J Crew new sizing - 000

buttercup1958 · July 2014

I don't think its a huge deal. It's not hurting anyone. I wish Jcrew would have a reasonable size chart that made sense though. I think its a good idea to have a variety of sizes big or small.

VulgarGirl · July 2014

My problem with vanity sizing is that it keeps alive the idea that a woman's self-esteem about her body is directly tied to a number on clothing. And more importantly that number needs to be small. The smaller the number says, the better you'll feel, because the better you are. You don't have a 23" waist, you are a 000 and that is fantastic. Oh, at JCPenny's you're size 8? Well at J. Crew you can be a 4. And we all know being a 4 is better then being an 8.

It's not that a 000 exists that bothers me. It's the vanity sizing that gets us there that does. Some women have a 23" waist. Fine, good for them. Other women have a 36" waist. One is not better. One is not more beautiful. They're just fucking numbers.

ohannabelle · July 2014

I would love if there were a universal standard sizing, not based on 0s and 10s that randomly change from store to store, but on actual fit points. A 36 dress or blouse would fit a 36 inch bust. A 28 waist in a skirt would actually be made to fit a 28 inch waist, etc. Because an 8 might mean absolutely anything. Just some common sense. Note that men's clothing have this practical system. And it works. Why not ours?

theartistformerlyknownas · July 2014

ohannabelle said:
I would love if there were a universal standard sizing, not based on 0s and 10s that randomly change from store to store, but on actual fit points. A 36 dress or blouse would fit a 36 inch bust. A 28 waist in a skirt would actually be made to fit a 28 inch waist, etc.
Because an 8 might mean absolutely anything. Just some common sense. Note that men's clothing have this practical system. And it works. Why not ours?

Duh Annabelle, that's too much like math, and we all know women can't do math. ;-) Maybe our sizes can just be Lucky Charms shapes.

KeptInStitches · July 2014

lolo883 said:

I would love if there were a universal standard sizing, not based on 0s and 10s that randomly change from store to store, but on actual fit points. A 36 dress or blouse would fit a 36 inch bust. A 28 waist in a skirt would actually be made to fit a 28 inch waist, etc. Because an 8 might mean absolutely anything. Just some common sense. Note that men's clothing have this practical system. And it works. Why not ours?
Duh Annabelle, that's too much like math, and we all know women can't do math. ;-) Maybe our sizes can just be Lucky Charms shapes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WfQa8q9cTE

RebeccaB88 · July 2014

It would be really nice if JCrew cared as much about the desires of plus sized customers (whom they don't make ANY sizes to fit) as they do the little tiny size 000 ones.

A size 000 asks for that size, and the company jumps to attention and makes it. A size 22 customer asks for a pair of pants that fit, and they ignore it, or hem and haw around there not being a market for it, or it's more expensive to make, or some other bullshit.

Just admit that you don't want fat chicks wearing your clothes. You'll sound like ass, but it's apparently the truth.

stef42188 · July 2014

MagicInk said:
My problem with vanity sizing is that it keeps alive the idea that a woman's self-esteem about her body is directly tied to a number on clothing. And more importantly that number needs to be small. The smaller the number says, the better you'll feel, because the better you are. You don't have a 23" waist, you are a 000 and that is fantastic. Oh, at JCPenny's you're size 8? Well at J. Crew you can be a 4. And we all know being a 4 is better then being an 8.

It's not that a 000 exists that bothers me. It's the vanity sizing that gets us there that does. Some women have a 23" waist. Fine, good for them. Other women have a 36" waist. One is not better. One is not more beautiful. They're just fucking numbers.

Yes! That's exactly what I mean. You said it more coherently and gracefully.

ohannabelle · July 2014

It is damned interesting to me that men have a standard and practical sizing system, based on actual measurements. I have never given it any thought before. 34 waist is a 34 waist is a 34 waist, no matter where they shop.

