Question about pants measurements in the USA

[Niconical]

OK, so that's not a thread title I ever thought I'd write, but I need to know, so I did

So, USA pants measurements, are they normally listed as waist x leg, or the other way around?

See this link for examples.

I could just email the seller, but I'll hopefully get a much faster response from the forum.

Thank you

 

[Owen]

You've got it right. waist x leg

 

[Niconical]

That was quick, thank you

 

[LukeA]

That was quick, thank you

We're not all shaped like NBA players or Eric Cartman. :nana:

 

[Niconical]

We're not all shaped like NBA players or Eric Cartman. :nana:

Don't you go dissing my boy Eric, he's not fat, he's big boned.

 

[kland1234]

And in the US we use inches...

Hey Nico! :wave:

kb

 

[The Black Knight]

So if every thing is measured in inches, why do I have size 30 waist pants that need a belt, and size 32 waist pants that are a bit snug?? :thinking: Am I missing something???

 

[LukeA]

Don't you go dissing my boy Eric, he's not fat, he's big boned.

Beefcake!

 

[Marduke]

I bet the size 30's are more expensive...

 

[MarNav1]

So if every thing is measured in inches, why do I have size 30 waist pants that need a belt, and size 32 waist pants that are a bit snug?? :thinking: Am I missing something???

Same thing happens to me. I think the makers are trying to short the material myself. :shrug:

 

[jzmtl]

I've heard that some makers now understating the size, so oversized buyers will be happy that they can fit into a smaller size now. Duno if there are any truth in it.

 

[LukeA]

I've heard that some makers now understating the size, so oversized buyers will be happy that they can fit into a smaller size now. Duno if there are any truth in it.

There is. I wear the next size up in Carhartt jeans than I wear in Old Navy.

It's more common with casual pants than more formal ones.

 

[Illum]

they changed the dimension scale factor sometime ago, shrinking the numbers for wide pants smaller, and bumping my phasmatodea waist size off the charts...then I got fat...around 35

Eric Cartman....lol, wheres did that Beamhead go

 

[geepondy]

I try on every pair of pants before I buy because of the wide variance of a given size. I once tried on two pairs of jeans both the same size and brand at the same store and one was way looser then the other. Don't know if poor quality control or what it is.

So if every thing is measured in inches, why do I have size 30 waist pants that need a belt, and size 32 waist pants that are a bit snug?? :thinking: Am I missing something???

 

[Sub_Umbra]

So if every thing is measured in inches, why do I have size 30 waist pants that need a belt, and size 32 waist pants that are a bit snug?? :thinking: Am I missing something???

Sometimes the measurement of both is correct and the problem may be blamed on differences in the cut of the two pairs of pants. An extreme example would be to compare a pair of low riding 'hiphuggers' to a pair of high waisted, pleated, dress pants. The waist measurement will be taken at the top of both pairs even though they are cut very differently. The same 30 inches that easily fits around your waist with one pair may definately not fit the same way a little lower down -- around your butt.

Most of the time it's more subtle than that. Much of it depends on where the 'waist' is on that cut of pant.

 

[Illum]

So if every thing is measured in inches, why do I have size 30 waist pants that need a belt, and size 32 waist pants that are a bit snug?? :thinking: Am I missing something???

some pants ride high, others ride low, some have elastic extenders built in, some doesn't

I have 34x32 pants that can comfortably accommodate anywhere from 32[Dad's size] to 36[?]...while others won't accommodate even one size higher unless I keep the button unhooked and tug it under the belt