# Brooks Brothers Fit names



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but apparently BB has renamed their shirt fits.



So, if you see these names, you can figure out the fit.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Yup, another "great idea" thought up by the marketing dept and hated by everyone else.

Brian


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Just go with the one that still makes sense: Traditional.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

This happened a little while ago, and I guess it makes sense to line them up with the names of their suit fits, but I still think it's dumb.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Are the Milanese particularly skinny peoples?


----------



## my19 (Nov 11, 2009)

Duvel said:


> Just go with the one that still makes sense: Traditional.


Fortunately, that's all I order from BB.

Have no idea why they don't just go with the descriptor: Extra slim, slim and regular, as vague as they might seem, still beat the heck out of trying to remember whether it's the Milano or Madison that can be worn without the wearer appearing to be an over-stuffed sausage.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Judging by the respective models, I am either a Regent or a Madison.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm a Madison in Traditional-fit clothing. Sometimes I'm a Madison in Madison-fit clothing, but I prefer Traditional-fit clothing. 

Alas, my Milano days are far behind, as in, back in 7th grade.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Maybe this will help:

MILANO = underfed 7th grader
REGENT = buff Daniel Craig as James Bond busting out of his shirt
MADISON = regular guy
TRADITIONAL = regular guy who likes the luxury of a comfortable fit


----------



## my19 (Nov 11, 2009)

Duvel said:


> Maybe this will help:
> 
> MILANO = underfed 7th grader
> REGENT = buff Daniel Craig as James Bond busting out of his shirt
> ...


Can't wait to see those on the Brooks Brothers website ... descriptions even I can understand.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

My interpretation (ignoring a bit of sugarcoating they did on the traditional that I use personal experience to remedy):
Milano: skeletal ectomorph
Regent: young, body conscious
Madison: regular guy
Traditional: oversized (shirt and/or wearer)


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

Duvel said:


> Maybe this will help:
> 
> MILANO = underfed 7th grader
> REGENT = buff Daniel Craig as James Bond busting out of his shirt
> ...


It could as easily be:
MILANO = I own a bathroom scale.
REGENT = In the land of the obese, the man who stops after seconds is king.
MADISON = regular guy on a regular dose of statins
TRADITIONAL = Did I put on shoes today?

NOTE: I don't think that's what it is, because that's rather unkind.

I spent my adolescence in the 90s and had my fill of oversized shirts. The Milano fit is only "extra slim" by Brooks Brothers' standards. The name is silly by any reasonable standard, though maybe someone at BB saw a guy in an actual extra slim fit shirt walking down Madison Avenue and realized they were engaging in false advertising. The Traditional Fit makes some guys really happy--Duvel is the immediate example--so I am glad that it is available. I won't be buying it, though.

EDIT: Maybe I'll just go sit in YSR's thread and think about what I've done.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Perfect!

And thank you for clarifying that one does not need to be oversized oneself to qualify for the Traditional fit.



Tempest said:


> My interpretation (ignoring a bit of sugarcoating they did on the traditional that I use personal experience to remedy):
> *Milano: skeletal ectomorph*
> Regent: young, body conscious
> Madison: regular guy
> Traditional: oversized (shirt and/or wearer)


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

To make it worse you also have some more for sportcoats, pants, etc.--Fitzgerald, Clark, and so on.

I'm going to need a fold out chart to help me sort all this out and keep everything straight.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Actually, I'm glad that I have both Madison and Traditional hanging in the closet. Some of my jackets accommodate the Madison shirt better than the Traditional.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Say hi to YSR for us.

It's lunchtime and I'm hungry but now I'm going to worry about taking seconds and I feel guilty about having no bathroom scale. Oh, and I need to renew my script for statins.

To my credit, I'm walking a mile to and from home for lunch. I'm also eating only tuna.



MythReindeer said:


> It could as easily be:
> MILANO = I own a bathroom scale.
> REGENT = In the land of the obese, the man who stops after seconds is king.
> MADISON = regular guy on a regular dose of statins
> ...


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

Believe me, I wish my crankiness was a byproduct of painkillers and not grading.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

I think this is a good idea, it makes the fits consistent across all their clothes.

I stopped wearing the traditional fit...just too damn baggy and the "regular" fit isn't exactly tight. I like the slim fit and don't quite get all the hate it receives here. It's not exactly a skinny shirt. Maybe y'all just need to hit the gym. The slim fit is turning into my standard BB shirt now.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Believe it or not, I like the look of a baggy shirt.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

For someone who is in shape, somewhat athletic, and not built like a twig, slim fit (aka Regent) is absolutely perfect. 

