The sizing issue myth

[Anonymous]

This is SUCH AN INVALUABLE PICTURE!!! this is the picture that explains everything!!

The problem with that photo is we don't know if they wear their proper size or larger. I remember in the Navy, we were going into the warehouse one by one and the Quartermaster Sqt was looking at us, deciding in his mind what would be the correct size for us and throwing the clothes in our face. Some sailors were trying pea coats that were on the floor until they could find one they liked. Nobody was looking at sizes or worried for proper fit. It was all about comfort.

Citing the Government ain't helping your case.

Ha ha!
I am currently researching the subject and have gathered some valuable information. I will be citing the Army and several other official bodies and Organizations.

The studies mentioned above by Jeff are very important too.

Let's make this thread very informative.

 

[Robman]

With respect to sizing if you are a sports fan take note of the size of athletes today versus even the 1970s. Baseball, football, basketball, etc. these fellows are significantly larger today. NOT FAT, larger.

For those in your 40s, think back to your high school football team. They would have been crushed by today's players.

 

[Anonymous]

With respect to sizing if you are a sports fan take note of the size of athletes today versus even the 1970s. Baseball, football, basketball, etc. these fellows are significantly larger today. NOT FAT, larger.

The training methods could have been different before, and there were not as many pills and steroids back then. Nowadays most athlets are lifing weights whereas I don't think they did in the old days.

 

[les_garten]

With respect to sizing if you are a sports fan take note of the size of athletes today versus even the 1970s. Baseball, football, basketball, etc. these fellows are significantly larger today. NOT FAT, larger.

The training methods could have been different before, and there were not as many pills and steroids back then. Nowadays most athlets are lifing weights whereas I don't think they did in the old days.

OK, look, are you a Flat earther?

Like I said in the original post, you REALLY need to read some Chuck Darwin. He was pretty fly in his day.

Chuck observed two HUGE things.

1) Evolutionary changes, mainly evolutionary changes due to the environment. He looked at the type of resources and the availability of these resources, and how they changed species.
2) How quickly Evolutionary changes take place. It doesn't take millions or thousands, or even Hundreds of years.

Here's something to peruese:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

That article references ma' Dawg Chuck's work, but doesn't give him his propz!

 

[tater]

Taller? Sure. The Masai are tall, too. They'd still likely fit a ww2 sizing.

Funny aside: I'm NOT tall, I'm 5' 6". We stopped at a gas station somewhere between Nairobi and Tsavo, and went to use the toilet around back. The men's room had a trough urinal. The top lip of the trough was high enough I had to take a couple steps back to piss.

 

[Robman]

Platon, we lifted weights back in my day and with exception of the heavyset people/chubby people there were not a lot of lean and mean 200 plus pounders in high school. Today is much different.

Weight training will certainly make one's frame thicker but the majority is controlled by genetics. Some of the best muscle builders are old fashioned body weight squats and pull-ups which were done by men of yesteryear.

 

[bords]

Nothing really to do with Darwin or natural selection as far as I know. Natural Selection involves a random mutation being expressed as a trait that is beneficial, that mutated example lives longer (because of this benefit) and produces more offpring, eventually animals with that trait take over the one's without it. The only way NS could select for height is if genetically taller people were consistently having more offspring vs. shorter (eg shorter people dying earlier vs taller, culture where height = more sexy time)

IMO there really isn't any positive human selective pressure now (mabye still in third world), think about who is having the most offspring, is it the smartest, strongest human examples? NS has already weeded out the bad genetics that cause death before or during child bearing years. Most of the bad stuff left kills people after prime child bearing age so no selection pressure.

I thought the height and weight increases were due to better nutrition/medicine/lifestyle. Sorry, we are better fed (in some cases much better) and got bigger in general because of it, no Darwin necessary.

There are a bunch of papers out on the net, like anything else you need to consider the source. I started reading one but soon realized the author was a total whack job.

 

[m444uk]

OK, look, are you a Flat earther?

