# This is Extra Slim Fit?! I am not impressed, Charles Tyrwhitt...



## LookinSharp24 (Jun 3, 2013)




----------



## JArmstrong (Nov 20, 2014)

It's not just them. I'm 5'10" with a fairly athletic build and "slim fit" otr shirts in almost any brand fit like parachutes. I suppose it's a result of otr shirts being made for the "average" man............who is growing in girth every year apparently. Only some of the more fashion forward makers have slim cuts that actually fit me like a slim cut.


----------



## LookinSharp24 (Jun 3, 2013)

JArmstrong said:


> It's not just them. I'm 5'10" with a fairly athletic build and "slim fit" otr shirts in almost any brand fit like parachutes. I suppose it's a result of otr shirts being made for the "average" man............who is growing in girth every year apparently. Only some of the more fashion forward makers have slim cuts that actually fit me like a slim cut.


i am very bummed though. i had read so many people claiming these are great. i am not skinny by any means. i am 5'11, close to 200lbs and work out. 17" neck, 35" sleeve.

wtf?!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

LookinSharp24 said:


> i am very bummed though. i had read so many people claiming these are great. i am not skinny by any means. i am 5'11, close to 200lbs and work out. 17" neck, 35" sleeve.
> 
> wtf?!


Your neck is broad relative to your waist. Beats the opposite.

That shirt doesn't look that bad, either. The chest is quite close-fitting, while the waist has a bit of ease, so it doesn't totally suit you. Frankly, you'd be better off with a little more ease in the chest and the same fit at the waist (a well-proportioned shirt that follows the body with a bit of ease always looks better than one which is cut very close everywhere).

And your pants are too tight, which exacerbates the issue.


----------



## JArmstrong (Nov 20, 2014)

It looks alright through the chest and sleeves to me. Perhaps you can have the waist taken in a bit? I've salvaged many a shirt with a few dollars at the tailor.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Your neck is broad relative to your waist. Beats the opposite.


Oy...


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

It looks to me like you purposely made it look sloppy. Tuck it correctly and take another pic.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

dks202 said:


> It looks to me like you purposely made it look sloppy. Tuck it correctly and take another pic.


Exactamundo!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

+1. Pull your pants up too, or get a proper fitting pair of slacks. It looks fine through the chest.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

LookinSharp24:

Do you know about the "military' method of pulling the extra shirt fabric from the front to the sides using your thumbs?

Or just start eating lots of carbs!:beer:


----------



## LookinSharp24 (Jun 3, 2013)

Andy said:


> LookinSharp24:
> 
> Do you know about the "military' method of pulling the extra shirt fabric from the front to the sides using your thumbs?
> 
> Or just start eating lots of carbs!:beer:


i don't. no.


----------



## Mikestyle49 (Sep 29, 2014)

That's how slim shirts fit me as well. baggy in the waist. thats why i have been ordering from Ratio and Proper Cloth. I guess at age 50 to have a 33 inch waist is good, so i am glad to have to go the Ratio route


----------



## 123abc (Oct 3, 2014)

That's not a bad fit. It could be a bit looser in the chest and tighter in the waist if you want a very tight looking fit. The bottom line is very few OTR shirts are cut for a larger neck and chest with a smaller waist. That would technically be "tapered" cut I guess but what each company call their cuts may have no bearing on what it actually is. It's fairly annoying actually and steering me towards a MTM sometime soon I expect. CT extra slim is tight in the chest and upper arms for me but not in the waist. It's slimmer all around than "classic" or their slim, so doesn't really help with the "baggy waist" problem many have with OTR. JAB claims their "tappered" or "fitted" has more room in the upper areas then tappers to the waist, but I think if you have a larger neck it's still too generous all around. I just fold the waist in around the side as was discussed - didn't know there was an official name for this. With a suit jacket this is fine but not the best with the jacket off. With "classic" fit shirts, in my neck size, there's just too much waist fabric to jam in the sides and it can't look as good.

