Streetwear sizing???

[A Harris]

From the Apolis x Styleforum x Context thread:

Originally Posted by A Harris

I've got the same question on this that I do on all the shirts from 'streetwear' brands. If the makers are going to cut them in 1/2 size or less increments (+1" in the chest per size increase) then why bother with the standard XS-XL sizing? The XL's are mediums at best in traditional sizing, so why call the shirt bigger than it is?? Doesn't seem like it would help them to sell.

Not really a complaint btw, I'm just curious as to the rationale.

Edit - I was wrong about the sizing increment on this shirt, it is actually 2" per size, but I still have the same question about the rationale of labeling them the way they do.

Originally Posted by whodini

I'll let Fok chime in with his opinion from the production side of things but as a consumer of mostly "streetwear" labels I find traditional sizing to be somewhat of a joke. I'm 6', 160lbs and yet I wear a size small, and in some cases extra small, in shirts and jackets in traditional sizing for them to fit me without appearing that I'm swimming in my clothes. What size should a grown man at 5'8, 145lbs be, a child's large?

It's simply two unique ways of tackling the same problem but after years of dealing with traditional sizing I'm much happier and less worried about the measurements of clothing from streetwear labels. I'm the size a grown man should be and hopefully my clothes should be sized as such.

The small increments are definitely a reflection of the target audience that would otherwise be in between sizes.

Originally Posted by LA Guy

You would probably take a large. I was the fit model for the medium, and I am 5'11" and just under 165 lbs, but my frame is pretty long, lean, and rather narrow. If you want a more relaxed fit, you probably want to go for the XL.

The sizing for the shirt follows European sizing (not for the more conservative brands.) A medium fits a lean 48Eu (me), and the XL is about a 52 Eu, and is meant to be fairly fitted.

I hope that helps!

Originally Posted by Baron

^^^
I was noticing the same thing. I would have to wear an XL in this shirt and I don't think I'm all that big a guy (5' 11" 170). Yesterday I tried on some BOO shirts in size L and they stretched tight across my chest. It seems like they could have more distance between the sizes.

Originally Posted by nyf

Is there any construction on the shoulder that makes it fit wider than measured, like a raglan-type construction or anything? 45" chest sounds reasonable, but 18.25" on the shoulders for the XL is fairly brutal.

As an aside, BoO cuts their XLs to 43" on this seasons's pit-to pit (!)


Ok, so I understand that this is a reaction in part to years of overly generous sizing. But still, the explanations aren't making sense to me. In the strictest sense an EU 46 (US 36) = xs, 48 (US 38) = small, 50 (US 40) = medium, 52 (US 42) = L, 54 (US 44) = XL etc. Generally though if the XS-XL sytem is used the increments between sizes are larger (3-4") because selling XXS and 2XL - 4XL sizes is difficult. Nobody wants to be classed that way, and those size descriptors aren't particularly accurate in the first place.

Who, at 6' 160lbs I'm guessing you have a 39-40" chest? If so you ought to take a size medium, but this shirt in a medium would have only have 1" of tolerance on someone with a 40" chest (skin tight.)

Perhaps this is a reverse of the old vanity sizing system? Meaning if you tag a garment as a smaller than it really is it makes the bigger guys feel better about buying it. Perhaps tagging garments aimed at a younger/slimmer audience bigger than they fit has a similar effect? Still, I have a hard time understanding how a label is going to effectively sell a size XL shirt to a guy that is well under 200 lbs.

 

[whodini]

"Skin tight" is relative and I have a 38" chest. And again, this is a shirt not really a jacket unless you size up and treat it as such.

 

[givemefive]

Try being 6'3" 165 and needing the sleeves of a large or extra large but the waist of a medium. I just don't like shopping for jackets and button ups because nothing fits.

 

[dfagdfsh]

99% of streetwear brands in the US use ridiculous vanity sizing where a medium is a 42" chest (if you're lucky). It's nice to see a few labels that try to make an effort to produce a slim fitting garment.

 

[whodini]

Originally Posted by Teger

99% of streetwear brands in the US use ridiculous vanity sizing where a medium is a 42" chest (if you're lucky). It's nice to see a few labels that try to make an effort to produce a slim fitting garment.
+1. That's the whole point I've been trying to make. Streetwear labels feel like the appropriate answer to, "Well, the trad brands have their fit, can't we come up with something that actually fits us?"

 

[Lel]

All I can say is that at 5"9 and 125 I'm fucked by traditional sizing. Even "slim" choices are just a joke. What I find laughable is that you often find sizes going to XL, XXL, and sometimes even beyond and this is the majority of brands. However XS is rare and if it exists then it's actually S in disguise.

Basically, one always has the options of going up a size. Always always always. If not for a particular brand, then one can move to another brand which is more generous in sizing. If the S/XS/14.5/suit size only goes down to 38 is too big for me, then I'm screwed. I have no choice, and I can't size down.

I praise a lot of the "streetwear" brands because they push leaner, trimmer cuts. If one finds BoO too slim fitting then stop complaining, don't buy it, and get JCrew/GAP/BR instead.

The problem is that people are constantly being branded into "sizes". It's not about size, but fit. As Whodini says, he finds himself a S in some brands. If someone like him, who has 3 inches and and a good 30+ lb. wears a small then what the hell am I supposed to wear? I think that people need to rethink themselves in terms of sizing and instead of branding the entirety of the male population into about 4 categories (S/M/L/XL) they need to think about fit.