It would appear BK indeed are :shock:
Major clothing manufactures use commercially available market specific sizing charts. These are updated regularly to take account changing proportions. It is not just a question of making more size L clothing !

Smaller jacket outfits tend to get by by fiddling around with their patterns until a satisfactory compromise fit is reached.

 

[Rutger]

I thought the height and weight increases were due to better nutrition/medicine/lifestyle. Sorry, we are better fed (in some cases much better) and got bigger in general because of it, no Darwin necessary.

That's the cause alright.

Chuck Darwin?

 

[bords]

I don't think Darwin is involved at all unless that's what it says on the nametag of the guy serving you your baconator.

 

[watchmanjimg]

Five years of selling men's clothing taught me that the chest measurement is but one factor in determining correct fit, and it has generally been my experience that vintage military garments appear to have been designed with narrower shoulders and smaller overarm/upper-arm measurements than what we expect nowadays within an indicated size range. Accordingly, I definitely feel that average body dimensions influence the way clothing is constructed--and this changes with the times. With that in mind, doesn't it make more sense to use subjective comfort as the criterion rather than arguing that every jacket marked as a particular size should fit every man of that chest measurement? Whether modern men are built differently than those of earlier generations is an interesting question, but I'm not sure it has any bearing on how a specific jacket fits a given individual.

If anything, for me the "myth" is the notion that one can speak in absolutes about this subject aside from the following: a jacket either fits or it doesn't.

 

[m444uk]

Most of the bad stuff left kills people after prime child bearing age so no selection pressure.

There is an evolutionary benefit in extended life beyond reproductive age. Grand parents, particularly in traditional societies, play a role in childcare. If 3 generations are alive at the same time their genes have a greater chance of being passed on assuming sufficient resources.

 

[les_garten]

Nothing really to do with Darwin or natural selection as far as I know. Natural Selection involves a random mutation

This is where you missed the point I think.

Selection involves more than Random mutations. Environmental Factors are greatly involved in this.

And I'm not just referring to only natural selction or genetics here. Those are at work, but environmental and behavioural factors are at work as well.

Environmental Factors caused those birds beaks to change. It was not a Random mutation. Random mutations are slow evolutionary processes. Environmental pressures are much quicker. Darwin showed that Bird's beaks can change very fast because of the type of food available. And these were Genetic changes with new species being produced very rapidly.

Some of these would be(there are tons more):

1) Steroids added to the food supply. It really is true that HS girls of today look a lot different from High school girls of yesterday.
2) Food additives(intentional and unintentional), in my opinion, we have no idea to the extent of how this is affecting us.
3) Affluent societies attracting variations within the Human Genome to relocate and breed changing the gene pool
4) The ease of mobility of mankind. It's easier for gene pools to migrate and interbreed changing the gene pool. Think how hard it was to travel across the planet from let's say 1880-1945 compared to 1980-2012.

So if you're a clothing builder making molecule by molecule reproductions of 1920-1930 patterns for people in 2012, don't be surprised if there are problems encountered.

Today, lets see a Coat manufacturer try to succeed assuming a size 42-Tight is a huge size.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, look, are you a Flat earther?

Like I said in the original post, you REALLY need to read some Chuck Darwin. He was pretty fly in his day.

Chuck observed two HUGE things.

1) Evolutionary changes, mainly evolutionary changes due to the environment. He looked at the type of resources and the availability of these resources, and how they changed species.
2) How quickly Evolutionary changes take place. It doesn't take millions or thousands, or even Hundreds of years.

Here's something to peruese:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-taller

That article references ma' Dawg Chuck's work, but doesn't give him his propz!

I am not against Darwin's theories. I agree that there was evolution of the human body to a certain extent. It doesn't mean that a 1940s jacket won't fit anyone today.

I have gathered specific statistics, relevant studies and hard evidence which I will try to find the time to show you.

