Men’s pants too. And at the same store, by the EXACT SAME maker.
I have 34’s, 36’s and 38’s in different colours and materials. They all fit comfortably, and if i get different sizes in those particular styles, they’re either too big or too small.
One relevant fact about men’s pants is that the W (waist) size dates from the 1930s and 1940s when men wore high-waisted pants. The actual waist measurement was always about 3" smaller than the circumference around the hips; as the waistline of men’s pants migrated downwards to where it is today, manufacturers kept the nominal W measurement of how big the waistline would have been if it had still been higher. I generally wear pants with a 33W but the actual circumference around the belt line is always around 36". It’s not vanity sizing so much as anachronistic sizing.
There was a comedian a few decades ago who had a routine about how the aging process in men means your pants start migrating up towards your neck, but in reality it was just old men continuing to wear the kind of pants they had gotten used to as young men. It’s a common phenomenon - I work with a bunch of women in their late 50s and early 60s and they all still have feathered haircuts like women did in the late 1970s and 1980s.
I just got some women’s Levi’s and holy crap it was hard to find the size. I’m about 38-31-41 in inches and 5’9" often jeans fit in a “29” sometimes 28, or 30.
I ordered the 29. Hips fit but waist measurement was 25", what the actual fuck? Who has a 24" waist and 41" hips? Is that even possible?
I ended up with a 31 but they really are too loose everywhere. So comfortable and were cheap so I kept them but WTF, Levi’s?
Men’s pants too. And at the same store, by the EXACT SAME maker.
I have 34’s, 36’s and 38’s in different colours and materials. They all fit comfortably, and if i get different sizes in those particular styles, they’re either too big or too small.
Make it make sense, please.
One relevant fact about men’s pants is that the W (waist) size dates from the 1930s and 1940s when men wore high-waisted pants. The actual waist measurement was always about 3" smaller than the circumference around the hips; as the waistline of men’s pants migrated downwards to where it is today, manufacturers kept the nominal W measurement of how big the waistline would have been if it had still been higher. I generally wear pants with a 33W but the actual circumference around the belt line is always around 36". It’s not vanity sizing so much as anachronistic sizing.
There was a comedian a few decades ago who had a routine about how the aging process in men means your pants start migrating up towards your neck, but in reality it was just old men continuing to wear the kind of pants they had gotten used to as young men. It’s a common phenomenon - I work with a bunch of women in their late 50s and early 60s and they all still have feathered haircuts like women did in the late 1970s and 1980s.
I’ve literally purchased 2 identical pairs and they’ve still been different sizes
That’s just poor quality control.
Yes, that’s exactly what it is.
Which brand has good quality control?
Not Levi’s lol.
I just got some women’s Levi’s and holy crap it was hard to find the size. I’m about 38-31-41 in inches and 5’9" often jeans fit in a “29” sometimes 28, or 30.
I ordered the 29. Hips fit but waist measurement was 25", what the actual fuck? Who has a 24" waist and 41" hips? Is that even possible?
I ended up with a 31 but they really are too loose everywhere. So comfortable and were cheap so I kept them but WTF, Levi’s?
They’re not a fashion brand, but I’ve had good quality long lasting jeans from Eddie Bauer.
You gained weight after the first purchase, and then converted the fat to muscle in the second purchase
Schrodinger’s body composition: fat or muscle depending on what pair of pants you wear.