Extra slim for me is a little too constricting across the shoulders. I don't understand how some people consider the extra slim fit "too baggy" but apparently there's people combining about it. I used to think ESF was perfect for my build, and while it is decent for casual shirts I would wear untucked, for something like an Oxford it is just too constricting in key areas like the armholes and yoke.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think a lot of it is purely personal preference. I think one who is in shape and somewhat athletic could wear any of the fits except for perhaps the Milano. I think it depends on how you like a shirt to fit on you, how it drapes, etc. While I'm not overly athletic, I do work out and stay in shape, coming in at just a few pounds over my ideal weight. And yet, the Traditional fit in the OCBD is the one that I like best in terms of how I think a shirt should look on me.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

From a branding perspective, I am confused about why they chose to rename Slim Fit "Regent" instead of "Fitzgerald."

The Regent fit is supposed to be their most athletic fit, for men with broad shoulders and chests, but large waist drops.

At this moment (and hopefully from now on) I am on the larger side of average with what I understand to be an average chest/waist drop (6") and a slightly above average overarm/underarm drop (10"). The "Regent Fit" in my size is fine in the waist, but constricting in the chest and shoulders. That makes no sense considering they seem to be marketing it to people with 8" or greater chest/waist drops.

It seems like it would be more congruent with the trim, narrow-shouldered Fitzgerald fit.

For my part, I just do the regular/madison fit and I am trying to learn to love the billow and undo all the years of slim fit brainwashing.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Duvel said:


> Maybe this will help:
> 
> MILANO = underfed 7th grader
> REGENT = buff Daniel Craig as James Bond busting out of his shirt
> ...


Being a "Regent Fit" wearer, I like your description. But I must say that, for me, any size larger would be like wearing a tent. It would look absolutely ridiculous. And the "Regent" fit isn't skin-tight or constricting.

There is a reason why the "Regent" fit is offered. For folks like me.


----------



## Tahmasp (Mar 15, 2014)

gamma68 said:


> Being a "Regent Fit" wearer, I like your description. But I must say that, for me, any size larger would be like wearing a tent. It would look absolutely ridiculous. And the "Regent" fit isn't skin-tight or constricting.
> 
> There is a reason why the "Regent" fit is offered. For folks like me.


Here, here. I don't understand all the anti-Regent sentiment. Turning it into a cultural critique doesn't make sense - if you have broad shoulders and a large chest-to-waist drop, the Regent will fit perfectly. For me, Traditional shirts are very uncomfortable to wear. The extra fabric folds awkwardly within a jacket and is an absolute chore to keep properly tucked-in. I don't need any extra fabric beyond what's necessary to have full range of movement, and the Regent provides exactly that.

All that said, I find the name "Regent" confusing, as L-feld mentioned, given that the Regent suit has structured shoulders and waist suppression. Fitzgerald would have been far more intuitive.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Tahmasp said:


> Here, here. *I don't understand all the anti-Regent sentiment*.....


Not sure what you're referring to. The BB 132Q/133Q has been the gold standard OCBD for some time now. I haven't seen any negative sentiment toward it. It's really not made for slim builds....I've always thought that "slim fit" was a bit of a misnomer. It's just not super billowy like the traditional fit.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

FLCracka said:


> It's really not made for slim builds....I've always thought that "slim fit" was a bit of a misnomer. It's just not super billowy like the traditional fit.


You're right, it's not really a "slim fit" shirt. For me, there is plenty of extra fabric, but without the tent-like fit of the "traditional" fit.

I'm going to be blunt here, but with no malice towards those who wear and like the "Traditional" fit. It seems that it's made for those who are overweight.

I'd bet that if you compared a "traditional" fit shirt from the early 1980s (or whatever BB called it then) with today's "traditional" fit shirt, you'd find that today's shirt is larger and more billowy. We've gotten bigger, folks.


----------



## Tahmasp (Mar 15, 2014)

FLCracka said:


> Not sure what you're referring to. The BB 132Q/133Q has been the gold standard OCBD for some time now. I haven't seen any negative sentiment toward it. It's really not made for slim builds....I've always thought that "slim fit" was a bit of a misnomer. It's just not super billowy like the traditional fit.


I was referring to comments in this thread that equated the Regent with being "young and body conscious" or being something that your muscles strain against. It's just not how the shirt fits, as you pointed out.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I'll be the lone person here to say I love the Milano fit shirts- they're slim on me without being constricting, and the armholes are high enough to allow me a full range of motion. It's personal preference, but I've always hated excess fabric on clothing, especially shirts.