I may try proper cloth soon, or one like it. I don't want to drop big $$$ on a locally made shirt and to be honest am OK with BB or CT slim fit and some tucking as needed. I would like to try a MTM though to see if I really like it better.


----------



## LookinSharp24 (Jun 3, 2013)

what tuck method is this?


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

The shirt looks pretty darn good. If you are concerned about extra fabric at the waist, do a military tuck, as others have suggested, or spend $10.00 to have an alterations person add darts in the lower back (the back of the shirt, not your back).

And for an even better look, wear trousers that are a tiny bit looser across the hips, and with a rise that is 2 inches higher.

(This slim-fit craze is making too many fellas needlessly--absolutely needlessly--unhappy with their shirts: It's not tight enough. Not slim enough. Not tapered enough. Dang it! A rising level of unnecessary dissatisfaction. Three cheers for the "gentleman's fit.")

OP, the shirt is fine. Love it and happily go forth in this fascinating world.


----------



## JArmstrong (Nov 20, 2014)

123ABC I feel that pain as I have the same issue with OTR. Shirts with a 17 inch neck and wide enough for my larger than average shoulders for my height seems to equal oceans of fabric around the stomach and sides with arm holes that seem to go halfway down the shirt. >_< Hopefully my recently placed order with Ratio will be a win.


----------



## JArmstrong (Nov 20, 2014)

Charles Dana said:


> (This slim-fit craze is making too many fellas needlessly--absolutely needlessly--unhappy with their shirts: It's not tight enough. Not slim enough. Not tapered enough. Dang it! A rising level of unnecessary dissatisfaction. Three cheers for the "gentleman's fit.")
> .


 Agree. I prefer as close fitting as possible while having a full range of motion. I don't want to feel like the buttons will pop when I sit down or only be able to raise my arms halfway. I think the aptly named slim fit craze has been a positive development though in that it has made many men start to actually notice and consider how their clothing fits.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

I'm 5'9'', 165 lbs and the size 16 extra slim is way too tight on my chest. If I extend my arms too fast, the back of the shirt will rip. And I only have a 33'' waist. I have to opt for the 16.5 extra slim fit shirt.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

I think that shirt would be 70% of the way there if tucked with a bit more care. However with some minor adjustments it would be a perfect fit. The chest is good, as are the shoulders and, in some ways, most importantly, the armholes. Those are pretty hard to tailor without essentially redoing the entire shirt. 

Thomas Pink has both a "super slim" and an "athletic" cut, but I haven't tried them myself. The "athletic" only comes in a few colors and all are cotton/lycra, which is a turnoff for me.


----------



## mistabutters (Jul 10, 2014)

CT doesn't work for me at all either. 15" neck, 36" chest, 29" waist. Even extra slim isn't all that slim, and it already has darts which make altering it kind of awkward. 

FWIW, a CT sales rep told me that this summer they are changing their fits to make them slimmer.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

mistabutters said:


> CT doesn't work for me at all either. 15" neck, 36" chest, 29" waist. Even extra slim isn't all that slim, and it already has darts which make altering it kind of awkward.
> 
> FWIW, a CT sales rep told me that this summer they are changing their fits to make them slimmer.


Terrible! I have tried on 4 different sizes in CT extra slim fit to figure out which one fits me best. Now they're going to change it?!


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

A dissenting opinion. My own experience with CT extra-slims is positive. I wear a 16-33, with a 40" chest, 32" waist, and at 5'9" & 163 lbs. On me the extra-slims feel great and fit well around the waist - as good as custom.

My guess, as others have suggested, your 17" neck must bump up the waist sizing. Easy enough for a slight alteration, as perfect OTR fits really aren't common. You should see what I have to have done with jackets!


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

Grayson said:


> A dissenting opinion. My own experience with CT extra-slims is positive. I wear a 16-33, with a 40" chest, 32" waist, and at 5'9" & 163 lbs. On me the extra-slims feel great and fit well around the waist - as good as custom.
> 
> My guess, as others have suggested, your 17" neck must bump up the waist sizing. Easy enough for a slight alteration, as perfect OTR fits really aren't common. You should see what I have to have done with jackets!


