The long and the shorts of it

[j4]

[One of the two posts I started earlier today, restored from draft]

The other day in a charity shop I tried on a pair of size 8 Karen Millen trousers. Lovely black trousers with POCKETS in a smart warm wool mix. They fit perfectly around the waist, but unfortunately K Millen like every other clothes wallah seems to assume that nobody in the world could possibly be shorter than 5'5", so there were a good 4 inches of superfluous fabric sloshing around my feet. I suspect the chances of being able to take up something so subtly boot-cut effectively are small; the chances of me being able to do the alterations are below zero. So I didn't buy them.

But if I'm actually a size 8 now (I mean, what?), or rather if clothes-size inflation has meant that my normal size 12ish has been rebranded as a size 8, does that mean I'd fit into these Orla Kiely cropped trousers? After all, if they're meant to be cropped, there's a chance they won't be too long for me.

Also, why doesn't every shop do what Marks and Spencers do, and offer 'short', 'regular', 'long' options for all their trousers? I always wondered as a kid why my grandma and my mum thought so highly of M&S, a shop which I associated with middle-aged people. But now it all makes sense. See, my mum and my grandma are both about my height... and I'm rushing headlong into the middle age I've been aspiring to for years.

Comments

[damerell.livejournal.com]

This must be a WILD STEREOTYPES WARNING a girl thing, like every other bloke in the country I have bought pants at M&S since I was old enough to have my own money.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Er, I buy pants at M&S too... and I know what size I am there, and they give the corresponding measurements in inches on the back of the packets so I can check if they've changed them. I don't buy all my clothes at M&S, though (I don't buy new clothes that much anyway). And knowing what size I am in knickers doesn't help at all with knowing what size I am in shirts.

Or by "pants" do you mean "trousers"?

[damerell.livejournal.com]

No, I mean underpants, except that I mean trousers as well because to me it doesn't seem that remarkable to buy trousers in M&S inasmuch as I already buy pants there and so clearly it's not just middle-aged people, and I do indeed buy trousers there. Somewhere that chain must break down for you.

On the other hand all I want in trousers is "jeans, black, short legs would be a bonus"...

[j4.livejournal.com]

I'm confused. What chain breaks down? What exactly are you saying is weird gurl-behaviour on my part?

I do buy trousers in M&S -- it's the only place I can guarantee being able to get smart comfortable trousers. When I was a rebellious teenager who wanted to dress in crazy tie-dye shit, I thought M&S was the sort of place mums shopped; now I realise that's because mums are sensible and want to buy quality clothes that will last (and also because mum is short & M&S is good for trousers for short people). If I bought pants for myself, I tended to buy them in places like BeWise (M&S, being a place where grown-ups shopped, was too expensive; BeWise was like the poundstretcher of clothes).

But I always try to buy second-hand clothes when I can. So M&S is not my default place to buy stuff; charity shops are my default place to buy stuff. I do look out for M&S stuff in charity shops, though, because I know M&S's sizing & I "trust the brand".

I don't buy second-hand pants. END OF.

I think you may be giving my throwaway post about seeing some nice trousers more thought than it really deserves. :-}

[damerell.livejournal.com]

I shall cease overanalysis forthwith. [/lie] :-)

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I do too normally, except last time I went in they had none that would both fit me and that I was willing to wear. No wonder there's a retail meltdown underway.