OK, no snide remarks, I'm just genuinely curious-- exactly how big is a size 16? I've never been able to decipher women's sizes. All I know is S, M, L, XL, XXL. Is there a men's equivalent to the size 16?

So I'm assuming that since Banana Republic, Gap, and J. Crew ditched their larger sizes and they're doing "OK" (Ann Taylor cost-cutters must have gotten their data pre and post size cutting), they can do the same financially as the other stores. The decrease in profit was probably offset by the fact that they now need to manufacture less, so a higher net profit in the end?

Or they just hate fat chicks.

It seems like whenever I go to these stores and find something that I like the selection seems to be 0, 0, 0, 2, 14, 14, 14, 14, 16, 16, 16, 16. So I can understand why they are doing the cut.

But I feel for those ladies. Pants can be a biotch to find a style that fits no matter what size. I gave up buying shorts and pants online long ago.

@redskull: [en.wikipedia.org]

In most clothing schemes for women, it's XL or L.

If I'm not mistaken, the chicks that the crazy dude in "Silence of the Lambs" was killing to get their skin were size 14, so you can use that for a comparison if it helps.

I've never really understood this obsession clothing retailers seem to have with small sizes...even in men's clothing.

You almost never see XLs on clearance, and on regular racks they're in far shorter supply than the smalls and mediums, too, and it isn't because there are hordes of skinny 5 foot 5 inch guys running around. It's been like this since at least the 90s, and probably forever. You'd think by now companies would have adjusted their production and ordering, but no.

Are the smalls that much cheaper that it pays to overproduce them to make it appear that large sizes are in short supply so as to be able to maintain higher pricing on those? That's the only thing I can come up with that isn't just "retail managers are shitheads", and I think it's pretty dubious.

For some of these, it might be some image-obsessed OMG WE CANT HAVE FAT WOMEN SEEN IN OUR STORES thing, but it's a bigger problem than that.

@redskull: Women's sizes change periodically - that's why they're difficult to figure out. Read up on the "Marilyn Monroe was a size 12" urban legend.

@redskull: I'm a size 8 and wear a Medium. Maybe that helps?

@redskull:

Size 16

Bust 38

Waist 29

Hip 40

Back Waist Length 16 3/4

@Canino: Yep, I wear a modern 16, and a 24/26 in clothes from Marilyn Monroe's era.

@Cialis Cooper: That's assuming that the actresses were representative of a size 14 (none of them were).

I'm ashamed to say I shop at a name brand clothing store, namely Old Navy. I do it because their stuff usually is nicely priced and it fits. Lately I've seen mens sizes that I wear, 38-42 waist depending on the style of pants, not on the shelf...ever. I've had to resort to ordering online the last year or so.

Don't know if thats a trend with mens clothes or if my local store is just terrible at keeping my size in stock.

@redskull: I think a size 16 womens shoe is a size 14 mens shoe. I couldn't even begin to tell you why womens shoes are sized differently. Seams silly to me.

@calquist: Seriously? All I ever find are the tiny sizes left and I'm lucky if they ever made any pants over a size 14.

Whatever. I'll just keep wearing guys clothes 'cause they're more comfortable (except in more formal things).

Ann Taylor's sizes are seriously inflated. I'm thin, but not 00 thin, which is what I needed after I tried on a rather roomy size 0. I'm generally a 1-2 in other stores. A 16 at Ann Taylor is an 18 or 20 elsewhere, and I'm not well versed in plus sizes, but those are generally not stocked at most other retail chains unless they also carry plus size. 00 is also only available online. Do they hate us skinnies too for taking up so little space and making their stores look empty? I pay the same even though my clothes take less fabric to make. Maybe it's just not a popular size for the average woman, just like 00, rather than a conspiracy.

@TechnoDestructo: I have to disagree, slightly. I was at Macy's a few months back and they were having a massive sale on tons of stuff. I had to search very hard to find L sizes everything was S, XL, or XXL. Maybe the stores you frequent have a heftier clientelle and thus run out of those sizes fast(not saying you are hefty just saying that a bulk of their business might be). I live in a notoriously health conscious city thus running out of the M and L first. Just a theory but I wanted to add my experiential knowledge to the bowl.

