Bloody clothes sizes

[flick]

Women's clothes sizes make no bloody sense, even when you look at them in inches.

There's a top I want to buy, which the designer-maker says is:
- size 12 bust 36/38" waist 26/28" hips 38/40" ("so quite big")
- size 10 bust 34/36" waist 24/26" hips 36/38"

I just measured myself, and my measurements are 38/30/37. I wouldn't say I'm currently bigger than a "quite big" size 12 (the size 10 trousers I bought in M&S the other week are somewhat worryingly baggy about the waist, although they are casual), but I thought she might be basing the size numbers on an old pattern, so I had a look at the M&S website:
- size 10 = 34/27/37
- size 12 = 36/29/39
- size 14 = 38/31/41

So, do I assume that the designer is lying as much as M&S does, and in the same direction, or that her sizes are accurate...?

Sigh.

Comments

[shuripentu.livejournal.com]

ISTR coming across an article/post by someone who measured trouser waist diameters and compared them to the stated diameter and found they were mostly lying. :P

[ajr.livejournal.com]

Sounds about right.

Even when dealing in actual recognised measurements, the bloody things lie. I get my trousers from Gap, usually. They state the measurements in inches. But they're actually at least an inch, maybe two, bigger than what it says on the label.

Likewise, the one and only time I ordered clothes off the internet, I measured myself, picked the size based on the measurements stated, and they still didn't bloody fit right.

In short, shopping for clothes sucks. Massively.