReplyDeleteWell Jenny-I did probably dry them many years ago. BUT STILL!
ReplyDeleteTiffani, yes my friend..I think you might have issues :)
I remember trying on ON clothes back in 2002 or so, and I was wearing a size 18 at the time. I left feeling so discouraged because I couldn't even pull up the 20s! So, maybe they have made them more true to size. I do know that Lane Bryant is notorious for making their waists too darn big compared to the hips!
ReplyDeleteWon't it be so fun when we get to walk into ANY store and grab a pair of jeans off the rack without thinking twice? It's coming, it's coming.
My security word for my last comment was "Mingus"- he, he. My new favorite word for the day. Mingus.
ReplyDeleteRiddle me this- I have a pair 20 regular Old Navy(no stretch)jeans that I just successfully started to wear again. So I pull out some 20 regular capris from there thinking I'll add them to my wardrobe- no can do, they barely zip and give me huge muffins tops. I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't think it's a big girl thing. I've heard my thin friends complain about the same thing- but it will way nicer to say these 10's should fit me... :)
It seems many places are adjusting their clothes up, because women like to wear a smaller size. Yes, I like the fact I have a regular size 18 gap khakis, but you know what? The dang Lane Bryant pants still look better on me. I agree with Tiffani also, we need to have universal sizes!!!!
ReplyDeleteAmy I think your 2002 ON pants have shrunk! That's all!! My daughter works there and I'll have to ask her about that, she's only been there 3 years, so it was a bit before her time, but I'm sure the timing is what has made the difference.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing i can suggest is their "waist" measurement is from around your belly button, not your smallest part. B/c their 39 1/2" is how big around the jeans are at the waist, where it buttons. So if you're like me, I'm around 39 at my smallest but around 45 at my "wait and/or belly button". So people have different terms for waist.
ReplyDeletebut we must all remember, if you follow fashion and/or watch "what not to wear" no matter your shape or size, you will always have to try on a ton of brands and styles to find a good fit and it still may need a slight alter. I'm not a fan of altering (b/c I'm too lazy to find the time) so I just try to find the best fit. It's a major hassle though when you're overweight. When you're a 6 or 8 and can walk through Penny's grabbing 10 diff brands, I don't see how it'd be such a hassle.
Yeah so maybe try measuring lower down and then go with their sizes. I'm going to go in there soon b/c a co-worker (who is a 6'2" woman) told me I need TALL jeans. haha! I guess mine are a little high water but I'm not tall, I'm only 5'4". haha! I will try tall ones and see if they look better. I'm sure they will b/c Stacey says they should just grace the bottom of your shoe w/o dragging the ground. hmmm!
See Amy....I don't dry a lot of stuff for fear of shrinking. I should add that to my pros list "Ability to dry all clothes in one fell swoop!"
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other posters I think the pants shrunk AND they made them smaller back then. I feel you though..I am having the same problem with my new body. I check the size charts on the website and think DAMN! according to these measurements I SHOULD fit a 12 but my darn thighs aint having it!
ReplyDelete