NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/kids/28548

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.4 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!decwrl!adobe!riggle
From: [e-mail] (Kathleen Riggle)
Subject: Re: After the Stork and Hanna sizes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET NEWS)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:23:07 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (June Cummins Lewis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kathleen Riggle) writes:
>>|>
>>|> Ah, the reason why I love Hanna's.  They fit who they say they will
>>|> and they aren't outgrown quickly.  Rachel is in a size 90 now and
>>|> almost into a size 100, but she has size 80's that she can still wear.
>>|> I bought her size 70's when she was 4 months old and she wore them for
>>|> over a year.
>>
>>This isn't necessarily true.  I haven't had the same good experiences
>>with Hanna Anderson as some others on the net.  I first ordered from
>>I recently ordered my daughter some fleece suits and a pair of bubble
>>overalls, both size 90 since she was growing out of the size 80's we'd
>>received as gifts.  The suits were _huge_ on her, and the overalls were way
>>too small.
>
>Although I've had good experiences with Hanna clothes overall, I have
>to concur with Judy about the bubbly bibs.  Both my friend and I have
>found that the sizing on those is way off--both of our children, who
>have quite different body types, take a larger size than the chart
>would indicate.  My son currently wears an 80, but in order for the
>bibs to fit from shoulder to crotch he has to wear a 90.  Of course,
>this makes them rather long in the pants.  I wish the company would
>wise up to this problem.

Well, okay, I admit defeat on this point.  I just sent back a size 90
bubbly bib dress for Rachel; it was too short.  But it would have fit
her; just didn't have as much growing room as some of their other
things.     I also haven't tried every single article in the catalog;
some of them are just too expensive for even me to justify; I like to
make Rachel's fancy dresses.  But, for most of their clothes, they fit
true to size.  And my original point was that they seem to fit for a
long time.  Rachel is taller than average; her torso is long.  To get
clothes to fit her body (jumpsuits) I routinely have to buy larger
sizes and then the legs and arms were always too long.  I didn't have
this problem with Hannas (probably because of the cuffed and
elasticized legs).  Also, for every Hanna that I've bought that was a
comfortable size for Rachel, she's gotten a lot of wear out of them
(fit her for a long time).

>Yet in other respects, their quality is superior to many other brands, like
>babyGap (does anyone else out there call the regular Gap stores
>"Grownup Gap"?)  Hanna seems to use thicker fabrics and they hold up
>well--I've never had anything from them rip or give at the seams.  One
>item arrived missing a snap, and they sent UPS here to pick it up (at
>no charge to me).

Yep, when there was a mistake with my order (only once) they rushed
out a replacement FedEx and picked up UPS, no charge.  They have
wonderul service.

>Plus, they're so damn cute!

Yep, that's the gotcha!  :-)

--
[e-mail]