I'm guessing you don't have large lats do you? I'm a 40'' chest also, but when I extend my arms in front of me, I probably become a 42-43''.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

TimelesStyle said:


> Thomas Pink has ...a "super slim"... cut....


Yes. It's called "spray paint."


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

doodledoc said:


> Terrible! I have tried on 4 different sizes in CT extra slim fit to figure out which one fits me best. Now they're going to change it?!


Welcome to the world of men's ready-to-wear. It's always changing, seldom for the better. Here's the law: the longer it takes you to find a garment that fits you beautifully, the higher the probability that when you go to buy another one, you'll find that it has been discontinued.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

doodledoc said:


> I'm guessing you don't have large lats do you? I'm a 40'' chest also, but when I extend my arms in front of me, I probably become a 42-43''.


You think? Have you actually measured (or had someone else do it)? Unless your lats are practically wings I think the 2-3 inch increase is more of an illusion, since when you put your arms out your chest also contracts a bit. So, while you appear "wider" side to side, you're "shallower" front to back. I haven't actually measured, but this is what the mirror suggests.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Charles Dana said:


> Yes. It's called "spray paint."


Actually, come to think of it, I have tried these and they fit a bit awkwardly. Reason is that the chest and hem are the same width as the regular "slim" counterpart; there's just more waist suppression. Result is a shirt that looks more "skirt-like" when untucked.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

TimelesStyle said:


> You think? Have you actually measured (or had someone else do it)? Unless your lats are practically wings I think the 2-3 inch increase is more of an illusion, since when you put your arms out your chest also contracts a bit. So, while you appear "wider" side to side, you're "shallower" front to back. I haven't actually measured, but this is what the mirror suggests.


I currently don't have anyone to measure me when I extend my arms. However, I measure my chest at 40'' with my upper arms (where the biceps and triceps are) parallel to my body. However, I need dress shirts that are at least 45.5'' in the chest. Another lower, and the whole dress shirt pulls and I feel like I'm going to the back of the dress shirt. Maybe it's not just a problem of the the chest but also the armholes, sleeves.

The 2-3'', I pulled out of thin air.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Grayson said:


> A dissenting opinion. My own experience with CT extra-slims is positive. I wear a 16-33, with a 40" chest, 32" waist, and at 5'9" & 163 lbs. On me the extra-slims feel great and fit well around the waist - as good as custom.
> 
> My guess, as others have suggested, your 17" neck must bump up the waist sizing. Easy enough for a slight alteration, as perfect OTR fits really aren't common. You should see what I have to have done with jackets!


+1

my sizing is similar, 5'91/2", 39 chest, 32 waist, 156 lbs. the CT slim fit in 15.5/33 fits well. The ESF, fits well, but aside from my tuxedo shirts, I prefer a little more room at the waist. I don't want it billowing, but I also don't want it to fit like a Woman's fitted top. IMO, and has been noted here before, a man's shirt should have some extra fabric around the waist, and not be near skiing tight. The military tuck keeps it looking clean in front and the sides, without giving a feminine silhouette.

I think you're problem is twofold. First, you're neck is disproportionately large compared to your chest and waist. A 17 inch neck OTR shirt is made to accommodate a much larger torso, no matter what the cut. A 40 inch chest will be fitting a 15-16 inch neck depending on manufacturer and cut, not anyone's 17. The second problem is the slim/slim/too slim craze. I believe it's distorting you're view of what a proper fit is. That CT is fine in the waist, just tuck it properly.

For a fraction of the price of Thomas Pink, you can get good quality MTM shirts from Proper Cloth, or my favorite, Pickashirt.com. MTM will be the only way to accommodate a overly large 17 inch neck and the properly sized slim 40 inch torso/waist you have. You can also back off on the neck/shoulder excersises to develop a more balanced proportion.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Grayson said:


> A dissenting opinion. My own experience with CT extra-slims is positive. I wear a 16-33, with a 40" chest, 32" waist, and at 5'9" & 163 lbs. On me the extra-slims feel great and fit well around the waist - as good as custom.


