Trouser and belt sizes. Mutter.

Feek · 08-08-2009, 16:47

How does this work?

I order a pair of trousers that I know will fit in size 34. I also order a belt in 34-36 to go with the trousers. I know the troggs will fit so therefore the belt should do as well.

They all turn up, the trousers fit perfectly but the belt just meets end to end.

I measure my waist and it's 40". The total belt length is 40".

WTF?

Is there some secret difference between trouser and belt sizes? Are trousers made larger so that people will think their waists aren't as large as they actually are?

What's going on here. Now I have to return the belt and get a larger one.

Streeteh · 08-08-2009, 16:50

Trouser sizes have never been accurate, i can understand that with womens sizing (10 etc) as it's not a unit of measurement whereas inches should always be inches surely?

An example would be, from somewhere like primark i have to buy 34-36 inch waist stuff, whereas in Next i can get away with 32 inch stuff. Makes no sense.

Mark · 08-08-2009, 18:08

It all depends on the following:

Where you take the measurement. Many (including me) get the waistline wrong when measuring.
How much give the trousers have in them (usually much more give than a belt will have).
How accurate the size of the trousers is. The cut of the trousers will have an impact here and so will things like shrinkage in the wash.

Feek · 08-08-2009, 18:55

Oh, I know my waistline is not measured correctly, Mark - I measure the trousers for where I'm going to wear them, ie under my belly. But the point here is that trousers with a size of 34 fit perfectly, but a belt that's supposed to do 34-36 and actually measures 40 just about manages to reach.

As far as I'm concerned 34" trousers should fit around part of my body that's 34", it doesn't matter where that is!

LeperousDust · 08-08-2009, 18:58

I think the whole fashion industry is messed up really, no one can reliable measure anything that well when it comes to clothes, this is why i like trying stuff on in shops if i'm not too sure

Will · 08-08-2009, 20:27

It's all a bit mad - sizes just don't seem uniform anymore

Tak · 08-08-2009, 20:38

I have a habit of wearing mens trousers as its easier to find something that fits but even doing that I usually have to take several sizes to the changing room as no two shops are the same :/

Serious arse about the belt Feek - would maybe the last number of holes = the "size" of the belt? even if it doesn't make sense, at least you'd then know where they measure from for belts next time

Jonny69 · 10-08-2009, 16:35

I tried on some skinny fit jeans at the weekend and I couldn't even get my stick insect legs in them. No idea who they are intended for. Men's sizes vary so much my only choice is to try everything on in the shop and invariably it's only the most expensive garments that actually fit.

Goose · 10-08-2009, 17:54

It's mad, isn't it. I tend to buy all my clothes from 1 shop these days, as they are consistently correct. I don't want to a) remember each size for each shop and b) have to try everything on when I know my size.

When I was a big lad (21 stone) I found it to be worse, but I think I was just cursed...

Jonny69 · 11-08-2009, 09:51

Just as bad when you're skinny. Everything is made for a fuller figured lad now, so most shirts have belly space which I simply can't fill. Buying a suit is an expensive nightmare

08-08-2009, 16:47	#1
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Trouser and belt sizes. Mutter. How does this work? I order a pair of trousers that I know will fit in size 34. I also order a belt in 34-36 to go with the trousers. I know the troggs will fit so therefore the belt should do as well. They all turn up, the trousers fit perfectly but the belt just meets end to end. I measure my waist and it's 40". The total belt length is 40". WTF? Is there some secret difference between trouser and belt sizes? Are trousers made larger so that people will think their waists aren't as large as they actually are? What's going on here. Now I have to return the belt and get a larger one. __________________

08-08-2009, 16:50	#2
Streeteh Vodka Martini Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kingston Posts: 862	Trouser sizes have never been accurate, i can understand that with womens sizing (10 etc) as it's not a unit of measurement whereas inches should always be inches surely? An example would be, from somewhere like primark i have to buy 34-36 inch waist stuff, whereas in Next i can get away with 32 inch stuff. Makes no sense. __________________ PSN & Live! ID: Streeteh

08-08-2009, 18:08	#3
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	It all depends on the following: Where you take the measurement. Many (including me) get the waistline wrong when measuring. How much give the trousers have in them (usually much more give than a belt will have). How accurate the size of the trousers is. The cut of the trousers will have an impact here and so will things like shrinkage in the wash.

08-08-2009, 18:55	#4
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Oh, I know my waistline is not measured correctly, Mark - I measure the trousers for where I'm going to wear them, ie under my belly. But the point here is that trousers with a size of 34 fit perfectly, but a belt that's supposed to do 34-36 and actually measures 40 just about manages to reach. As far as I'm concerned 34" trousers should fit around part of my body that's 34", it doesn't matter where that is! __________________

08-08-2009, 18:58	#5
LeperousDust Bananaman Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Liverpool/Edinburgh Posts: 4,817	I think the whole fashion industry is messed up really, no one can reliable measure anything that well when it comes to clothes, this is why i like trying stuff on in shops if i'm not too sure __________________

08-08-2009, 20:27	#6
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	It's all a bit mad - sizes just don't seem uniform anymore __________________ *No No!*

08-08-2009, 20:38	#7
Tak L'Oréal Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 9,977	I have a habit of wearing mens trousers as its easier to find something that fits but even doing that I usually have to take several sizes to the changing room as no two shops are the same :/ Serious arse about the belt Feek - would maybe the last number of holes = the "size" of the belt? even if it doesn't make sense, at least you'd then know where they measure from for belts next time __________________ The look on your face when a toddler rips out your heart and shows it to you? Priceless.... For everything else, there's FWOOSH!

10-08-2009, 16:35	#8
Jonny69 Noob Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Socialist Republik of Kent Posts: 5,032	I tried on some skinny fit jeans at the weekend and I couldn't even get my stick insect legs in them. No idea who they are intended for. Men's sizes vary so much my only choice is to try everything on in the shop and invariably it's only the most expensive garments that actually fit. __________________

10-08-2009, 17:54	#9
Goose The list is long, but distinguished Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Århus, Denmark Posts: 1,643	It's mad, isn't it. I tend to buy all my clothes from 1 shop these days, as they are consistently correct. I don't want to a) remember each size for each shop and b) have to try everything on when I know my size. When I was a big lad (21 stone) I found it to be worse, but I think I was just cursed... __________________

11-08-2009, 09:51	#10
Jonny69 Noob Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Socialist Republik of Kent Posts: 5,032	Just as bad when you're skinny. Everything is made for a fuller figured lad now, so most shirts have belly space which I simply can't fill. Buying a suit is an expensive nightmare __________________