According to http://www.vintageswank.com/sizing.html I'm a vintage (pre-1970s) size 10/12.  This is a couture size 2/4 today.  I'm OK with this; I don't care what size the tag says as long as that's as far as it goes and I can buy reasonably priced clothes that fit.

However, vanity sizing has gone so far that I cannot always do that.  The most extreme example of how far vanity sizing has gone is QVC's size chart.  QVC's 00 is a vintage size 14/16.

A vintage size 10/12 is what people used to think of as average and is not an unreasonably small size.  But, regular retailers have seemed to have given up on that end of the rack forcing slender women to spend big bucks on clothing lines that have not caved to vanity sizing to such an extent that an old fashioned 10/12 is now a non-existent 000 or 0000.

Anyone else frustrated by this?

 The rule I always went by:  cheap clothes run small, quality brands run big, or true to size.

If you want to feel skinny, try LLBean stuff, everything seems to run big!

Avatar from "The Artwork of Catherine Darling Hostetter" 

I'm a size 10/12 in old fashioned sizing.  In cheap clothes I can't find clothes small enough to fit me at all.  In expensive, designer clothes I'm a "modern" 4.

Where do you find cheap clothes that run small, Robin?

ETA:  Vintage 10 = modern expensive 4 = modern cheap nothing.  

I can't wear ANY clothes from L.L. Bean; they are all too big.  And, my point is not how small I am, it's that AS AN OLD FASHIONED (1960s) SIZE 10/12 I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY CLOTHES EVERYWHERE, but retailers like L. L. Bean make it impossible.

Maybe things have changed, but I always found that I had to go 1 or 2 sizes up, if I got jeans at Walmart, Target, those kind of places.  I rarely go there anyway, cause cheap stuff is flimsy and doesn't last long,  plus they have those horrid bright colors!

But at Lord & Taylor type stores I was often the size I expected to be,  LLBean stuff tends to run a little big, but comfortable and well made imo. 

I'm finding the exact opposite.  And, the size charts go along with my Experience.  QVC's size 00 is a 26" waist, what used to correlate to a size 14!!!

On Newbury, a 4 fits me great (and 2, 0, and 00 are too small like they should be).   At L.L. Bean (and other big chains) I'm hiking up a 4 or bunching up the waist in a belt.  And, if that's their smallest size I'm SOL.

I feel like this is off in the pucker brush.  If an old fashioned size 10 is 2 whole sizes smaller than what some companies are now calling a 00 or XS, is there not a real problem going on with sizing?!

I have a friend who shops at Chicos because she can be a size 0 there.

She's really a size 12-14.

I find size charts aren't always accurate.

Go to a place like Marshalls, find a style you like, grab it in 3 sizes and head to the dressing room!

That's what I would do, or check out the sales rack at the nice places, like Lord & Taylor, Nordstrom etc.

 Some people have their jeans tailored to fit just right, dry clean only, etc. 

ETA: I guess I misunderstood the question...

You mean I'm NOT a perfect size 4?   The Horror! 

I was hoping to have a discussion about how an old size 10 is now too small for regular retailers to bother with.  People used to "diet to an 8" back then so I can't be THAT small.

Chicos sizes are unique - a 0 isn't really even a modern 0 - like your friend found, it's a modern 12.  I'm a modern 4 (couture).  So, at chicos I'd be a...?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Yes, I can get clothes made or go to Newbury and be done lickity split for thousands of dollars.  

My point, though, is that I'm a size (by tape measure) that used to be average, not a freak of nature.  I should, therefore, be able to walk into ANY store and buy whatever I want.  Don't you think?

I guess I should have had the OP say, "I'm what was considered an average size in 1960, but now the smallest sizes big chain stores carry are too big for me.  What gives?"  

Can anyone answer that more succint question and does anyone else have a problem with the bulk of the clothing industry making what used to be an XL a Medium and pushing XS off the chart?

Had an offline friend with my measurements tell me to go to Nordstrom.  Checked out their size charts and, yes, they carry sizes that not only are small enough for me, but sizes too small for me, too...I'm not at the very edge there, and prices aren't as high as I feared.

just bought a vintage Lilly Pulitzer sweater today at an antique shop that fits perfectly.  It's not an XXS.  It's a regular old small.