Strangely enough, that's my exact sizes as well. And Charles Tyrwhitt have sent me a brochure with a coupon this week.
I have one or two of their slim-fit shirts but am tempted to get their OCBD in extra slim.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> +1
> 
> my sizing is similar, 5'91/2", 39 chest, 32 waist, 156 lbs. the CT slim fit in 15.5/33 fits well. The ESF, fits well, but aside from my tuxedo shirts, I prefer a little more room at the waist. I don't want it billowing, but I also don't want it to fit like a Woman's fitted top. IMO, and has been noted here before, a man's shirt should have some extra fabric around the waist, and not be near skiing tight. The military tuck keeps it looking clean in front and the sides, without giving a feminine silhouette.
> 
> ...


Regarding pickashirt.com, how much is a 100% cotton shirt out the door (specify which type of cotton you used on your last shirt)? People on this forum keep telling me you can get a MTM shirt for slightly more than OTR shirts. What type of OTR shirts are you buying? CT? My CT shirts are $25 (including shipping).

I tried out mytailor because it's HQ is located 50 minutes from my home and I could get it fitted by an employee. It was a $80 shirt, but after tax, shipping, and duties, it became a $110 shirt out the door. It's a beautiful shirt. It fits very well. I'm wearing it right now and I can do brazilian jiu jitsu in it and not worry that it will rip. But it's more than 4x my CT shirt.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Unless you're shopping the clearance site, or using the first time promotions, CT shirts are startng at 4 for $199 right now. Pick a shirt runs $35.99 for twill and Egyption cotton to $55.99 for superfine 100% Italian Cotton. Many options are no extra charge, such as luxury thckness cuffs and collars, removable stays and pockets. Single shirt standard delivery to US is $7.99, $11.99 for 2.

I get the extra thick buttons, double button cut cuff or French cuffs, rounded bottom with removable collar stays for my dress shirts. Single stitch construction, and a heavier weight than CT Poplin. No see through. Comes in a cheesy soft cardboard package, but I'd rather save the money on packaging and spend it on the shirt itself. Based in Australia, but made in Thailand, probably by child slave labor for these prices. Not reccomended for those who wear a hair shirt of empathy and compassion. I'm a self centered, shallow, callous, American pig, so they are my favorite MTM shirts.:hidden:


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> Unless you're shopping the clearance site, or using the first time promotions, CT shirts are startng at 4 for $199 right now. Pick a shirt runs $35.99 for twill and Egyption cotton to $55.99 for superfine 100% Italian Cotton. Many options are no extra charge, such as luxury thckness cuffs and collars, removable stays and pockets. Single shirt standard delivery to US is $7.99, $11.99 for 2.
> 
> I get the extra thick buttons, double button cut cuff or French cuffs, rounded bottom with removable collar stays for my dress shirts. Single stitch construction, and a heavier weight than CT Poplin. No see through. Comes in a cheesy soft cardboard package, but I'd rather save the money on packaging and spend it on the shirt itself. Based in Australia, but made in Thailand, probably by child slave labor for these prices. Not reccomended for those who wear a hair shirt of empathy and compassion. I'm a self centered, shallow, callous, American pig, so they are my favorite MTM shirts.:hidden:


I exclusively shop at the clearance rack on CT such as: https://www.ctshirts.com/Sale/men's...q=usddefault||fd225blu|||||1862,||16,|4,|||||

So, there are no other additional fees beyond shipping (meaning, if the shirt says it costs $40 and the shipping is 7.99, out the door, it's 47.99?).

What would you recommend regarding the cloth material? Is the superfine 100% Italian cotton a definite improvement over the regular CVC cotton and worth the extra money? I am willing to pay $63 for a quality shirt that fits me very well (just not $110).

I want to be a corporate lawyer, so in the eyes of some, I'm 100x worse than you.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

I think the twill at $35.99 makes a great shirt. Door to door is $43.98, another $1.50 for removable collar stays.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

momsdoc said:


> I get the extra thick buttons...


Do you have any problem buttoning the extra thick buttons?