It's difficult especially when it comes to suiting since most brands go down to 38, and if they are generous, 36. Sucks to be a 34.

Obviously no sizing is perfect and unless every top is made in suit sizing then we're stuck in this archaic categorization of S/M/L/XL. Basically, imagine if suits came only in sizes like S/M/L/XL. They would be cut as generic as possible to accommodate everyone but truly fit no one.

 

[dfagdfsh]

To put it in perspective, I'm 6'1 180 and if I bought this shirt I'd buy it either in a L (as a shirt) or as an XL (shirt jacket), and I can wear a ******* S in Gap and Banana Republic.

 

[whodini]

Originally Posted by Teger

To put it in perspective, I'm 6'1 180 and if I bought this shirt I'd buy it either in a L (as a shirt) or as an XL (shirt jacket), and I can wear a ******* S in Gap and Banana Republic.
Yeah, and do you feel like a small man? I sure as **** don't. I'm not Tom Cruise.

 

[bluemagic]

I believe people like to be the median. I certainly feel better buying something when I am a medium, and feel like that brand is thus "made for" me. Irrational, I know, but I feel there is something here. Like whodini, I'm a 38 inch chest and 5'11. I *should* be medium. It's weird if I have to get a "small."

 

[ken]

Originally Posted by A Harris

In the strictest sense an EU 46 (US 36) = xs, 48 (US 38) = small, 50 (US 40) = medium, 52 (US 42) = L, 54 (US 44) = XL etc. Generally though if the XS-XL sytem is used the increments between sizes are larger (3-4") because selling XXS and 2XL - 4XL sizes is difficult. Nobody wants to be classed that way, and those size descriptors aren't particularly accurate in the first place.

I was just thinking about this the other day.

As I understand it, the XS-XL sizing convention covers two suit sizes per letter size. So...

S = 34 to 36
M = 38 to 40
L = 42 to 44

That's how I see it most often on the tags of clothes.

So, if I'm a true size 37 in a suit jacket, I have the option of sizing down to something that is designed to fit a true 34 or sizing up to something designed to fit a true 40. That's a 3-inch discrepancy, which equates to a 1.5 inch difference in the classic "pit-to-pit" measurement.

That's too much for a shirt to fit properly, and it's a problem I seem to always have. A small is too tight in the chest to button the top 3 buttons, and a medium is too big everywhere else. I compromise by buying smalls and leaving the top buttons undone.

To be honest, I think I'd probably have a similar problem with the Apolis shirt due to the narrow shoulders (I think the model on the Context site has the problem, too, as I can't see that next button being buttoned w/o some major pulling). Anyways, to make a long story short, I wish everything was incremented via suit sizes.

 

[givemefive]

Originally Posted by whodini

Yeah, and do you feel like a small man? I sure as **** don't. I'm not Tom Cruise.

Who cares what the tag says but I get your point.

I should be a large because of chest and arm length but large = fat and i'm certainly not fat so.

 

[Lel]

Originally Posted by givemefive

large = fat .

I disagree. The general mindset of virtually every male who is below a large is "I must be a large". It was pretty funny watching a guy my size, minus 2 inches in height, walk into Hollister and purchase a L sized tee shirt immediately without blinking.

 

[Stacks]

In my opinion, size ranges should attempt to accommodate as much of the "fit" population as possible, big or small.

 

[givemefive]

Originally Posted by Lel

I disagree. The general mindset of virtually every male who is below a large is "I must be a large". It was pretty funny watching a guy my size, minus 2 inches in height, walk into Hollister and purchase a L sized tee shirt immediately without blinking.

well i'm not sure what you mean. but the large shirts seems always to be for people with 36" waists.

I'm a medium in short sleeve but large in long sleeve simply because of the sleeves. They are too short with any smaller size.

 

[KitAkira]

Originally Posted by Lel

All I can say is that at 5"9 and 125 I'm fucked by traditional sizing. Even "slim" choices are just a joke. What I find laughable is that you often find sizes going to XL, XXL, and sometimes even beyond and this is the majority of brands. However XS is rare and if it exists then it's actually S in disguise. Basically, one always has the options of going up a size. Always always always. If not for a particular brand, then one can move to another brand which is more generous in sizing. If the S/XS/14.5/suit size only goes down to 38 is too big for me, then I'm screwed. I have no choice, and I can't size down. I praise a lot of the "streetwear" brands because they push leaner, trimmer cuts. If one finds BoO too slim fitting then stop complaining, don't buy it, and get JCrew/GAP/BR instead. The problem is that people are constantly being branded into "sizes". It's not about size, but fit. As Whodini says, he finds himself a S in some brands. If someone like him, who has 3 inches and and a good 30+ lb. wears a small then what the hell am I supposed to wear? I think that people need to rethink themselves in terms of sizing and instead of branding the entirety of the male population into about 4 categories (S/M/L/XL) they need to think about fit. It's difficult especially when it comes to suiting since most brands go down to 38, and if they are generous, 36. Sucks to be a 34. Obviously no sizing is perfect and unless every top is made in suit sizing then we're stuck in this archaic categorization of S/M/L/XL. Basically, imagine if suits came only in sizes like S/M/L/XL. They would be cut as generic as possible to accommodate everyone but truly fit no one.
I have the same problem (5'11 120lbs). Although a lot of it has to do with people wanting less form-fitting clothes. Quite a few people think that I should be wearing large clothes when I have a 34" chest, at least I know not to trust their opinions on clothes

PS: vanity sizing encourages obesity