Why plus sizes are so hard to find
It’s not just the extra material, explains Virginia Postrel:
Plus sizes create a fundamental problem for manufacturers and retailers — a problem that takes statistical analysis, rather than ideology and emotion, to understand. Consider a simple example, a group of five average-height women who weigh 120, 130, 140, 200, and 240 pounds. Their average weight is 166, about the U.S. average. But a size created around that average would fit no one in the group.
As it happens, weights, unlike heights, don’t fit neatly under a bell curve:
There really are a lot of larger women, but “larger” covers a lot of different weights. The individual bars [on the graph] get smaller at higher weights. But, unlike the upper end of the height graph, they don’t quickly dwindle out of sight. The total number of women who weigh more than 200 pounds is much greater than the number of women who weigh 110 or 120 pounds, while the number of women at a specific weight — 200 versus 250, for instance — is generally fewer.
Translated into clothes, that means a lot of different sizes.
You can see those graphs here. What it boils down to is this:
At the upper weights, each new size covers relatively few people. Adding size 16 may make women who wear size 18, 20, or 22 feel a little better, but it won’t get them to buy your clothes.
Which reminds me: Do they still have half sizes anymore? I used to be married to someone who wore something like a 22½. (She’s a tad smaller these days.)
fillyjonk »
10 June 2009 · 8:29 pm
I don’t think I’ve seen half sizes in ten years, at least. Perhaps some specialty stores still carry them.
Another challenge with fitting women is that not all, say, size 16s are created equal: one woman may be a 16 in part because of broad shoulders and a somewhat-muscular physique; another may be softer and rounder. Still another may be bony and angular, like a clothes hanger, just bigger.
And don’t even get me started on trying to fit those adipose deposits on the tops of our torsos. Buying blouses in the past has reduced me to fits of tears. One line’s “Large” is apparently cut for women who are built like boards…yet another, while it will button, gaps unattractively, another line’s “Large” fits, but grudgingly, whereas still a third line’s “Large” resembles a circus tent.
Even sewing your own clothes is frustrating, as most patterns are drafted for women who are A cups (yes, even in the Size 16 range) and who have arms like new spring twigs. (I will admit to having cried over trying to fit patterns, as well).
Is it any wonder wealthy women use seamstresses? And the rest of us have complexes about our body shape and size?
Lisa Paul »
10 June 2009 · 9:07 pm
The unkindest cut of all is what some stores are calling “plus sizes”. I chronicled on my blog my “adventures” buying a dress for a Symphony Gala (the sort of thing famously attended by Social X-Rays. Don’t even ask how I got invited.) Went into Bloomies to look at the section with these kinds of dresses. Oddly, there was nothing larger than a Size 4. Now I’m not much bigger than that, but when I questioned the sales clerk, she said the “Large Women’s Sizes” were kept in the back. Apparently to save the Social X-Rays from the horror of knowing that a normal sized woman might shop there as well.
Don’t know if this is a new trend or has been happening awhile, it was the first time in years I hadn’t bought clothes at REI.
fillyjonk »
11 June 2009 · 7:14 am
Do men have the same frustrations with buying clothes? I know lots of us women complain about it but I’ve never heard a man talk about being hard to fit.
I do know on occasion my dad’s taken stuff to a tailor to have things done to make suits fit better and stuff. But I don’t know of any men who do the male equivalent of breaking down in tears (punching a wall, maybe?) because they can’t find something that fits them right.
Or maybe men don’t have the same kind of body-frustration that lots of women do. I’m sure it’s a learned trait.
And Lisa: I once walked into a boutique, had the owner size me up, give me the stink eye and say, “We only go up to 8s here.” The implication being, “Slime back out onto the street from which you came, undesirable fat person.” This was almost 20 years ago, so I suppose it could have gotten worse; I don’t know, I tend only to shop in more downmarket stores.
sya »
11 June 2009 · 9:00 am
I wish they made more pants for short people. Too many times I find a pair that looks good–except for the windsock effect.
Deborah »
11 June 2009 · 9:05 am
Half sizes, as I recall, were for short women. Today, that is called a Plus Size Petite :) But only for very expensive clothing. If you are plump, short and not rich, too bad for you.
Lisa Paul »
11 June 2009 · 1:19 pm
fillyonk, we have a boutique in our neighborhood where the owner has proudly declared that they only carry up to Size 8. She says it as she crosses her arms over what must be a Size 12 or 14 frame!
And Sya, I share your pain. You, too, must have noticed the “Petite Ghetto”. You walk into Bloomies or another shop past the “Big Ladies Clothes” and up to the “Petite Section” thinking you’ll find the same clothes sized for a smaller frame. Nope. Different clothes. Featuring lots of ruffles, bows and frills. ‘Cause we short women just want to dress like the little dolls and 8-year olds they think we are.
In later years, I’ve standardized on the few designers who actually scale their “regular” clothes for Petites: Ann Taylor, Talbots. But in later years,REI is always my go-to place.
fillyjonk »
11 June 2009 · 3:04 pm
There’ve also been a few years where the “fat chick clothes” (where “fat chick” = anyone over size 12) have been distinctly different (read: uglier) than the “normal chick clothes.” Like, the regular clothes are in nice pastels and jewel tones, the bigger sizes are puce, burnt pumpkin, deep purple, and black.
Those years, I vote with my wallet – don’t buy anything new and thank my lucky stars that I’m good at taking care of my clothes and I haven’t changed size since approximately 1989.
Jeffro »
11 June 2009 · 3:25 pm
I haven’t bought any dress clothes in years. Rarely have I had a problem with shirts when the chest and neck measurements are big enough and the sleeves are long enough. Actually finding those shirts is another matter. Mail order, no problem – but it’s kinda hard to try them on. My clothes generally come from Omar the Tentmaker, and he doesn’t have much of a local presence.
Jeans and slacks aren’t a real problem – I’d expect the male trait of less curvature makes universal sizing much easier to achieve. But I do buy a lot of t-shirts and they are irritating. I need double, triple or even four x depending on the manufacturer. The manufacturers of the more expensive varieties seem to have less worries about material costs, so their smaller sizes may actually be bigger than the “larger” bargains. I’ve bought shirts that fit my shoulders (and gut) only to barely reach the ol’ belly button. The tall sizes seem to be made for eight footers – the pockets are closer to the ol’ belly button than up on the chest, where it belongs. Some “muscle” shirts have the arm holes drooping halfway to the belt line. I guess they were expecting The Governator in his younger days to fill those out.
I suspect in the area where we males have significant variation (body trunk), proper fitting is a problem, if you aren’t slim with a v build and of average height.
CGHill »
11 June 2009 · 5:28 pm
I’ve discovered that I can get slacks from King-Size, and just about everything else from Casual Male, so I do my shopping accordingly. Said slacks are bought unhemmed, and then trimmed to match my (lack of) inseam.
(The CM tee in 4XL Tall fits me almost perfectly.)
McGehee »
11 June 2009 · 8:20 pm
I get catalogs from King-Size, but haven’t ordered from them in quite a while. My last clothing purchase, in fact, was from Cabela’s, because they’re the only place I could find that has jeans in my size that aren’t blue or black.
Lisa Paul »
11 June 2009 · 8:45 pm
McGehee,
Just say NO to white jeans!