(Probably not or you wouldn't buy them.) I ask because I do. I also have other problems.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

No, it's just takes a second to get used to having to PUSH the button all the way through. The button down collar might be tricky with advanced arthritis.:mad2:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

momsdoc said:


> The button down collar might be tricky with advanced arthritis.:mad2:


Thank you for your professional opinion even tho I have no arthritis, anywhere. Large hands tho, which pair poorly with little, thick buttons.

However, I could use your professional opinion in another area:

As you know, it's popular among old people such as myself to have knee replacements. And while my knees are fine, and rather attractive, I think I wanna get in on the knee replacement craze. FREE MEDICARE. But what to replace them with?

I've had knees, been there, done that. What about cup holders? I could use one for rum and the other for the chaser. Of course when I stood up they'd spill, but I tend to spill stuff when I stand anyway so I'm use to that.

Your professional opinion, pls.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Only lightweights need a chaser.:devil:


----------



## BillyB (Feb 14, 2015)

As much as I like C.T. Shirts, I have to agree with the OP. Their "Athletic Fit" shirts can be a bit more generous with cut than I would prefer at times.

I participate in Endurance Sports and when I am training heavily, I am extremely lean. I have searched high and low for a very athletic fitting shirt that would accommodate a large drop from a 43 inch chest to a 32 inch waist. My best fit?

Surprisingly, Van Heusen. I know, you are saying, "That's absurd. Those shirts are not great." Maybe so. But when I was on business about 8 years ago in Lexington, KY, I stopped into a Van Heusen Outlet and tried their Athletic Fit dress shirts. Amazingly, they fit like they were tailored specifically for me. And the price was right, that's for sure. Especially at the Outlet.

You just never know.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Shirts ought to be cut full. The impulse toward figure hugging variants of traditional menswear is baffling. Could I encourage an adherent to rationalise the motivation that drives this trend?


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Shirts ought to be cut full. The impulse toward figure hugging variants of traditional menswear is baffling. Could I encourage an adherent to rationalise the motivation that drives this trend?


+1

Maybe it has something to do with the propensity for wearing shirts untucked. Many men just never seemed to learn how to properly tuck a shirt in.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I am a fairly skinny guy (30w, with a 15.5 neck size) and I love the fit of my slim (not extra slim) Charles Tyrwhitt shirt. Not baggy whatsoever. Maybe they've changed dimensions recently?


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> +1
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with the propensity for wearing shirts untucked. Many men just never seemed to learn how to properly tuck a shirt in.


I'm not exactly what you mean by "cut full" but I think shirts look best when they are fitted. That doesn't mean it should be skin tight like a workout shirt.

When it's cut full and you don't have a full figure, even if you do a military tuck, you can tell it's not a good fitting shirt from 20 yards away.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Agreed, especially as shirts with classic cuts have enlarged to accommodate the increasing girth of the average man. I prefer a fitted shirt also, but not snug. There should be enough material for a proper military tuck. The waist in the OP's pic is on the trim side, but acceptable.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> Agreed, especially as shirts with classic cuts have enlarged to accommodate the increasing girth of the average man. I prefer a fitted shirt also, but not snug. There should be enough material for a proper military tuck. The waist in the OP's pic is on the trim side, but acceptable.


A proper tuck may fix the problem, but the OP needs to do one and then see how it looks.

OP, youtube "military tuck" and you'll figure out what it is. From a youtube video, I learned that this method is very popular with boy scouts!


----------



## BillyB (Feb 14, 2015)

Athletic or slim fitted shirts do not mean "snug", they mean tapered to the athletic or slim cut body type. 

You can go overboard of course. I have a few friends that work out to excess and obsess about their diets. They never miss an opportunity to show their Adonis physique to the World, not realizing that the fit of the dress shirt they are wearing is simply "wrong".


