Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Size vs. Cost
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Size vs. Cost

post #1 of 46
12/17/11 at 10:52pm
Thread Starter 
There is an understandable difference between a man who is 5'2" and one who is 6'4" yet it seems to me that each of these men will pay roughly the same for a given article of clothing that fits him. For lower cost clothing this is not a surprise, but luxury items which establish a premium in part on materials and material costs should have a price tag proportional to the amount of this premium material in use. Yet, I haven't seen much evidence of this.

So... why not?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 46
12/17/11 at 10:56pm
Size matters..........................................nod[1].gif
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 46
12/17/11 at 10:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

Size matters..........................................nod[1].gif

OK, I kind of set myself up for that.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 46
12/17/11 at 11:00pm
rimshot.gif
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 46
12/17/11 at 11:08pm
Some makers charge more if you're significantly bigger (for example, Sam Hober, WW Chan). I've never seen someone giving a discount for a particularly small size vs. an average size.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 46
12/18/11 at 4:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Some makers charge more if you're significantly bigger (for example, Sam Hober, WW Chan). I've never seen someone giving a discount for a particularly small size vs. an average size.

For luxury products materials are indeed a significant factor as is time for pattern making etc.

In our case we have ranges of lengths for a given price and we don't typically get a large percentage of orders outside a certain size range.

When the height/length is slightly smaller we may have a small savings on materials but not much as we need a certain profit to cover fixed overheads.

We do get orders for boys (typically for weddings) and if they are very small we can give a slightly lower price.

But again we really don't have much savings (if any) with boys as there tends to be more time involved with getting their measurements and making their patterns.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 46
12/18/11 at 6:27am
I pay more for CMT, and even some taliors at 6'7".
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 46
12/18/11 at 7:12am
Thread Starter 
To clarify, my original question was focused on RTW, where size S is typically sold for the same price as size XXL.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 46
12/18/11 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiego View Post

So... why not?

Because you're not buying a pound of hamburger. The difference in material cost is just spread out over the whole production run.

You could argue smaller are getting screwed.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 46
12/18/11 at 7:59am
The cost of fabric represents a very small piece of the pie when compared to the total costs of ready to wear including labor, equipment, overhead, setup, manufacturing, packaging, wholesale distribution, and finally, retail costs.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 46
12/18/11 at 8:18am
Thread Starter 
See, I'm not sure I agree. A pound of hamburger... but we're not talking about hamburgers here. Please see the original post: I recognize that the JC Penney shirting is going to have tiny material costs, but for some of the clothing discussed on this site, the material cost is quite significant.

I first got to thinking of this when buying shell cordovan shoes. For many makes, they are significantly costlier (given the same design) for the upgrade to shell and unless there is some hanky-panky going on, I assume a good percentage of the delta derives directly from materials cost. Yet the 7US pair will cost the same as the 13US pair. A Kiton 180s suit? I assume that fabric costs more than hamburger meat and represents more than 1% of the suit cost. But 36S will cost the same as 48L. How about the finest Loro Piana cashmere storm system overcoat? S and XXL... same price. I completely understand why this would be for a $100 leather jacket from Wilson's Leather, or a $25 Van Heusen dress shirt, but I struggle with the same practice being followed at 25x those price points.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't complain since I'm a bigger guy.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 46
12/18/11 at 8:35am
Usually the price difference is in material cost is negligeable. Secondly it would complicate matters, leading to a number of headaches: customer confusion about pricing, more administration, where to start differentiating prices (per size? per 2 sizes etc), issues with item returns due to price differences. No, bad idea!

There's hardly ever anyone complaining anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 46
12/18/11 at 8:43am
There is little price shading for either large or small in RTW. You will find increases (but no decreases) for the larger at some MTM tailors and possibly bespoke as well. However these do not cut in until 'gross' persons are involved. That rarely means the tall, just the obese.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 46
12/18/11 at 8:48am
Sweigo, regarding shell shoes. 1 Shell = 1 pair regardless of size of shoe. The shell itself is pretty small and there simply isn't enough to make more than one pair of well matched shoes.

I guess it's conceivable that some lesser manufacturers try to get a few extra pieces out of a shell - but it wouldn't be common.
Edited by Gdot - 12/18/11 at 9:18am
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 46
12/18/11 at 8:50am
Thread Starter 
Well, I noticed that just about everyone making shell cordovan footwear also sell shell cordovan belts, whose tabs presumably are cut from leftover shell used to make smaller shoes. (That said, your point is well taken.)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Men's Clothing
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Size vs. Cost