Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

I've wondered about this. I've worn a 34"-34" pant for the last 20 years, and I know my waist has expanded over that time. It just didn't add up.

On fixing the meaning of the sizing, I'm reminded of someone I knew who took a sewing class in highschool. They started with patterns from the 1950s, and despite the teacher warning the students how different the sizings would be, virtually nobody managed to make clothing that they could squeeze into.

Personally I think the best solution is to make it a matter of law that the sizing be accurate. Everyone would hear that the sizing changed dramatically, there would be a brief transition, and we'd soon get used to accurate sizes. Drawing it out gradually would force people to keep on relearning their size, and overall would be more disruptive.

View on HN

A major problem with this is that the "size" generally refers to the size of the person it goes on, not the actual measurements of the clothing. For instance, a size small "boyfriend" sweater probably has similar dimensions to an XL form fitting sweater, because it's intended to be worn large.

And what if you're buying something with elastic, like leggings? Anyone can get a ruler and see they the waistband is 15 inches, but that information is completely useless if you're trying to decide which one to buy.

Sure, size inflation happens, but legislating that the dimensions of clothing be declared actually defeats the purpose of sizing, which is to tell you generally who should be wearing it.

This is not like the nutrition labels on food. You can't tell how many calories are in a food by looking at it. You CAN tell how large a waistband is with a ruler. Legislating on this would make things very difficult on both clothing manufacturers and clothing purchasers. And it's only misleading to people who don't own a ruler, which I think is a fair burden to place on the consumer.

>>Personally I think the best solution is to make it a matter of law that the sizing be accurate.

>legislating that the dimensions of clothing be declared actually defeats the purpose of sizing

He said what you said he didn't but should have AFAICS.

He didn't say that you had to measure the circumference of the waistband in a pair of trousers just the size of a persons waist that the trousers were made for.

>And it's only misleading to people who don't own a ruler, which I think is a fair burden to place on the consumer.

You seem to be suggesting that when purchasing clothing online one should buy all the clothes, measure them yourself and then try on the ones that are the right size. Or that in a store one should measure the clothes on the rack to find the right size and then try that on. As the manufacturer produces the clothing to a specific size and has already designed the article to fit a particularly body size would it not be easier if they honestly labelled the size the clothing had been made for instead.

Do you really think that fraudulent retail should be allowed because people are able to test things for themselves.

Tins of tuna with dolphin meat in that was labelled "dolphin friendly" - are they OK? People can simply do a DNA test and determine the species of animal the flesh comes from, no?

Tins of tuna with dolphin meat in that was labelled "dolphin friendly" - are they OK? People can simply do a DNA test and determine the species of animal the flesh comes from, no?

As far as I'm aware, "dolphin un-friendly" fisheries never actually chop up dolphins and can them. It's just a matter of whether dolphins are accidentally killed during the fishery.

And you'd have a hard time selling mammal meat as oily fish.

You are obscuring the difference between not declaring exact sizes and declaring false sizes.

A 36" pair of pants are meant for guys with a 36" waist. Some of these pants are meant to hang around your butt. Some are meant to hug tightly to your waist. If you measure the waists of those pants, they will differ. That does not mean the size is false.

I really hope something this trivial doesn't merit the time of Congress. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Trivial? It might seem so, but it does actually fall well within the area the founders gave congress (surely this is both weights and measurements and interstate commerce).

"Fixing" the standard size would be fraud, as they don't sell the actual product that they claim to sell.

Would you mandate your system or sizing? What if they just changed their form of measurement? Or they said recommended size? Is this a problem you are constantly facing? I don't have any difficulty buying pants - why do we need a law?

All I would mandate would be that pants labeled 10 inches would be ten inches.

You want to sell Venti pants - go ahead.

Why don't we revoke all other laws which do not affect you while we're at it?

State legislatures would also be an option.

the more state-specific/state-varying laws that exist the more of a pain-in-the-ass it becomes for businesses to operate across multiple states and especially across the entire nation

Good thing someone invented the Uniform Commercial Code to solve this problem, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

Seems to me that "fixing" sizes would put pressure on people to lose weight, in the similar way that publishing calories on menus does.

Hardly trivial when waist circumference is a predictor of heart disease.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt...

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20050414/waist-size-...

How about this: there's no legal requirement you label your products in any given unit, but if you choose 'inches', they have to be real 'inches'. You can use your own made-up unit, say 'oldnavies', instead -- just don't call them 'inches'.

(Even minarchists usually find laws -- common-law or legislative -- against commercial fraud acceptable.)

I thought there were bodies of government[1] out there that specialize is certifying companies who use 'inches' and want to mean inches. If you are not certified, I don't think there is a guarantee that what they say is 100% accurate.

[1] http://www.iso.org

Ironically, for me the problem is the opposite. I've worn the same size since college, and in the past few years noticed that I have a hard time keeping pants on.

Not to mention it might be a bit of motivation to lose some weight.

There is absolutely no reason for a law like this to ever come into effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com