----------



## my19 (Nov 11, 2009)

Like most folks here, I have a lot of OCBDs in a variety of fits from slim to traditional from several different makers. I'm 6-2, weigh 180, with a 10-inch drop. And I prefer the traditional cuts. I grew up a skinny kid when Ivy was the look, learned how to do the military tuck and never worried about flapping, billowing shirts, not that there were a lot of trim-cut shirts available then anyway.

Maybe it's an age thing, or maybe it's just what we're used to wearing. I'm glad BB and LE and other purveyors offer options. But I'll keep wearing what I've always worn. Anything else just isn't as comfortable.


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

orange fury said:


> I'll be the lone person here to say I love the Milano fit shirts- they're slim on me without being constricting, and the armholes are high enough to allow me a full range of motion. It's personal preference, but I've always hated excess fabric on clothing, especially shirts.


That's what I wear, too. I might tweak it just a smidge if I were designing my perfect shirt but it's quite a good fit for my tastes.

I've never found the military tuck to be an adequate solution with fuller cut shirts. It always gets pulled out and poofy. Higher-cut armholes really do help, but then so does not having the excess fabric to start with. Other people make it work for them, though, so kudos to them on that.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think this has a lot to do with it. I grew up believing that a shirt should fit more like a tent than a skindiving suit.



my19 said:


> Maybe it's an age thing, or maybe it's just what we're used to wearing. I'm glad BB and LE and other purveyors offer options. But I'll keep wearing what I've always worn. Anything else just isn't as comfortable.


----------



## rl1856 (Jun 7, 2005)

gamma68 said:


> I'd bet that if you compared a "traditional" fit shirt from the early 1980s (or whatever BB called it then) with today's "traditional" fit shirt, you'd find that today's shirt is larger and more billowy. We've gotten bigger, folks.


My experience has been that BB shirts are more trimly cut than before- including my preferred traditional cut. I have many BB ocbd shirts in my normal size hanging in my closet. They fit perfectly. I have found that I have to go up by one size to have the same fit in a new BB ocbd. This mirrors my experience with their recent suits and jackets. IMHO everything has been recut into a slimmer profile. Ironically the American waistband continues to expand, but menswear is more trimly cut. Trimmer cuts require less fabric, resulting in higher profit margins at the same price point. Any coincidence that we have been force fed trim cuts since the depths of the recession ?


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

They are probably trying to stay relevant in a rapidly slimming fashion culture, it takes trial and error to find the right fit but once you do, I think most body types are flattered by at least one of the four fits offered. 

As soon as you go into one of the alternate lines like black fleece or red fleece, The sizing goes out the window again and you have to figure out what works in those brands separately. If I had the money, I would simply order one of everything, find which one fits best, and return the others.


----------



## LawyerBoy (Feb 4, 2013)

Tahmasp said:


> Here, here. I don't understand all the anti-Regent sentiment. Turning it into a cultural critique doesn't make sense - if you have broad shoulders and a large chest-to-waist drop, the Regent will fit perfectly. For me, Traditional shirts are very uncomfortable to wear. The extra fabric folds awkwardly within a jacket and is an absolute chore to keep properly tucked-in. I don't need any extra fabric beyond what's necessary to have full range of movement, and the Regent provides exactly that.
> 
> All that said, I find the name "Regent" confusing, as L-feld mentioned, given that the Regent suit has structured shoulders and waist suppression. Fitzgerald would have been far more intuitive.


This typifies the frustration with the new fit labels. For example, I like a conservatively-cut suit, I have a rotund ass, and I like pleats because I wear braces. Therefore, I wear a 42R Madison suit. I have a sixteen-inch neck, and the shirt proportions correspond with the collar sizes, so I wear a Regent fit shirt. Meanwhile, there are 38R Milano guys whose shoulders wouldn't fit in a 14.5 or 15 Milano shirt. Similarly, there are 46L Madison wearers for whom a 17 Madison shirt fits like a tent.

The people who decided upon this change--like the people who decided to change the tags from saying the corresponding fit name to a color code with the word "Classic" on it ("this shirt says 'Classic,' but I wanted a slim fit, so I need to return it"), ostensibly to save a buck on stitch patterns by simply using the same tag, with different colors of thread, for every shirt--have clearly never set foot inside of a Brooks Brothers retail location and spoken with customers. The customers, who had just become used to the tag colors, now have to learn a new set of tag colors, a new set of names, and the new way in which the names correspond with the fit of the shirt.

If Brooks Brothers knew what was what, it would fire their sorry asses.


----------