If you are paying more money for clothes, you are far more likely to run into vanity sizing - people want to be told they are smaller than they are, and they are willing to pay a premium for that. Which makes ZERO sense since no one sees the size tag but the person who put it on.  Large is the new normal, and manufacturers take that into account. If you do not have a muffin top and/or are not large, you are going to have a hard time buying things off the rack that do not hang and/or have excess fabric. 

I am a thin woman with small bones and have the exact same issues. I do not enjoy shopping to begin with and it is maddening that I can't find things in my size.  I have to buy petites in tops b/c the regulars have way too much material around the waist.  I am 5'7" so this is rather annoying.  I just live w/ 'bracelet length' tops that aren't really meant to be that short in the arm.  But the XS in regular is way too big.  I have had to have size 0 suits from Ann Taylor taken in at the waist b/c they are too big. That is just wrong.  I am not emaciated.  I have C cups so it's not like I'm a bonerack.  It is completely maddening to have to hunt around and then have stuff taken in.

Get used to buying at full price and then having to pay a tailor to take it in.  I can't remember the last time I was able to buy anything in my size on sale.  But the best stores for smaller women are Nordstrom, JCrew, Banana Republic, and Ann Taylor. You may have to hit up their petites for tops.  Bottoms you'll likely have to have altered - the rise on petite pants is wrong if you are regular or tall.  Skirts may be too short in petite unless you have them let down.

Just wanted to let you know you are not crazy. Vanity sizing is very annoying. And completely unnecessary since no one but you sees the darn tag!

For casual summer tops, like tanks, Target is the way to go.  Their ribbed tanks are around $8 each and fit wonderfully - they are long enough that you don't have tummy exposed.  :-)  HTH!

Thanks, ALF - nice to know I'm not losing my mind.  Being smaller than average doesn't (well, shouldn't) automatically make me an XXS.  I had great luck in Natick at lucy and Athleta - I mostly need casual clothes that are comfortable yet well made, and they had just what I was looking for.  Not the cheapest options, but hopefully they will last a long time.

My biggest frustration is that in the same store the same pants in the same style and the same size don't fit the same. 

In response to allreadymarried's comment:

My biggest frustration is that in the same store the same pants in the same style and the same size don't fit the same. (end quote)

Yes, I have had that happen, even with my LLBean jeans, 2 exact pairs, and one of them is definitely snugger.

But, LLBean has an excellent return policy.

I don't care if they look like "mom jeans"

If you're in good shape, you'll look great no matter what you wear!

ETA:  After a certain age, even if you maintain the same weight and fit into the same size clothes, things change,  weight redistributes itself differently, no matter what you do.

Take a look around, if you don't believe me!

Clothing styles and sizes have to be reevaluated every couple of years.

Nordstrom also has a fabulous return policy. And many stylish choices that are not in the "mom jeans" category.  If you are willing to spend the $$, check out Not Your Daughter's Jeans.  They have support in all the right places. I don't need them yet, but know where to go if things do redistribute.   

Yes, different colors of the same things fit differently very often.  So, you have to try every piece on instead of assuming which is time consuming and annoying!

as for redistributing, lol, a good bra and shape wear can help. I love my new Wacoal bras, and I wear (sometimes) Yummie Tummie briefs when I feel the need to be helped out.

I'm a Nordstrom convert - thanks, ALF!!

Deleted after failing at posting a photo.

Another thing I'm loving about Nordstrom is that they put the model's measurements and the size she's wearing in the catalog photo.  It's very easy to figure out my size from that.  For instance, the Bagley Mishka (approximate spelling, lol) bathing suit I was oogling this morning from Haute (a Nordstrom subsidiary) was on a model with a 22" waist and 31" bust and she was wearing a 4.  That means that while my average size is a 0, I'd be an 8 in that item if you assume an inch per size.  If they hadn't put her measurements and size with the photo I'd guess the wrong size for myself by far!  

That's truly an old fashioned size 8, to harken back to my original post.  I'm not buying one; it's too expensive...just sayin' I wish all stores would deal more with inches than meaningless sizes.  The tape measure is unambiguous, and size charts regardless of the fact they are based on "inches" aren't right, usually.  A model's stats, on the other hand are real.

I've been shopping on Hautelook.com for about a month.  They put the models' measurements and what size they are.  They average a 24" waist (as am I) and most commonly wear a Small.  Most of those clothes have an XS option that is too small for the model.