The bottom line is, BK has drawn patterns according to measurements taken from original WWII.
These were made exactly and remain unaltered to preserve authenticity. However, if one customer comes and can't get good fit from the regular size jackets, we can adjust the chest, shoulders, sleeves or whatever he wants. It's easy and most of the times done free of charge. BK has delivered several custom sized jackets.

One more thing I must say is that there are also cultural differences in sizes. Americans prefer roomy and comfortable, while e.g. Italians like trim and tight fit.

For example, if you wear shirt of US size Medium and try on an Italian Medium shirt, you will most likely feel so uncomfortable that you will throw it away. It's also a matter of what you are used to.

 

[m444uk]

Environmental Factors caused those birds beaks to change. It was not a Random mutation. Random mutations are slow evolutionary processes. Environmental pressures are much quicker.

No, random variation and change in the genetic code followed by non-random natural selection. The process of non-random selection filtering the random input from mutation. :geek:

 

[Skip]

The bottom line is, BK has drawn patterns according to measurements taken from original WWII.
These were made exactly and remain unaltered to preserve authenticity. However, if one customer comes and can't get good fit from the regular size jackets, we can adjust the chest, shoulders, sleeves or whatever he wants. It's easy and most of the times done free of charge. BK has delivered several custom sized jackets.

One more thing I must say is that there are also cultural differences in sizes. Americans prefer roomy and comfortable, while e.g. Italians like trim and tight fit.

For example, if you wear shirt of US size Medium and try on an Italian Medium shirt, you will most likely feel so uncomfortable that you will throw it away. It's also a matter of what you are used to.

I think you just nailed it Platon. my wife wears a size 6 but over the last ten years shes noticed the fit has become fuller, but the label still a size 6. So the same size now swims on her like a size 8 but its labeled a size 6. Whereas a european import, a size 6 fits her like a size 6.

 

[les_garten]

OK, look, are you a Flat earther?

Like I said in the original post, you REALLY need to read some Chuck Darwin. He was pretty fly in his day.

Chuck observed two HUGE things.

1) Evolutionary changes, mainly evolutionary changes due to the environment. He looked at the type of resources and the availability of these resources, and how they changed species.
2) How quickly Evolutionary changes take place. It doesn't take millions or thousands, or even Hundreds of years.

Here's something to peruese:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-taller

That article references ma' Dawg Chuck's work, but doesn't give him his propz!

I am not against Darwin's theories. I agree that there was evolution of the human body to a certain extent. It doesn't mean that a 1940s jacket won't fit anyone today.

I have gathered specific statistics, relevant studies and hard evidence which I will try to find the time to show you.

The bottom line is, BK has drawn patterns according to measurements taken from original WWII.
These were made exactly and remain unaltered to preserve authenticity. However, if one customer comes and can't get good fit from the regular size jackets, we can adjust the chest, shoulders, sleeves or whatever he wants. It's easy and most of the times done free of charge. BK has delivered several custom sized jackets.

One more thing I must say is that there are also cultural differences in sizes. Americans prefer roomy and comfortable, while e.g. Italians like trim and tight fit.

For example, if you wear shirt of US size Medium and try on an Italian Medium shirt, you will most likely feel so uncomfortable that you will throw it away. It's also a matter of what you are used to.

I understand why you make your Jackets the way you do. There really is no other way to make an "accurate A-2" pattern.

The argument I'm making is you make it sound like the "Pattern" for Americans has not changed and it is a myth. That a WWII 40 guy is the same as a 2012 40 guy. Here's your post snippet:

There is no such thing that because men where shorter and smaller in wwii the jackets the jackets fit different than they should.
If your chest measures 40 and you try on a wwii size 40, it should fit, period. Thank God they haven't changed the inches since wwii.

I personally think there's plenty of evidence shown in this thread alone that this is not correct.

It's Genetic
It's Environmental
It's Behavioral

Now an option for a guy like you that could be leveraged would be a "Period Correct" line of Jackets, like you are doing now.

As well as an updated line, kinda like G&B does. Except with a twist that they are not doing.

