Months vs. years

August 7, 2011 2:59 PM

Why is (apparently identical) toddler clothing labelled as both "2T" and "twenty-four months?"

I was shopping at a Target recently and found the same kids T-shirts tagged both 2T and 24 month, complete with hangers displaying those size designations. When held up to each other, they appear to be the exact same size. There are no 36 month designations, only 3T.

So what gives? Is this simply marketing? If so, to what end?

Thanks.

posted by werkzeuger to Clothing, Beauty, & Fashion (15 answers total)

Idle speculation:

Baby clothes are very often given as gifts, and people without babies understand "24 months," but might not know what "2T" means. I know I wouldn't.

Toddler clothes, on the other hand, are not popular gifts; kids 3 and up get toys and books and whatnot.

Also, babies tend to come in standard sizes, but toddlers (and beyond) have more variation in size.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:10 PM on August 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

24 mo is 18-24 mo., just as 3 mo. is 0-3 mo. 2T is age 2. They don't grow quite as rapidly as before, so 2T should fit for most of age 2, on average.
posted by Knowyournuts at 3:13 PM on August 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

In some clothing lines, 2T is bigger than 24 months. You can hold them up to each other and compare. (I have a toddler in 2T ... who has mostly outgrown 24-month sizes. Depends on the brand, tho.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:13 PM on August 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

(doh. You did compare. Well, still depends on brand. Also most toddlers are losing their baby fat so the cut is often a bit different.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:15 PM on August 7, 2011

My experience has been that 24 month clothing is for the more roly-poly type two year olds while 2T is for the lankier two year old.

Toddler Zizzle is a lankier two year old, and any bottoms that were labeled as 24 months fell down around his ankle. Any bottoms labeled 2T fit him just fine. It did not seem to matter the brand.
posted by zizzle at 3:17 PM on August 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I've heard both that it's a body-shape difference as Zizzle explains, but also a matter of diaper space: that while the size is similar, the cut of 24-month clothes accommodates a diaper, and 2T is designed for a potty-trained toddler.
posted by celilo at 3:34 PM on August 7, 2011 [4 favorites]

Agreeing with Zizzle. 24 months is more for a baby and 2T is for a lankier kid.
posted by k8t at 3:36 PM on August 7, 2011

Werkszeuger, I agree with you that's it's confusing. Also stupid. It should go 18-23 months, then 2T for all 24 months and up.

And it happens again when you get out of toddler sizes; there's 5T and then there's 5-7 sizes. 5T is smaller. Why is it not 5T then 6-7? Because clothes sizing is stupid.

/rant
posted by emjaybee at 3:41 PM on August 7, 2011

Don't even get me started on 6X!
posted by jeoc at 3:56 PM on August 7, 2011

Best answer: Celilo has it. 24 months is cut to accommodate a diaper. Toddler sizes are not.
posted by MexicanYenta at 4:25 PM on August 7, 2011

Best answer: Oh, and as far as the shirts, it's a matter of the shirts using the same sizing system as the pants they're meant to be worn with.
posted by MexicanYenta at 4:27 PM on August 7, 2011

Response by poster: Thanks guys!
posted by werkzeuger at 5:04 PM on August 7, 2011

Just jumping in to agree that months = diaper. T=not diaper.

(And neither size will properly fit cloth diapers, but there's no system for labelling that.)
posted by Chaussette and the Pussy Cats at 8:33 PM on August 7, 2011

You guys are awesome. Two kids---and I did not know there was a difference between 24 months and 2T, but now that I've heard the explanation it makes perfect sense.
posted by leahwrenn at 9:05 PM on August 7, 2011

Yeah, I found for the majority of stuff, there was a difference between 24 months and 2T, such that my son fit in 2T and not 24 months. We actually jumped from 12month stuff to 2T in a lot of cases (major growth spurt), but I have a tall lanky kid.
posted by katers890 at 7:51 AM on August 8, 2011