Funny belt question

[Graham.]

(Smily noted) What was the inside is under elastic tension when layed out linially, so it's a bit of an irrelevance.

[FMurtz]

If a belt is listed as 126" outer and 124" inner and you cut it ,why is it the same length inner and outer . :)

[Andy Bennet]

Rolling circumference.

[Roger Hayter]

Elasticity. Without which it would not be a belt, but a stick. Or a hoop. But not both.

[spuorgelgoog]

I thought this was about trousers.

Why is a 36" trouser belt not long enough to go round a 36" waist?

Owain

[dennis]

You are too optimistic.

[newshound]

The Tailor of Panama had an answer: "Let's say 36 inches plus lunch".

[Andrew]

Because you bought the 36 inch trousers at M&S and their actual size is 38 inches.

They do it to flatter people into thinking they are not really that fat.

[Roger Hayter]

This is absolutely true. But the OP says it is not long enough. So his optimism about his 36" waist must be significantly greater than 2" of optimism. I must admit I have had the same problem. I just bought a

38" belt!

[tabbypurr]

Belts aren't normally fixed right at their tips. So your belt must be longer than your girth.

NT

[Roger Hayter]

Very true. But the nominal size of a belt is usually the circumference when done up to one of the first few notches. They aren't sold. or described, by actual length.

[tabbypurr]

I could have sworn the last 2 I got were, but I couldn't swear to it.

NT

[harry]

It stretches.

[Richard]

Good job you stopped yourself then.

[spuorgelgoog]

That's a very good answer.

Owain