Have the same quality Jacket in your "Up to date" line of clothes.

It seems that G&B, or at least it seems to me, is that their "up to date line" is a lower end line.

I'm not talking Full blown Wilson Leather kinda cut stuff. Just a more relaxed line with the same quality of product. I'm running a thread along these lines right now.

This would require some investigation to be done and some prototyping to be done.

[Put on Flame Suit]
Ok, Flame on Johnny Blaze!

It looks to me, that the Vast majority of guys who buy these Jackets can't fit into a WWII pattern properly. This is evidenced by how those vintage pictures look of those skinny guys from WWII in those 1940's pictures. We want that drape and nonchalant fit, but we look like stuffed sausages trying to pull it off. And I'm not talking just us fat guys either. Look at our pix in the threads on this forum, they can get kinda ridiculous trying to wear these patterns. I OF COURSE INCLUDE MYSELF HERE. I'm not saying everybody here can't wear them, just a lot of us.
[/Put on Flame Suit]

Has the smoke cleared yet?

The materials of the Jacket has a lot to do with the "Look" of WWII as well. JC is trying to address this as I assume you are with accurate Leather and pattern.

Those sz 40 guys in the 40's had thin ribs, and the Anterior to Posterior measurements of the chests were not like they are today. Neither were the shoulders, neither was the musculature. I have no source for this other than looking at photos, some during skivvy clad physicals. These were small rather delicate guys no matter what their chest size. You say there's no difference.

Your statement is a 40 is a 40 is a 40 no matter what era. I don't believe that. I think basically they are shaped different and that the changes are morphing in a direction.

But for your particular purpose they are the same, and I get that. You are either making "antique" patterns accurately or you're not. Whatever "accurate" is for a wartime produced Jacket is...

But to say that because I make 1930's Jackets people aren't changing, I just don't see it.

 

[tater]

People are not bigger because they have bigger bones. Bigger people grow bigger bones. This is not an evolutionary change, it's a physiological response (as muscle attachments on bone can grow, etc).

Nutrition clearly plays a role, more calcium, etc, available, as well as just plain more calories, and less physical labor. It's environmental. Regardless, the people then were simply by and large more fit. The society was still more agrarian than now, and even urban lifestyles required more walking. All this on top of fewer calories available. More movement, fewer calories.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand why you make your Jackets the way you do. There really is no other way to make an "accurate A-2" pattern.

The argument I'm making is you make it sound like the "Pattern" for Americans has not changed and it is a myth. That a WWII 40 guy is the same as a 2012 40 guy. Here's your post snippet:


Quote:
There is no such thing that because men where shorter and smaller in wwii the jackets the jackets fit different than they should.
If your chest measures 40 and you try on a wwii size 40, it should fit, period. Thank God they haven't changed the inches since wwii.


I personally think there's plenty of evidence shown in this thread alone that this is not correct.

It's Genetic
It's Environmental
It's Behavioral

Now an option for a guy like you that could be leveraged would be a "Period Correct" line of Jackets, like you are doing now.

As well as an updated line, kinda like G&B does. Except with a twist that they are not doing.

Have the same quality Jacket in your "Up to date" line of clothes.

It seems that G&B, or at least it seems to me, is that their "up to date line" is a lower end line.

I'm not talking Full blown Wilson Leather kinda cut stuff. Just a more relaxed line with the same quality of product. I'm running a thread along these lines right now.

This would require some investigation to be done and some prototyping to be done.

[Put on Flame Suit]
Ok, Flame on Johnny Blaze!

It looks to me, that the Vast majority of guys who buy these Jackets can't fit into a WWII pattern properly. This is evidenced by how those vintage pictures look of those skinny guys from WWII in those 1940's pictures. We want that drape and nonchalant fit, but we look like stuffed sausages trying to pull it off. And I'm not talking just us fat guys either. Look at our pix in the threads on this forum, they can get kinda ridiculous trying to wear these patterns. I OF COURSE INCLUDE MYSELF HERE. I'm not saying everybody here can't wear them, just a lot of us.
[/Put on Flame Suit]

Has the smoke cleared yet?

