Why's it so hard to find “your clothing size”?
tryfitfirst.com
tryfitfirst.com
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.
There are a some mentions of some better brands out there. Proper Cloth was one, but there are others, even ones which make bottoms.
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.
IME the only places that actually stick to proper sizes on belts are places that cater more toward "working belts" - selling to people who carry guns or gear - not for fashion or "just" to hold up their pants.
Tl;dr though: vanity sizing is a myth
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
And while I'm it, many women I know don't wear dresses more than once or twice. Why? This seems wasteful.
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.
Though, could be a style, a la: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/44/99/04/449904cf74d56a096b1f5bb60...
I think some fit concerns could be mitigated by having a more diverse range of sizes of models. Women's clothing brands seem to be more open to showing a diverse range of sizes whereas men's clothing is still filled with models at least 6'0" of slim to athletic build.
Case in point, check the difference in body type diversity between the Everlane men's and women's clothing sections:
Maybe. I think fit concerns would be mitigated if places stopped lying about the fit of their clothing by secretly clipping all of their mannequins and models in the back. https://jezebel.com/pinning-clothing-so-it-fits-the-mannequi...
Also, what on God's Green Earth is a "Pineapple Commonwealth"? It's clearly a fake indirect reference to something, but I'm not sure what.
Banana Republic
> Come on. Don't be a sexist caricature.
This is a very uncharitable reading of the question, and a personal insult is a very unhelpful response. When someone doesn't know something, saying "Stop being an idiot" doesn't help anything.
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.
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...
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.
Anyway, the more you know -=*.
(Also, no foul intended. I'm well on my way to being out of touch, too.)
That's fine. But you made a totalizing claim that isn't true about men's sizes vs women's sizes. If you want to understand why your claim isn't true, perhaps you can stop into one just to look around.
> I've never seen tons of styles
The world is a big place with lots of variety.