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am perhaps labouring under a misconception, however, as I understand it a primary aim of traditional menswear is homogeneity, to disguise imperfection and project an idealised Grecian proportion. Not to show off one's figure, a most unseemly trait in a male. I am slim, I would not go so far as to say athletic, not at this Autumnal phase, yet I retain a six inch drop. And still I would not consider anything but a classically fitting shirt. Billow is integral to a shirt's appeal.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I am perhaps labouring under a misconception, however, as I understand it a primary aim of traditional menswear is homogeneity, to disguise imperfection and project an idealised Grecian proportion. Not to show off one's figure, a most unseemly trait in a male. I am slim, I would not go so far as to say athletic, not at this Autumnal phase, yet I retain a six inch drop. And still I would not consider anything but a classically fitting shirt. Billow is integral to a shirt's appeal.


Wow, complex words, and this is coming from a man that went to one of the best law schools in America.

I googled "Grecian proportion" and got this: https://relativestrengthadvantage.com/ideal-proportions/proportions-diagram4.jpg. I took art history and somewhat remember the Greek Classical and Hellenistic periods. Let me tell you something, 90% of Americans do not have these proportions. I did a Google Now search and it says that 75% of Americans are overweight. If you're overweight and if it shows when you wear a t-shirt, no dress shirt can hide that. It may make it less prevalent (such as classic fitting shirts), but everyone will still know that you're overweight. Classic fitting shirts fit wider and longer to accommodate overweight people. I say this not to be harsh, but to show what the average dress shirt looks like.

My understanding of menswear, as limited as it is (yet I have done quite a bit of research in the last month), is that menswear should not show off your figure (as you stated). But when I say that, your clothes should not create misconceptions about your figure either. I'll give you an example. I have a fairly athletic body type. I lift semi-heavy weights and do high intensity cardio workouts. I'm relatively thin and have a large back and shoulders for someone my size. However, prior to 2 months ago, my dress shirts and slacks made me look fat. My pants had pleats which made me look bloated (it suggested I had a muffintop/love handles). My dress shirts were classic fit shirts; I could hide a pillow under my shirt. The shirt was a full cut shirt and I do not have a full cut body. My shirts now are tailored, but you cannot see my pectorial muscles or my biceps. These fit much better. When I wear my clothes now, you can't tell I work out, but it doesn't suggest I'm fat. What it does suggest is that I'm slim (which I actually am).

Would I ever wear clothes that show my muscles? Absolutely not. It restricts movement and it's not the look that I want.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes, it makes good sense. And thank you for taking the time to put that together.

However, after re-reading both your and Shaver's posts, I don't think he's in contradiction with you, tho a comma or different punctuation might have made his more clear.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Thank you for your professional opinion even tho I have no arthritis, anywhere. Large hands tho, which pair poorly with little, thick buttons..


Congrats P&P. You know what they say about large hands....


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Plasti-Dip is all the rage now.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

I spent a great deal of money on shirts. I learned that at the end of the day, an OTR shirt is something close to what suits you, never a perfect fit. We can't expect for a person of ex. 17/34 size ESF to have similar curvatures. It's impossible. Some tailoring will help. I had a few custom shirts done, which are perfect (esthetically) but frankly, not as comfortable as OTR.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Just had my Charles Tyrwhitt Extra Slim Fit OCBD shirt delivered and am wearing it now.
My first time buying extra slim fit, and I have to say it works out great. I've a 40" chest and 32" waist.
Got the medium size, and my only complaint is that I wish they offered different sleeve lengths as in their other shirts. 
These ones are a tad long, and if I had the choice I'd order 33" sleeves.


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

I have the same problem. Even though I have a potbelly, my 17" neck results in the shirt being way too big. I tend to just wear button downs with open collars I could never hope to button. The Tyrwhitt slims actually fit me perfectly, but I need to lose 20.