It leads me to believe that yes, the sizing is geared to influence our self image. (I am indeed smaller at Nordstrom than I am at Target.)

stef42188 · July 2014

ohannabelle said:
It is damned interesting to me that men have a standard and practical sizing system, based on actual measurements. I have never given it any thought before. 34 waist is a 34 waist is a 34 waist, no matter where they shop.
It leads me to believe that yes, the sizing is geared to influence our self image. (I am indeed smaller at Nordstrom than I am at Target.)

Absolutely. That's what I was saying earlier - FI walks into any store and buys a 30x32, doesn't even have to try it on. And then they wonder why our clothes shopping trips are longer and more complex - you have to figure out your size in each store, in addition to trying things on.

JasperandOpal · July 2014

ohannabelle said:

It is damned interesting to me that men have a standard and practical sizing system, based on actual measurements. I have never given it any thought before. 34 waist is a 34 waist is a 34 waist, no matter where they shop.
It leads me to believe that yes, the sizing is geared to influence our self image. (I am indeed smaller at Nordstrom than I am at Target.)

While this used to be true, a lot of stores have started vanity sizing mens clothes as well so that, despite the number which should correspond to measurements, they no longer do. This is partly because of vanity sizing and also because, due to the mass mass mass production that is occurring, clothes are being "stack press cut" in such a way that there can be inches of difference between the item on top of the stack and the item of the bottom (picture a cookie cutter going through fabric but when multiple layers of fabric are stacked, the item on the top ends up being true sized and the item on the bottom isn't due to fabric stretching and being displaced). Places like Old Navy and Target are running into this problem a lot- two pairs of pants, same style and everything, inches different at the waist or in the length.

My FI has run into lots of problems when he buys things that are supposed to be his size based on the numbers and they end up being two or three inches to big in the waist.

As for the main topic, an inch description for waist and length and rise would be amazing no matter what. What I really hate is Small, Medium, Large... I am not sure what those are supposed to mean and they have no form of standardization. So I just try everything on.

lovesclimbing · July 2014

I literally have jeans in sizes 4 - 14 and shirts in XS - XL, all that I currently wear. Sizing is absurd and if anyone goes to a shop just so they'll fit in a size triple 000, they're stupid.

lc07 · July 2014

This doesn't bug me at all. What does bug me are stores that refuse to make sizes for people above size 10 because they want the people who wear their clothes to be "cool" and "good looking". That's some bullshit.

krcb · July 2014

stef42188 said:

Did you guys see this? http://time.com/2970046/j-crew-000-small-size/

So J Crew is opening up stores in Asian markets and introduced a 000 since women in those markets tend to be smaller. The 000 is also going to be offered in US markets and online, and fits a 23" waist. I just thought this was particularly interesting because J Crew already has serious vanity sizing - their clothes run super big, so if they labeled them as they actually are (i.e., a 4 should be a 4 and not a 0), then they wouldn't need to introduce this size. It is kind of insulting that manufacturers think women will shop at a store just to wear the smallest size possible - so for example, if a woman is a 4 at Banana but a 0 at J Crew, manufacturers assume women will go to J Crew. It makes me think that these companies assume women are small-minded with big egos that need to be soothed.

On the other end of the spectrum, I just bought my dress in June from Allure Couture. I knew in advance that bridal sizing is "different", and I am not offended by a number on a tag, so when they took my measurements and ordered my size I wasn't shocked. In full disclosure, I am 34-27-36. Their sizing chart is here: http://www.allurebridals.com/sizechart. The sizing of an 8 is 35-26.5-38.5, which equals a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.7. I am not even sure how realistic that is. I squat heavy 3 times a week and I'm not sure I could get my booty 2.5 inches bigger. The consultant also told me that every time she has called that company to talk about sizing, she has spoken with a man - which is just a tidbit that I found interesting, that perhaps men are creating these size charts. The CEO of J Crew is a man, too.

ETA: I really did have paragraphs...

My measurements were 34-25.5-38.5 until I gained 2 inches in the booty to make it 40.5. I gained 10lbs in under 2 months (a feat in itself, I feel like)...and am now, of course, trying to drop them. Those do sound like weird measurement criteria.

J Crew new sizing - 000

Re: J Crew new sizing - 000

Choose Another Board

Search Boards