
Why's it so hard to find “your clothing size”? - cmogni1
https://www.tryfitfirst.com/home/whats-my-clothing-size
======
Syzygies
My professor uniform used to involve a closet full of Brooks Brothers Oxford
button-down shirts. Not that the brand resonates with me; the quality was
simply better than similar mass-produced shirts. They felt like the denim
shirts I was advised to not wear.

Then I discovered propercloth.com - custom shirts made in Asia, with an
outpost in Manhattan. Took a guess at the dozen or so size parameters, got my
trial shirt, wore it down to their tailor, and had it tweaked. Turned in my
trial shirt for a free replacement. I now have 15 or so.

I wish one could do the same with jeans.

~~~
mc32
There was a thread the other day about quality vs fast-fashion the other day.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20503194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20503194)

There are a some mentions of some better brands out there. Proper Cloth was
one, but there are others, even ones which make bottoms.

------
Theodores
The problem is best understood from a supply chain management perspective.

A clothing retailer ordered that stuff six months ago and they only took a two
minute glance (if that) at the one model sized 'medium' garment the wholesaler
got the supplier to make. Every other size was just a tickbox with some
guesses made as to how many items to stock to get through the sales season.

The importer took the orders from retail and topped up the order so they can
do some mid-season re-stocking. They know that they have to get the order
right as it is not as if the product is going to be made again.

The retailer does not have to make a sale from every customer that walks
through the door. For people with XXS or XXL size requirements they might only
have something to sell, the one coat in the super-sized option. Even this may
be a carryover item from a previous season, kept in stock for the guy with
arms that reach down to his ankles.

It is quite a risk to get the sizing wrong, you can't have a garment on the
shelves with just the XXS and XXL sizes with nothing in-between. If this
happens then it is straight to the sale rail. Particularly if the supplier
didn't overstock the popular sizes.

We also live in an age of fast fashion where people buy clothes the whole
time. Truth be told, if everyone out of childhood stopped buying clothes today
we wouldn't have a mass nakedness problem for years. Clothes are that
abundant. There have always been tailors and dress makers that will make
clothes to fit any body, maybe a service for this is needed rather than a
newsletter about what trousers in the world of fast fashion can be squeezed
into.

------
mc32
This happens in women’s clothing but also men’s. The only piece of men’s
clothing which doesn’t reinterpret measurements is belts. Which is why they
tell you if you’re an X waist, get an X+2 belt. It’s much worse with letter
sizes. There is no consensus. —even within brands.

~~~
jjeaff
It's not even consistent with belts. They have vanity sizing for men as well.
Last I checked, Old Navy was waist size plus 4 inches for belts.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Besides, with belts you need to get lucky with the hole placement.

~~~
8note
at least you can cut your own holes pretty easily

~~~
mc32
An oval punch would work well.

------
borumpilot
You think that's bad? Here's Europe:

NL DE FR IT SP GB US International

32 32 34 38 0 4 2 XS

34 34 36 40 1 6 4 XS

36 36 38 42 2 8 6 S

38 38 40 44 3 10 8 S

40 40 42 46 4 12 10 M

42 42 44 48 5 14 12 M

44 44 46 50 6 16 14 L

46 46 48 52 7 18 16 XL

48 48 50 54 8 20 18 XXL

50 50 52 56 9 22 20 XXL

52 52 54 58 10 24 22 XXXL

------
bmn__
Stop the madness, use EN 13402 labels already!

------
airstrike
Huh... TIL Farm Rio in also in the US

------
dredmorbius
Why it's so hard to find text-only static article sites which render with JS
disabled.

------
bin0
This is one of those "no stupid questions" type questions: why are there so
many more sizes for women? Men's sizes don't fit perfectly either, but it
seems like women have more sizing options for the same struggle. Are women
harder to fit? Do men just not bother with a correct fit? It also seems that
at least a good number of guys can wear off-the-rack for a decent fit, but
almost no women. Just a guy who doesn't understand trying to understand more.

And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or
twice. Why? This seems wasteful.

~~~
ebg13
> _why are there so many more sizes for women?_

There aren't.

Go down to a basic clothing store like The Gap and look at the different pants
options available in the men's section. Skinny, Slim, Straight, Relaxed,
Athletic, and Jogger aren't just different styles. Each style also fits
differently at the same nominal measurements, because the nominal measurements
for pants are waist + inseam but there are many more measurements that
actually matter, like the ratio of your waist to thigh to calf. Pants that fit
your waist might not fit your legs. Pants that fit your legs might be too
tight in the waist.

If a 30 Relaxed fits you, a 30 Slim probably doesn't. They aren't just styles.
They are different kinds of sizes with names.

> _And while I 'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or
> twice. Why? This seems wasteful._

Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.

> _It also seems that at least a good number of guys can wear off-the-rack for
> a decent fit_

In my experience this is false. It depends, of course, on what you're willing
to accept as "decent fit". I personally, for instance, would not accept a
dress shirt that billows like a sail around the waist as a "decent fit". And
yet good luck finding a rack men's dress shirt that doesn't do that if you are
fit but not rail thin across the chest.

~~~
bin0
I don't go to stores like gap, and don't really buy trendy clothes. I've never
seen tons of styles like all those you mentioned, especially not in one place.
My jeans are usually $20-25 a pair; I buy on-sale.

I've also never really heard of the "raito of waist to thigh to calf" being
used as a measurement.

Maybe these sorts of things are popular among the younger "metrosexual" boys?

> Now you're being a sexist caricature.

How? Caricature of what? I'm relaying the exact things I've heard and seen
from others. I'm really just asking a question, more "why is there this
expectation of women?", and you cry "sexism"? That term is very overused.

~~~
byproxy
To be honest, you sound out of touch. Especially with the dropping of the
"metrosexual" line.

You asked why there aren't more sizes for men, received a response telling you
there are, and then somewhat indignantly responded with "well, I don't shop at
those places." Well, if you want to find a better fit, maybe you ought to.

Old Navy (parent to Gap) sells a variety of jean sizes for a fairly low price:
[https://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=5199&nvt=Hamb...](https://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=5199&nvt=Hamburger%20Nav&nvt=Men&nvt=Shop%20by%20Category&nvt=Jeans)

~~~
bin0
I am probably out of touch, but I wish more people would respond with
information, not rebuke.

I thought metrosexual was the politically correct term these days, and that
the terms traditionally used for such people are now considered offensive.
What is a better word?

I get a perfectly good fit, which is why I don't shop at such places. I asked
because I didn't know such things were commonplace for men, precisely because
I don't shop at such places. That part of the answer was informational, and
something of which I was simply not aware. The "sexist caricature" part was
what merited the indignance.

Honestly, it seems as though I'm being rebuked simply because I'm not a
fashionista. The first respondant referred to Gap as a "basic" clothing store;
I always thought of it as high-end. I didn't grow up in a situation where we
shopped at exoensive stores: not poor, just not _that_ rich. I never fell out
of those habits, I guess.

~~~
byproxy
It's not the fact that "metrosexual" is or isn't politically correct (I really
don't know (or care) where it falls), it's more the fact that the term itself
is passé. It's a term that was used (and overused) some 15 years ago. Plus, it
referred more to a man that over-indulged in taking care of their appearance,
not a man that is just looking for some good fitting clothes (which is the
subject of this discussion...I think).

Anyway, the more you know -=*.

(Also, no foul intended. I'm well on my way to being out of touch, too.)