The materials of the Jacket has a lot to do with the "Look" of WWII as well. JC is trying to address this as I assume you are with accurate Leather and pattern.

Those sz 40 guys in the 40's had thin ribs, and the Anterior to Posterior measurements of the chests were not like they are today. Neither were the shoulders, neither was the musculature. I have no source for this other than looking at photos, some during skivvy clad physicals. These were small rather delicate guys no matter what their chest size. You say there's no difference.

Your statement is a 40 is a 40 is a 40 no matter what era. I don't believe that. I think basically they are shaped different and that the changes are morphing in a direction.

But for your particular purpose they are the same, and I get that. You are either making "antique" patterns accurately or you're not. Whatever "accurate" is for a wartime produced Jacket is...

But to say that because I make 1930's Jackets people aren't changing, I just don't see it.

OK, it's very hard to give a proper and certain reply. As I said I have collected some data but haven't been able to go through all of it yet. I hope I willl be able to produce it later.

What I meant when I said that a 40 size should fit someone with 40 chest is right, follows the reasonable assumption that clothing sizes are based on chest size (indeed so far they are).
To be able to say the opposite, you must have statistics that other parts of the body of the modern size 40 person have grown so much in comparison with the WWII person that the jacket won't fit. The jacket was made sufficiently larger than the WWII person so the person can fit in it. If the today's person is larger than the WWII size 40 person (and still both have the same size chest - which is oxymoron) so that the jacket does not fit then it means that all the other parts of the body of the person (except the chest?) must have grown so much out of proportion that the room (margin) provided by the jacket is not enough. I don't see that.

Similarly, if people have grown, I would think they would have grown proportionally. If chest got bigger, so should the shoulders, or the arms or whatever. I would admit people have grown bigger, but not so much that jackets won't fit them.
Think for a moment, what is the circumference of the sleeve of the WWII jacket and how much in percentage has the mass of the arm of the person has grown since WWII? I don't think it grew so much that it won't fit in the sleeve.

The single most important factor of the fit is the chest/shoulders ratio. We got to see if that ratio changed since WWII. I am trying to find literature on the subject.

If it is shown that this has not changed significantly (as to affect fit) , it would prove that only the distribution of sizes has changed, but the sizes remained more or less the same. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I maintain that on average people were smaller during WWII and now they are bigger, on average, or in other words that the majority of modern chest 40 men (who wear 40 Regular) will fit in to the size 40 period jacket.

 

[Jeff M]

Looking at movies from the 1940's, old photos, and hearing stories from my father and uncle about conditions growing up in the 1920's-1930's I believe that back then a young man's 44" chest had more to do with their skeletal structure than the muscles hanging off it. Wider rib structure supporting less meat.

That would mean that there was less musculature on he shoulders and upper arms, back and chest.
Aside from a tighter fit when relaxed...flexing larger muscles means more increase in that muscles girth compared to smaller muscle. Think of the classic "body builder" pose where they flex their bicep. It "pops out" as they say. Or...think of putting on an already tight jacket and expanding your chest/reaching forward. Feels like your body is trying to rip out of the jacket.
A skin and bone size 44 airman would not feel that nearly as much...if at all.

... With that in mind, doesn't it make more sense to use subjective comfort as the criterion rather than arguing that every jacket marked as a particular size should fit every man of that chest measurement? Whether modern men are built differently than those of earlier generations is an interesting question, but I'm not sure it has any bearing on how a specific jacket fits a given individual.

If anything, for me the "myth" is the notion that one can speak in absolutes about this subject aside from the following: a jacket either fits or it doesn't.

Yes. Hit the nail on the head.
Slavish adherence by a manufacturer on making a "vintage" sized reproduction WW2 jacket may be great if planning on fitting mannequins, but not if fitting people in the year 2012.