That means that a couture XS waist size is around 22".  A QVC XXS waist size is 26".  WTH?!

ETA:  the < 2 star reviews on QVC very often say, "Way too big, had to return."

Ok, more proof that high end stuff runs true to size, and run of the mill clothes run huge.  

I'm 33, 24, 34.  I just got a size 4 Nicole Miller that fits like a glove (linen with spandex), and it comes in a 0 and 2, meaning the size 0 Nicole Miller waist needs to be about 22".  Now, compare, the QVC 00 (yes, a double zero) waist is 26".

comments?

ETA:  got two shrugs in size Medium from Nordstrom that fit perfectly; it was the size the model was wearing, and they also came in Small and XS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Jessica Simpson's line is more evidence - the 23" waisted model wears a size 6.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had I my fling with "Lord and Taylor" back in the day, size 2, size 4...

I enjoyed every minute of it, however I wish I had put the money in the bank and shopped at thrift shops instead, lol.

I'm a Marshalls and LLBean girl now!

ETA: Some of us like our clothing to fit loose (no matter what size it is!) with a nice belt, ala "Annie Hall"

LLBean is great, but if you are a size 2 or 4 [a real 2 or 4], LLBean does not carry that size.  I can only buy fleece and winter coats from Bean; everything else is too big. 

And the 2 and 4s in Marshalls tend to be on the "hoochie" side, IMO.

Ok, for the love of Pete the whole point of my thread is that I'm sized out of the cheap stuff.  I'm a size 4 - 6 in high end, expensive clothes, and other stuff marked a size 0 or even 00 is TOO BIG, AS IN HANGING OFF ME.

THE MODELS WHO WEAR A SMALL IN HAUTELOOK HAVE A 24-25" waist like I do.  Those clothes come in a XS that is TOO SMALL FOR THE MODEL, and too small for me so I can't be THAT skinny.

LL BEAN'S SMALLEST CLOTHES ARE TOO BIG FOR ME BECAUSE A 2 isn't a REAL 2 anymore; they have shifted the scale so that an old Large is now a Medium.  That means that an XS is an XXS which doesn't EXIST.

WHY IS MY POINT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!?!

CALVIN KLEIN MAKES CLOTHES THAT ARE TOO SMALL FOR ME - they are 0s. CHEAP, MASS MARKETED CLOTHES MARKED 00 HANG ON ME.  SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE,

NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS MY TOTALLY LOST POINT SO NEVER MIND!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, Marshall's is OK if you can find the high end designers who haven't caved to the masses by shifting sizes such that a Large is a Medium and so on.  I did buy 3 CK dresses there this year, one of which I posted in LoseIt, the white one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I totally get it kar. I think some people don't or are trying to make a point that you dont' need to spend a ton on clothing. You don't need to spend a ton on clothing, but if you are not fat and the clothes in cheap places DO NOT FIT w/o significant alterations [which cost more than the clothing] then you do need to buy quality.  I have suits that are 10 years old. They were not cheap, but I don't fluctuate in the weight department and I buy classics. So it's worth it to me to spend $300 or more on a suit b/c I am going to wear it for TEN years. If your weight fluctuates or you like to buy a lot of trendy things, spending that on clothes does not make sense b/c you'd break the bank.

People don't get not shopping every weekend. I don't do it. In fact, I hate shopping, precisely b/c NOTHING fits.  I have to go to expensive places b/c it is INSANELY expensive to alter a jacket if you are doing more than taking in the torso a little - and then it throws all the proportions off.  Larger folks constantly tell me 'oh, you are so lucky to be small". Yeah, come shopping with me and find NOTHING that fits, or I find expensive, full priced items that need to  be altered to fit.

Vanity sizing is out of hand. I should not have to try every single item of clothing on before buying. I should be able to say, these are my measurements and be able to have the item fit, with mayb minor alterations needed on each one.  I should not need to have EVERY single skirt and pair of pants taken in a good 2 inches b/c the majority of people have NO waist  and I have to have the waist taken in on EVERY single skirt and pair of pants that I buy [which I do - to the tune of $15-25 per item depending on whether it is pants or a skirt].  This is why I shop maybe 4  times per year. It is aggravating and expensive b/c every.single.thing has to be altered.