Underwear Sizing Incorrect in Australia

[Deactivated] on 20/12/2018 - 16:05
Last edited 20/12/2018 - 16:06

Well my friend in Canada is going to send me some underwear for Christmas, which I guessed from the secret santa questions. lol…

It got me thinking about how to measure my sizes and I noticed I have a waistline of ~82cm but I am currently wearing Bonds Large 95-100CM. My thoughts are why doesn't it say Large and then 85-90 CM, which is presumbly what the actual figures should be. I'm okay with them calling that a super large and then writing the correct waistline figures, but it's the waistline figures that are wrong ironically. I'm not even sure this is a vanity thing as the numbers are just plain incorrect and misleading to consumers.

I've never really looked at the numbers before and just tried. I took a look some some charts overseas and the weights and basically I am lead to believe due to the weight to waistline measurements that they have it correct over there. CM95-100CM can hold from 75-80kg, but I doubt anyone of that size would even fit into a Bonds Large size…

In my search for answers I came across a post from 2012 on Whirlpool. https://whrl.pl/Rc30vC. Exactly my own thoughts from my own sizing. It also brings to light other issues in the final few posts such as various different lengths for the same size…

Quote:

I'm fairly skinny, my work pants are size 82cm but I've had to go to size L, 95 – 100cm in some Bonds boxer briefs!? I have never been anywhere near 95cm around the waist, and they are still fairly snug (they're the cotton/elastic ones). God knows how a larger bloke would fit into them.

I'm surprised it has persisted at least since 2012…

Just bizzare. Maybe Bonds is the new Home Brand though. Anyone know any goods brands in Australia? I still have no idea what I will be receiving from Canada. It must be one of those boutique brands, fingers crossed.

Fashion & Apparel Underwear

Comments

  • dcep on 20/12/2018 - 16:08
    +1

    why do you need underwear

    • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2018 - 16:09

      I don't, I guess it's one of those pranks we play on each other. Or maybe it won't actually be this item.

      Sneaky, friends.

      Anyway, I am still interested in why the sizes are so varied and downright incorrect for some brands.

      Oh right, it's probably some pants. lol. Silly me.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 20/12/2018 - 17:35

        I feel your pain, almost literally!

        I'm a size 32"/82 cm as well but need much larger undies depending on the brand. I've found that most discount brands are far too small and so I need an XL. But I'm an M in Calvin Klein and an L in Uniqlo AIRism (only because they're very stretchy!). You really just have to view the actual sizing of each brand to find your fit. That makes the task quite difficult when shopping online or for someone else.

        • Wystri Warrick on 20/12/2018 - 19:49
          +1

          Hey I'm a size 32/82 as well, though I can snugly fit into a pair of 30 jeans.
          As for the undies I buy Kmart's half a dozen? size M for $12.

          After discussing our intimates I do believe that we've taken our relationship to the next level…

    • try2bhelpful on 20/12/2018 - 17:26

      Kramer - The little boys need a home.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 20/12/2018 - 17:36
      +2

      why do you need underwear

      Why do you need pants?

  • Markmathews on 20/12/2018 - 16:10

    Could you be in denial?

    • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2018 - 16:12
      +3

      Um, nope. Figures are the ones incorrect. Not really interested in the size name.

      In fact looked online for reasons why this is the case and depending on whether you want to be fatter or more skinny, you can choose to be an XXXL chinese or M Australian apparently…

      Makes me wonder how people buy stuff online. At least the aliexpress reviews seem to be glowing. Maybe their sizing of the waistline is better. That's the number that actually matters. If we shipped aussie underwear overseas, I guess there would be a lot of 1 star reviews.

      • macrocephalic on 20/12/2018 - 17:24
        +1

        As someone who is has tried to buy jumpers from China, their sizes are WAAY off. I bought some XXL mens jumpers and they were good fit for my wife, who wears a size 10 womens' top.

      • sarahjanecosmetics on 23/12/2018 - 19:42

        haha this is so true i have bought some off wish majority good only 1 bad experience with a bikini i tend to fit the one size fits all though which i think is medium here

  • Peter Enis on 20/12/2018 - 16:50
    +3

    It's to boost the Aussie male ego. No guy wants to wear underpants labelled as small or medium. "Yeah baby, I'm a size medium all over, but I'm LARGE where it counts!"

    • Scrooge McDuck on 20/12/2018 - 17:47
      +1

      There could be something to that, but there's no need for the quoted waist circumference to be overstated. Who's proud of a big belly?

  • macrocephalic on 20/12/2018 - 17:26

    I can only guess that you're wearing them much differently then intended. Perhaps they intend you to wear them much tighter than you like them.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 20/12/2018 - 17:40
      +1

      Unless they intend to crash the birth rate in Australia, I disagree.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2018 - 18:04
    -1

    Japanese vending machines seem to have the opposite issue.

  • EightImmortals on 20/12/2018 - 18:05

    Australia. Where the big knobs hang out.

  • markathome on 20/12/2018 - 18:06

    Yeah I'm a large Bonds undies but a medium undies in most other brands and small t-shirt. I think @musthazbargains and @macrocephalic might have a point.

    One thing I have noticed the microfibre large Bond undies feel a little too loose around the waist, but the cotton ones feel fine.

    It's frustrating but alas the way it's always been. I guess in the clothing company's defence body types are pretty varied. Still you think they could get undies pretty accurate and the fact that quite a few people report the same thing is of concern.

    If they change it, I guess it will upset some Bonds customers. But you're right, they could at least correct the sizing guide.

  • SydStrand on 20/12/2018 - 20:40
    -2

    It's vanity sizing to convince men they're not fat. I'm 181cm/75kg, I'd consider myself a fairly average size, but only fit small tops. You could probably fit three of me in the flannel tents Lowes call 'large' these days.

  • wordplay on 20/12/2018 - 21:39

    similar size 77 pants or 82. However i am wering small size in bonds.

  • emibel19 on 20/12/2018 - 22:58

    My Bonds and Jockey underpants aren't labelled with "large" or similar at all. They are labelled "size 26, to fit waist 110 cm". The unstretched waist length is about 86 cm, but when streched to maximum, it is about 110 cm. I weigh about 85 kg. My waist measurement is about 116 cm.

  • zombrex on 20/12/2018 - 23:48

    OP is definitely not in denial I can also confirm this sizing.
    I wear size large Bonds and I weigh 62 kg with a waste around 82cm.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join