----------



## cincydavid (May 21, 2012)

Good grief, you skinny guys with skinny clothes. I am 6 ft 1, 245, wear an 18.5 inch neck, 35 inch sleeve and if anything, need bellbottom shirts, not slim cut ones. I can't imagine being stuffed into tight clothes all day, I need room to move around. Tight "ball hugger" pants are even worse...ugh. I know I should lose 75 LBs, as my family doctor reminds me every year, but it'll never happen so I will continue to do what I do, and try to be comfortable doing so.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

cincydavid said:


> Good grief, you skinny guys with skinny clothes. I am 6 ft 1, 245, wear an 18.5 inch neck, 35 inch sleeve and if anything, need bellbottom shirts, not slim cut ones. I can't imagine being stuffed into tight clothes all day, I need room to move around. Tight "ball hugger" pants are even worse...ugh. I know I should lose 75 LBs, as my family doctor reminds me every year, but it'll never happen so I will continue to do what I do, and try to be comfortable doing so.


So... you're completely OK with being overweight but frustrated that some of us are looking for clothes for our slimmer frames? Just trying to see where you're coming from.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Slim fit doesn't necessarily have to be uncomfortable or even awkward provided one's body is suited for it. We should just get rid of the term "slim" and substitute "proper". 

Cincydavid bemoans being stuffed into a tight fitting shirt or having his bits and pieces squeezed but imagine the gentleman who may be 6'1" and only weight 170. He would be completely swimming in a Brooks Brothers traditional fit shirt.


----------



## Bob Sacamano (Jul 27, 2013)

I originally ordered an esf shirt from CT maybe a year ago and it was VERY slim. Subsequent shirts have gotten increasingly baggier and now actually fit better. I have placed 3 orders overall. Not sure if anyone has noticed the same


----------



## Midnight4 (Apr 15, 2012)

Charles Tyrwhitt have updated their sizing for 2015. The new range is nearly always slimmer through the chest and waist, especially for the smaller collar sizes.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Shirts ought to be cut full. The impulse toward figure hugging variants of traditional menswear is baffling. Could I encourage an adherent to rationalise the motivation that drives this trend?


For those of us who are 5' 3" a shirt that isn't a sail is most welcomed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

crocto said:


> For those of us who are 5' 3" a shirt that isn't a sail is most welcomed.


Honestly? Well, I never would have guessed that from your WAYWT contributions. Which goes to show, decent proportions make the best of us all.


----------



## wwua (Jan 2, 2015)

Return if you can.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

maximar said:


> I had a few custom shirts done, which are perfect (esthetically) but frankly, not as comfortable as OTR.


How can a shirt be "perfect" if it is uncomfortable to wear? That should be at the top of your list when defining what is perfect.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Honestly? Well, I never would have guessed that from your WAYWT contributions. Which goes to show, decent proportions make the best of us all.


Very true and thanks for checking out my posts!

Any "traditional" or "classic" cut shirt means, for me at least, it's going to hang down to my knees, puff out at my chest, give me poofy pirate arms, etc.


----------



## kjartanovich (Nov 28, 2011)

Midnight4 said:


> Charles Tyrwhitt have updated their sizing for 2015. The new range is nearly always slimmer through the chest and waist, especially for the smaller collar sizes.


Where did you get the information and the graph from?
If this is true, I might just have to switch from ESF to Slim Fit, as the ESF's I have from 2013-2014 only just fit, with a tiny bit of pull.
I'm a 15.5/33, 5'9'' 160-65 lb, 39-40'' Chest and 32-33'' waist...


----------



## Midnight4 (Apr 15, 2012)

kjartanovich said:


> Where did you get the information and the graph from?
> If this is true, I might just have to switch from ESF to Slim Fit, as the ESF's I have from 2013-2014 only just fit, with a tiny bit of pull.
> I'm a 15.5/33, 5'9'' 160-65 lb, 39-40'' Chest and 32-33'' waist...


The data is originally from the current CT website and older versions of the website. The graph I did myself. The Slim Fit should suit you well. The 15.5 inch slim fit hasn't changed much, and has a chest garment size of 44 and a waist of 41.


----------



## kjartanovich (Nov 28, 2011)

Thank you, *Midnight4

*I did some checking myself after seeing your post.

I took a look at their size guide and wrote to Customer Services. They have definitely slimmed down the ESF to a point where there is no way I could fit it.
They said that the Slim Fit has been altered with better proportions, so as you suggested that would be the way to go next time I order.
I had tried one Slim fit a year or two ago and found it way to baggy all over but with the new chnanges it should hopefully be right, particularly now that I in no way could fit in to the ESF.