70% of American women wear a size 12 or larger? That's really disturbing. No offense intended to you larger folks, but it's not healthy.

I highly doubt Ann Taylor has any problem with fat people. This is purely economic in nature. Size 16 probably doesn't sell all that well and it's expensive to ship this stuff to retail stores and have it taking up valuable retail space. Don't take things so personally.

You're very upset. Do I detect a hint of anger behind a possible weight-apologist viewpoint in this piece?

"Good luck to Ann Taylor, though. I'm sure that this move will work out well for them at a time when, according to the same Crain's article, 70% of American women wear a size 12 or larger."

Your next sentence outlines that competitors have done that, and those competitors have done just fine. So, your jab falls flat.

Clothing companies sell clothes. If they feel that it's in the best interests of the brand to drop this, then it's their responsibility to their bond and shareholders to do so.

@redskull: each brand does sizing differently but a 16 is usually a XL.

@redskull: 16 is about an "Extra Large" size. However, wearing a size 16 does not necessarily give you an accurate depiction of the woman in the clothes. I'm a size 16 shirt, but require that size top because I'm disproportionately large in the bust. On the bottom half I'm a size 12. It's all relative.

@redbess: maybe you need to find a "skinny" friend and go shopping together so you can tell ran other where your sizes are.

I put skinny in quotes cause a number size can be unduly subjective. My
Mom is a 14 but she's freaking 5'8.

@Shappie: what's a generic brand store? Goodwill?

@LSAX: I wear a S or XS at Ann Taylor Loft and sometimes am disappointed when things should fit but are too tight in some areas. I think sometimes they think smaller women have no hips.

I call BS on this. Guess what, geniuses? Offering the same items online that used to be available in stores means that you still have to design them, still have to cut the patterns for them, and you still have to make them. Just not as many.

Shipping costs?
Loss of money due to clearance of items that don't sell in particular areas?
Loss of sales of other products that could sell in the same space in retail?

So it is a cost cutting measure. The article may do a poor job of describing it by making it seem like the costs are all cut in materials.

@Julia789: That reminds me of a comment I overheard while I was at the Guess store a couple of years ago, "I can't find anything in here! My boobs are too big for this store."

Of course I had to turn around and see what she meant...

@dohtem: Of course.

I wear a men's length 36 pants. Very few places carry that size in-store, and it's been like that for ages.

I fail to see how this is any different.

Whatever happened to stocking and selling what the customer wants?
Doesn't fit the bottom line?

@heinzs: That's my size and it's becoming a crapshoot. :( Now I order online from stores that allow for returns at their retail locations.

@LSAX:

Well I'm a size 14, and I still had to get 16 button up shirts to sit correctly.

Guess I'd better stock up on men's shirts.

I'll out myself as someone who shop in the bigger department.

What sucks is that Ann Taylor was one of the only places that doesn't think that a size 14 or 16 also has a huge ass or is 6 ft. tall. Their clothing was a good porportion for me.

And if anyone cares, we all don't like wearing hideous floral prints and strechy pants. It was nice to have clothing options that actually had style to them.

Sigh. More fuel to the fire for the fat-phobia folks, I guess.

Can I just please say that I take life saving meds that add weight, and I struggle to keep it in a size 14-16. And that's with daily exercise, eating mostly veggies and lean proteins.

So *please* retailers and fat police...stop blaming us all for not being thin like you. It hurts. And we're trying.

@jimconsumer:

Being overweight in general is not healthy. Americans are known for being overweight. We know, we know, it's not a good thing. Some try to do something about it, others don't. But that's their choice, and I'll be damned if some commie nazi tries to take that choice away from us!

@dohtem: Ha ha. Well, it IS a pain to shop when one part of your body is out of proportion. So I understand the young lady's shopping frustration. I would probably not announce the reason why out loud in the store, however. ;-)

Not sure about women's clothes, but in the past few years, I have become used to only finding XXL men's sizes online. It makes it much harder to determine if the clothes fit. But when I have asked them, the retailers just don't seem to care.

