Perhaps. Why else would some of us chase the coveted but almost unattainable size 0? Unattainable sizes aside, here's something I came to realise in July last year (yes, this post has been pending for almost a year) but never managed to get the contents into the blog editor until I was clearing out my drafts and saw this title, and some inspiration from Pat Hatt's post on conspiracy theories.
See, between July and August every year, we receive a form with our names on it with a few columns to tick (shirt size and pants size among others), and every year since they introduced the new uniform, I've been ticking on size M. I figured you'll be on the safe side of not putting on too much weight if you maintain your uniform size throughout your working years. Turns out, this isn't particularly true.
It's been awhile since the new uniform and the new sizing came into effect. I have three different sets from 3 different years so far, all sized M only in theory, but when you actually use them, the ones from 2009 are slightly smaller than the set from 2010, and the set from 2010 are slightly smaller than the set from 2011 (there's a slight difference in the sleeves which enables me to differentiate which uniform belongs to which set - plus the fact of how worn out they look)
|Size M throughout the years|
My love for conspiracy theories went into overdrive, and I figured (for some unfathomable reason) that someone out there (the tailor??) was trying to fool you into thinking you've not gained too much weight to be still able to wear the same size you did three years ago. I checked around with others, but only a few others noticed the difference in size. I was trying out to figure out why, and then one day as I was browsing through the net some time ago searching for size conversions I came across what they call "Vanity Sizing" Ahem. So much for conspiracy theories unless you consider the very idea of vanity sizing as yet another conspiracy theory.