Thanks for the post and the response


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

Not sure I believe that some of you have a 40'' chest. Are you measuring your chest with a tape measure? With a tape measure, I have a 40'' chest but my shirts MUST be at least 45'' for me to have full range of motion. 

I have a 40'' inch chest but I probably can probably do more pushups/benchpress more than most of you (no offense). I've measured myself and had a tailor take my measurements and I do believe I have a 40'' chest. I think there's something fishy go on around here.


----------



## kjartanovich (Nov 28, 2011)

Well, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, *doodledoc.
*We try to keep a respectful and courteous tone on this forum.

It does depends on what you mean by tape measure, a proper tape measure wouldn't work. I use a cloth measure like tailors do, which I would assume others do to. My chest measures about 39.5 - 40'', so with the previous year's CT ESF in 15.5'' they just fit (I think they were 43.25-43.5''), with a decent range of motion. I don't need to do pull ups in my shirts but I won't deny that I could use an extra half inch in the chest and upper back.

It sounds like you mostly just want to show off given your comment about comparative number of exercise reps with a bunch of members you know next to nothing about in this regard.

Now it wasn't exactly offensive what you said but adding the 'no offence' does not make a sentence less offensive. It is like saying 'I'm not racist but.......'.


----------



## doodledoc (Dec 31, 2014)

kjartanovich said:


> Well, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, *doodledoc.
> *We try to keep a respectful and courteous tone on this forum.
> 
> It does depends on what you mean by tape measure, a proper tape measure wouldn't work. I use a cloth measure like tailors do, which I would assume others do to. My chest measures about 39.5 - 40'', so with the previous year's CT ESF in 15.5'' they just fit (I think they were 43.25-43.5''), with a decent range of motion. I don't need to do pull ups in my shirts but I won't deny that I could use an extra half inch in the chest and upper back.
> ...


By no means was I trying to be disrespectful. I'm sorry it came off that way. I brought the fact that I work out and specifically mentioned two exercises to suggest I have a bigger chest than most people my size (not to show off, but to illustrate the problem of fitting a 15.5 - 16'' CT ESF shirts). Btw, I do not exercise in my dress shirts.

My point was this. With a tape measure, I have a 40'' chest. However, shirts that are less than 45'' in the chest greatly prevents range of motion for me. Yet, in this thread, it's people have 40'' chest and have good range of motion with a 43'' shirt. There's something wrong here am I right? That's why I said "there's something fishy go on around here."


----------



## kjartanovich (Nov 28, 2011)

And I apologise if I misunderstood.

Definitely, with a 39-40'' chest and a shirt with less than 45'' there is definitely a little less room for movement, as I have found with the CT ESF but not too bad.
Agreed, with a chest of that size anything under 44-45'' becomes a bit restricting.

Unfortunately I haven't trained much in a long time and thus put on a bit of weight on the sides, that is where I now find the problems with my ESF shirts, of which I have quite a few (along with TM Lewin's Fitted), the fabric pulls a little around the waist when sitting for example. Hopefully in a few months with training they will all fit again.

However, given the increased slimming of CT's shirts, I will have to switch to Slim Fit just to accommodate the chest area. Hopefully they have slimmed the sleeves enough so they don't look very baggy as they did a couple of years back.
With TM Lewin I will also stick with Slim Fit from now on and Hawes and Curtis have a similar proportioned Slim Fit which is nice too.

(Side note, for some reason Hawes and Curtis do 15.5'' and up in 34/35-36'' sleeves even though their 34'' is exactly the same length as CT and TM Lewin 33'')


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> How can a shirt be "perfect" if it is uncomfortable to wear? That should be at the top of your list when defining what is perfect.


Esthetically.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

maximar said:


> Esthetically.


A shirt can be aesthetically pleasing as well as comfortable. I take it your shirts are too tight or have armholes that are too large. My bespoke shirts both look great and feel great.


----------

