- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,599
- Reaction score
- 78
From the Apolis x Styleforum x Context thread:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
^^^
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.
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.