Why Do They Make So Many Large, XL, XXL Clothing

[nocoolonesleft]

I wear XL in some brands (BoO) but a L in most other brands.


I'm by no means fat. If you work out at all, you'll need a bigger size than most. This isn't complicated. This thread is the worst

 

[TylerDurden]

Clothes keep getting larger, yet the size tag stays the same. Yesterday's Large is todays Medium....

Yhea I can never find clothes in my size, always sold out.

 

[Transcendental]

Originally Posted by DesignerValet

The assumption that all people who wear XL are "fat asses" is obviously from someone with the build of a prepubescent girl. At 6' 1" with a broad back and shoulders and a long torso, I always wear either an XL or a XXL. Granted, I could be in better shape, but I'm not grotesquely obese either. Even if I were in excellent shape, I would NEVER be able to fit in a size smaller than a L standard or XL designer (with the exception of judiciously oversized brands like Pendleton or Polo). Hell, even my EU size sz 54 shirts are occasionally tight across the shoulders.
qft i wish some brands would realize this and at least make a tiny run of bigger sizes.... I can barely fit into some ****

 

[Meis]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Clothes keep getting larger, yet the size tag stays the same. Yesterday's Large is todays Medium....

Yhea I can never find clothes in my size, always sold out.

I just read an article on this the other day, about how sizes have continually gotten larger over time. Its focus was mainly on women, though, but for example at one point the article referenced a vintage clothing retailer who showed how an 8 in 1950 had become a 00 today.

I feel that it's by far a USA issue. Ex- I own two Zara sweaters that are both Mediums and fit snug, while I own a GAP XS sweater that is quite loose on me.

 

[Gus]

Lots of big-ass people out there.

 

[Ahab]

Kids like to wear really large shirts. Almost jersey's.

 

[BB1]

Originally Posted by BOF

I have a hard time believing that the average person in the US would wear a medium, as the majority are overweight.

Often times a size Medium can be huge today.

When I was cleaning out my closet after loosing weight I discovered a brand new sweatshirt labeled "Medium" that visually looked like it should be an XL. Measuring the chest on the sweatshirt revealed a 48 inch chest!

I believe the sweatshirt came from Costco, a place that usually stocks Medium as their smallest size. So yeah, your average 30 to 40 lbs overweight male can fit into this crap just fine and it still looks quite baggy on them.

 

[Lel]

Just measured a random XS mall brand shirt I have from long ago.

Pit to pit is 20.5, almost 21. ******* crazy. Not to mention, they definitely have an XXL size, probably 3XL too.

 

[slide13]

as a big ole' fat guy I'm glad they do. I scored a RLPL shirt for 75% off at Saks the other day in XXL and it's a great shirt that I would never be able to afford at regular price, and this was the only size they had.

Also just scored some Sugar Cane Okinawas at 50% off from Context in size 38.

I am going to work on slimming down though (the Sugar Canes don't actually fit right now, but they will), but that doesn't mean I want to dress like **** until I do.

 

[Jacques Cousteau]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but it could be that fat people (because they care less, in general, about their appearance) are more price sensitive. Retailers could price each size differently, but that's a ****** experience for the consumer, who now has to worry whether that better fit with worth an extra $15, so they just wait until the majority of the smaller sizes are gone until discounting.

Seems like simple attempt at price discrimination w/o pissing anyone off.

 

[BB1]

Originally Posted by Jacques Cousteau

Haven't read through the entire thread, but it could be that fat people (because they care less, in general, about their appearance) are more price sensitive. Retailers could price each size differently, but that's a ****** experience for the consumer, who now has to worry whether that better fit with worth an extra $15, so they just wait until the majority of the smaller sizes are gone until discounting. Seems like simple attempt at price discrimination w/o pissing anyone off.
This is hateful speech!

Your stereotypes of fat people (i.e. care less about their appearance and are cheapskates) are oppressing fat people in our society. In case you didn't know, not accepting being fat as a "good and normal thing" is now a civil rights issue. Please read this site to learn more about this important issue of "social justice".... http://www.naafaonline.com/ "Riots, not diets"

 

[Jacques Cousteau]

from http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/305319991:

And with the dismal retail environment, stores have to pare back in a number of areas. Like many other consumers, the plus-size customer hasn't been opening her purse much lately. Sales of such sizes (generally 16 and over) fell 8% for the 12 months that ended in March from the year-earlier period, when the drop was nearly 4%, according to trend tracker NPD Group Inc. By contrast, sales of regular women's sizes fell only 2% for the year that ended in March, and the petite sector had just a slight decline.

“They're really bargain shoppers,” says Catherine Schuller, a plus-size expert and former editor at Mode, a magazine for larger women. Many are homemakers who can't spend considerable amounts on clothes and are willing to sacrifice their own spending for their families, especially now, Ms. Schuller says.

 

[yoshimagikmagik]

Okay, first of all, it's amazing how many of the members of SF have no ******* clue what the original question is or at least do not believe that this thread should try to honor the OP's question, rather than tangential comments about whether XL people are fat-asses, etc.

Secondly, I want to get to the crux of the argument again, a point that an earlier poster had quite clearly articulated. The argument is that at the end of the day, clearance items disproportionately are left with mostly larger sizes such L, XL, XXL. Good example: Just yesterday night, Context had a flash sale, where almost everything that was left after a few hours was L to XL. There was not a single instance I saw where only S's were left, and the larger sizes sold out. That seems to indicate a problem in the retailer's distribution of sizes in order to maximize profits.

However, Teger pointed out that a possible explanation of this lay in percentages. Ex. if we had 25 S's left from an initial batch of 50, but 1000 XL's left from an initial batch of 5,000, that argues in favor of keeping more XL's because they actually sell better than the S's, even though in absolute numbers there are much fewer S's left than XL at the end of a sale.

I have no problem attributing this logic to the majority of American retail, as many of you have pointed that America is an overweight country, where the average male is certainly not a S, and probably not a M either.

HOWEVER, as stated earlier by another poster, the problem comes when we try to attribute this logic to high end clothing stores such as context. I highly doubt that Context's average clientelle wear L or XL. Because of this, it is logical to assume that Context sells more S and M's than L's or XL. At the VERY least you could make the claim that they sell the same amount of S's and L's. Given this logical assumption, it makes no sense why Context should allow themselves to lose out on profits by having a majority of larger sizes left even though the initial amount of larger sizes is probably LESS or the same as smaller sizes.

Case in point, I have no ******* clue why high end stores such as context are doing with having so many more larger sizes than smaller sizes. I may not know the answer, but I do understand the crux of the problem, which I have tried to illustrate above.

 

[Mr Calvin Oscar]

Lollllllllllllll

 

[BB1]

Yes, Context often only has XL's left over. However, I frequently see the exact opposite at Blackbird-- often XS is the only size left!