Not all stores are like this; for example, REI's bricks-and-mortar stores in Seattle are very good about stocking plenty of all sizes, all the way up to 3X and 4X. That attitude makes me FAR more likely to buy at that merchant's stores. But unfortunately, they are not the norm.

@jimconsumer: For some people, being smaller than a size 12 would be unhealthy. Not everyone has a small frame. According the sizing chart at Anne Taylor online, a size 12 is:

bust 38 1/2
waist 31
hips 41

That is not actually that big.

If size 16 is not so popular, I wonder when I go looking for clothes I see the smaller sizes like 6 or 8, and the largest sizes, like 20 on up, but sizes 14 and 16 are hard to find! Hard to believe that they don't sell!

I'll just keep buying clothes in the men's section, because they are more likely to fit.

So... I'm very tall and can never find the extra long stuff that I need in order to not look like every thing I wear has been shrunken in the wash.
That's just how it is. Welcome to the club!

@CreativeMama2: You're a very extreme example and it would be ridiculous to state either that your situation is indicative of the whole or that a retailer offering those sizes online is not effective.

@jimconsumer: A size 12 is not that large for the average woman in the Midwest - I am the short one at 5'9". When I worked in a shoe store here we got shipments that started at 7 and went to 11 because the small sizes didn't sell since most of us passed size 5 by age 7. One day we had a customer who was short and from the coast who always went to our stores because they always had 5's, because that was a common size there. I think they just need to figure out their distribution chain better.

@William Brinkman: Annoyance, not anger. I'm fat. I don't apologize for it. And I like clothes. If a store stops carrying my size, I shrug, go to a different store, or make my own clothes.

I question how much of this is a cost-cutting measure and now much it's an image one. Shipping items that don't sell to stores and then clearancing them is a huge expense, yeah. But that's not the reason they gave for the change, and I call BS on the reasons given by Ann Taylor's representatives.

@BinaryTB: Actually, Gap carries size 16 in the store. Sizes 18 and 20, and size XXL in shirts, are available online, as are petites and talls. My impression has always just been that the demand is lower for those sizes, so they are online-only.

@redskull:
XL is usually size 12-14 and XXL (2XL) is usually size 14-16, depending on the brand. I can't speak to Ann Taylor clothing but that is a general trend in the world of women's clothing.

I think that their move makes perfect sense during a recession. Clothing sales are way down right now. Yes, you do have to design, produce, cut fabric, etc but now you have that dress available to a larger audience via a warehouse/shipping instead of hanging on a clothing rack in a store for a select area. As the economy picks up and maybe even demand, maybe they will place this size back in the stores. Who knows? To me this is no different than my local grocery store not carrying my favorite cheese any more because there is not as big of a demand as there use to be but I can still get it online.

I'm a size medium to large (depending on a brand) and I can't tell you how many times a local store was out of something in my size but I could go order it online (and find a coupon code for discounted to free shipping) instead of relying on the store to get back to me.

So for some this move is an insult and for some this is a convenience.

@LSAX: Pics?

Fat chicks need loving too, but they have to pay.

Complete non-story here. They don't sell many size 16 items in their retail stores, so they moved it to online-only. This is a pure business decision based around maximizing profit.

Consumerist is acting like they hung that "no fat chicks" sign on their front door and started using a weight scale to enforce it.

@Ilovegnomes:
My friends, who I shop with, that are size 16 or above actual prefer plus sized specialty shops like Lane Bryant over places like Ann Taylor. The clothing is designed a little better for their body type, they are a specialty clothing store that stocks more in their size, they feel less self conscious, etc. So maybe other women started getting the same idea and Ann Taylor found less demand by plus sized clients in their store?

Just saying... it's possible.

@Winteridge2: As unfair as it may sound, I'm guessing they want to project a certain image for their brand.

I don't think fat chicks fit their vision.

@heinzs: I don't think it's an issue with unusual sizes, as much as an issue with keeping items of every size in stock and accurately predicting how many of each size are needed.

I wear a very common, average size and often find it sold out. Instead there's a pile of 44/30 pants and another pile of 32/38.