Reply Hey Mom! Learn more about the Gerber Life Insurance Grow-Up Plan!
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2008, 01:34 AM   #1
picklesmama's Avatar
picklesmama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Whidbey Island WA
Posts: 1,349
BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Comparison of BG 2.0 (White) to BG 3.0 (Butternut)

I have a newer first-quality 2.0 bought just after the 3.0 released.



Front & Back view shows leg elastic goes a lot further in the 3.0. Snap & Aplix placement appears the same. Overall the 2.0 is visibly longer.



3.0 is not quite as wide as the 2.0. Contour is slightly different.



This is just to show the difference in the contour and the length of the leg elastic - the 2.0 is NOT this much wider than the 3.0, they are overlapped. The contour has changed noticeably. I find this a good thing when the diaper is done up as it fits smooth - no bunching, no gap - you'll see further on - better side leak prevention.



BIG difference in the stretchy side tabs!



This is the medium rise setting, the way my 21 lb 15 month old wears them for night - stuffed with a CB OS insert snapped to the medium setting, and a CB doubler/newborn insert. Right at the top of the leg holes and the bottom of the side tabs you can see where leaks happened with the 2.0 - much better coverage on the 3.0 - no leaks yet! The 2.0 is slightly bigger.



Side view of improved stretchy tab and side contour design on the 3.0. Nicer fit around the legs.



This is to show the difference between them on the smallest rise setting. The 3.0 has the front folded down as you would for a newborn. Folded up it only adds inch so I didn't bother with a pic. These are stuffed with a CB doubler/newborn insert.



The largest rise setting. The rise on the 2.0 is a fair bit more. With the larger side tabs it also fits a wider waist size. My almost 4 year old boy is 35 lbs and the 3.0 really doesn't fit him. He could wear the 2.0 - though he doesn't - these are his baby sister's diapers.



I think the fit of the 3.0 is much improved for smaller babies, however they have sacrificed a little bit of size at the opposite end, and the 2.0's will fit just a little longer.

Overall I prefer the 3.0. since I have a side sleeper and I like that they fixed the leaking issue. Chances are my baby will PT before outgrowing these, even with the smaller fit.

That's it mamas - I should go do something more productive now

ETA At largest setting on a 35 lb kidlet. 3.0 is too snug, 2.0 fits.

Advertisement

__________________
Crissy ~ Mama to 5 Sproutlets ~ Jack 7.16.01 ~ Mia Bella 10.29.02
Angus 2.24.04 ~ Sydney 10.26.06 ~ cloth bottom cutie Kate 2.15.09


Whidbey Island CDing Families My ISO & IHA

Last edited by picklesmama; 02-01-2008 at 12:47 PM. Reason: added reason I prefer the 3.0
picklesmama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 02:08 AM   #2
cornelia9805's Avatar
cornelia9805
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Central Coast of CA
Posts: 2,597
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Thanks for the breakdown. I was wondering what the *real* differences were. I think the 2.0s will serve us fine since I have a 20lb, 8 month old.
__________________
~Erica~ Mama to 3 beautiful girls~12, 7 and 4 and our first boy~born at home 3/24/11
cornelia9805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 04:37 AM   #3
kidpsych2be's Avatar
kidpsych2be
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: OV4LYF
Posts: 12,273
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Hey that's definitely good to see! Thanks for taking the time to do this, mama!
__________________
Jenna, mama to Gianna (4/07) and Athena , (T1D) (4/10) and Evanora (2/3/14), my successful VBA2C !!
kidpsych2be is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 04:41 AM   #4
Grrchurch03's Avatar
Grrchurch03
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 2,786
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

That's good to know. I was thinking about getting dd a few, but she is on the larger side, 26 lbs at a year and thiiiiigggghhhhssss! Oh man. Sad to know that it was really only an "improvement" for the smaller babes. Doesn't really help us with chubbos. Thanks mama.
__________________
Proud Navy wife, veteran, full time student and mommy to my gorgeous babes.
Grrchurch03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 04:43 AM   #5
Deanner03's Avatar
Deanner03
"Life's tough. Get a helmet."
seller
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the WILD THINGS are
Posts: 7,131
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Good pics mama! Thanks so much! I was thinking about buying some 3.0's, but now I think the 2.0's will fit us better. My 21lb 7 month old is already on the high rise, and not a ton of room to spare!
__________________
Deanna, wife to Matus :wave2: mama to Lukas (5) and Emma (3) , dogmom to Abby, and feather-mom to a WHOLE MESS of chickens, ducks, turkeys & quail.
Deanner03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 06:22 AM   #6
gil's Avatar
gil
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,032
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Thanks for this. I've been wanting to see what the differences between them are. Very good review.
gil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 06:33 AM   #7
Kiddo353's Avatar
Kiddo353
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 6,440
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

That really sucks about the rise. One of the chief complaints about those diapers is that they are sold as a "one-size" but by FAR they are the "smallest" diaper out there on the market even on their largest setting (or their largest sized diaper.) Most companys make x-large diapers, BG does not. Therefore if you KNOW your kid is going to get above 30lbs befor they pL...you're screwed. HOnestly I think saying that a 30lb weight limit on their largest side is "supposed" to get a kid to pLing is laughable. ESPECIALLY now with the 3.0 being so much smaller in the rise.
__________________
Jen, Mommy to-Abby 9.5Bethany 9 & Emma 6.5 .

Last edited by Kiddo353; 02-01-2008 at 06:35 AM.
Kiddo353 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 07:26 AM   #8
pumknsmom's Avatar
pumknsmom
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Thanks for the comparison. I have been slowly collecting 2.0 and was thinking of getting some 3.0. It's nice to know visually what the difference is.
pumknsmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 07:36 AM   #9
AlisonR80's Avatar
AlisonR80
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,801
My Mood:
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

some of my 2.0's are noticeably larger than other 2.0's i have...all bought at the same time or within 2 wks of each other (nov 07)...its kind of annoying because the bigger ones leave the legs gaping. I should lay mine all out to compare them. Some of my 3.0's might be "bigger" too, i'd have to go check. If i get a chance to and i see a difference i'll let u know.
__________________
Alison: mom to 3 boys and a GIRL
FREE Amazon gift cards by searching the web with Swag Bucks: http://swagbucks.com/refer/alisonr80
AlisonR80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 08:01 AM   #10
apelilae
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 180
Re: BG 2.0 & 3.0 Pic Comparison - Visibly Different!

Very nice!
__________________
WOHM to two elementary school boys and more on the way
apelilae is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Copyright 2005 - 2014 Escalate Media. All Rights Reserved.