Reply
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,357
Registered: ‎06-14-2016

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall

For me the hip size was smaller in the petite, it was a 49 in the 1X Petite but 50 in the XL, now this was the SG today's special pants.  It is best to read, read, read the measurements, not just the sweep, or the rise, but ALL the measurements.

Happiness is ALWAYS an inside job,
Don't assign anyone else that much POWER
in your life!!!
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall


@BaileyBop wrote:

@Kachina624 wrote:

@PhilaLady1 wrote:

I am not 100% sure, but I think that most of QVC's petite items are simply shorter.  They are not proportioned differently in any other aspect.   That is what Jeanne BIce meant about Quacker Factory pants. They are not proportioned all over differently,  just shorter length.


@PhilaLady1  Wrong!  Except for the Jeanne BIce shorts, all the Q pants are shorter through the rise as well as the length.


I beg to differ.  JB short pants have the same rise as regular.  There is "no short size" in the clothing business  just "short in the length". I wear a petite and her short size pant waist comes up to my rib cage.  


@BaileyBop   I believe that's what I said; except for JB's short pant length, all petites are shorter in the rise.   Hers just have short leg length.

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,833
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall

I just wish they could decide on what inseam length is appropriate for a petite.

 

I've seen petite full length pants (not ankle pants) range from 26 inches to 29 inches.  For me, petites need to be 27 1/2 to 28 inches in the inseam.  Prefer the 27 to 27 1/2 length myself.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,669
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall


@jonbon wrote:

@Kachina624 wrote:

@PhilaLady1 wrote:

I am not 100% sure, but I think that most of QVC's petite items are simply shorter.  They are not proportioned differently in any other aspect.   That is what Jeanne BIce meant about Quacker Factory pants. They are not proportioned all over differently,  just shorter length.


@PhilaLady1  Wrong!  Except for the Jeanne BIce shorts, all the Q pants are shorter through the rise as well as the length.


Yes, and I've heard Gary say that the few petite tops offered by D&Co are not just shorter in length -- they are adjusted in other areas as well (sleeve length, for example).


 

That's one line.

I don't agree that using the term petite automatically means adjusted through the rise as well as the length.   At one time, yes, it was an accurate assumption but not now.

And certainly not on QVC

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,425
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall


@software wrote:

@jonbon wrote:

@Kachina624 wrote:

@PhilaLady1 wrote:

 


 

That's one line.

I don't agree that using the term petite automatically means adjusted through the rise as well as the length.   At one time, yes, it was an accurate assumption but not now.

And certainly not on QVC


@software  I have found all of the Q's petites to be markedly shorter in the rise.  I've sampled dozens of pairs and they are consistently adjusted to be shorter.

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment
Honored Contributor
Posts: 25,980
Registered: ‎03-12-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall

Every pair of pants I look at I have to decide if I want to take the time to cut off and hem the pants!

 

I'm around 5'4"  tall.  I'm long waisted so I can wear petite sometimes but regular fits my body better.

 

I am so freaking tall of cutting off as much as 3 1/2 to 4" from pants and then hem them....over and over.

 

I don't have to do that with any of Jeanne Bice's pants.  As we all know they're called SHORT.  

 

They fit perfectly.  I'll bet you there are a lot of people who wear short NOT Petite.

 

If Jeanne Bice got it, why don't other manufacturers understand this?

 

I'm sitting here watching Isaac's show.  I have all of his 24/7 pants.  All of them...even the one's with designs.  They're all sizes (I don't like tight pants).

 

I wish I had the kind of money I'd get paid for the man hours .....wait...I mean woman hours I've spent cutting and hemming the pants.

Valued Contributor
Posts: 780
Registered: ‎05-15-2011

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall


@software wrote:

@jonbonwrote:

@Kachina624wrote:

@PhilaLady1wrote:

I am not 100% sure, but I think that most of QVC's petite items are simply shorter.  They are not proportioned differently in any other aspect.   That is what Jeanne BIce meant about Quacker Factory pants. They are not proportioned all over differently,  just shorter length.


@PhilaLady1  Wrong!  Except for the Jeanne BIce shorts, all the Q pants are shorter through the rise as well as the length.


Yes, and I've heard Gary say that the few petite tops offered by D&Co are not just shorter in length -- they are adjusted in other areas as well (sleeve length, for example).


 

That's one line.

I don't agree that using the term petite automatically means adjusted through the rise as well as the length.   At one time, yes, it was an accurate assumption but not now.

And certainly not on QVC


I think I've also heard Susan Graver say that her petites are true petites, not just shorter in length. I haven't bought any of her clothes to see if that's true or not, though. 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,891
Registered: ‎07-15-2016

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall

I'll shorten pants myself if they are a woven fabric - but I don't like sewing knits.  They go to the tailor.  And, since it's $15 to hem the pants - that means I'm not willing to pay full price for the pants.  

 

I prefer a 29"  inseam and only one instance did I buy two pairs of "petite" pants that the rise was a bit short.  It was two pairs of C Wonder flare leg - 28" inseam

 

They had a Hollywood style waist .. and the fold-over at the waist was just tacked down in a few places, so I was able to open up the stitches and increase the rise by about 2" .... more than enough for a comfortable fit.  

 

Some other C Wonder pants in the exact same size, but diff. style and fabric, and 28" inseam.  Length and rise were fine.

Highlighted
Valued Contributor
Posts: 507
Registered: ‎03-11-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall


@Annabellethecat wrote:

Every pair of pants I look at I have to decide if I want to take the time to cut off and hem the pants!

 

I'm around 5'4"  tall.  I'm long waisted so I can wear petite sometimes but regular fits my body better.

 

I am so freaking tall of cutting off as much as 3 1/2 to 4" from pants and then hem them....over and over.

 

I don't have to do that with any of Jeanne Bice's pants.  As we all know they're called SHORT.  

 

They fit perfectly.  I'll bet you there are a lot of people who wear short NOT Petite.

 

If Jeanne Bice got it, why don't other manufacturers understand this?

 

I'm sitting here watching Isaac's show.  I have all of his 24/7 pants.  All of them...even the one's with designs.  They're all sizes (I don't like tight pants).

 

I wish I had the kind of money I'd get paid for the man hours .....wait...I mean woman hours I've spent cutting and hemming the pants.


I am tired of hemming pants too.  And after getting almost all of my pants hemmed recently I have decided that the length must be the perfect length for me or I will not even purchase them anymore. I need 28" or 29" inseams.  Linea Knit Pull on Slim Ankle Pants are my go to summer pants (A265615).

 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,478
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Petite vs. Regular vs. Tall

To me, "ankle pants" have been a Godsend!  They are regular sizing in the rise and hips, but shorter in the length.  The shorter length of ankle pants usually falls to the top of my heels, which is perfect for me.  Like Jeanne Bice said, I'm not petite, I'm short.   

 

 

We don't stop laughing because we grow old.
We grow old because we stop laughing.