# Goodbye to slim fits for the "fashion forward"?



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

Well, I suppose it was inevitable. This recent _Wall Street Journal_ article claims that the "hippest" designers are now featuring a return to baggy clothing:

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202941902203746.html

Perhaps in a few years Mercer will be the rage among the "fashion forward?" Maybe the younger members of the trad forum will condemn the older set for wearing clothing that isn't sufficiently full cut?

Either way, this is an excellent example of why it's better to ignore trends and buy quality clothing that you like.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Ah yes, very soon the hipsters will give up their skinny jeans 

Brian


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Note that whole swaths of our society never gave up the comfy look in the first place. We are witnessing the liberation of Paris fashion sense by American consumers! 

P.S. In my book, almost no one looked good in slim-fit clothing, anyway. Especially those slim-fit jeans.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Keep in mind that not all clothing that is labeled as "slim", "trim", or "tailored" is skin hugging skinny. Many clothing items so labeled merely have a little taken out of the seat and/or thigh area to make them fit slender people better. 

For example, a pair of "slim" fit Dockers khakis will fit a slender person much the same way that a regular cut pair will fit a person who isn't so slender. The same is true for Jos. A Banks "tailored" fit pants. It's the same with Brooks Brothers. And most companies that market dress shirts will have a "slim" or "tailored" fit line that will look no different on a slender person than a regular shirt will look on someone else, except for Brooks Brothers. Even their slim fit line swallows me up like a tent.

All I'm saying is don't lump the more traditional clothing companies who market clothing for slender people in with the fashion forward folks who market the "skinny" clothing. There is a difference.

Cruiser


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Well put, Cruiser. I generally grab the slimmer cuts when available and they fit me the same way that a "traditional" cut would fit someone my height with a stockier build. Nothing snug about it.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

Most fashion advice is ridiculous. Slim fit will always be what some of us need - I'm just a smaller person. Actually, by comparison to census data, at 5'6". 145 lbs I'm the exact average male from the 40's-50's. As people we are getting taller as well as bigger around.

I notice in vintage clothing/80's LL Bean there's no such thing as "slim fit" - it just fits better because it's not cut as big. I'm not sure exactly what we were doing as a nation in the 70's, but judging by photographs of the era, there were a LOT more skinny people (and clothes!) then.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

vwguy said:


> Ah yes, very soon the hipsters will give up their skinny jeans
> 
> Brian


The "ex-girlfriend jeans" were featured on the Today show (?) the other day, so they're mainstream now and therefore no longer hip.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Pink and Green said:


> Most fashion advice is ridiculous. Slim fit will always be what some of us need - I'm just a smaller person. Actually, by comparison to census data, at 5'6". 145 lbs I'm the exact average male from the 40's-50's. As people we are getting taller as well as bigger around.
> 
> I notice in vintage clothing/80's LL Bean there's no such thing as "slim fit" - it just fits better because it's not cut as big. I'm not sure exactly what we were doing as a nation in the 70's, but judging by photographs of the era, there were a LOT more skinny people (and clothes!) then.


The fattening of America over the last 20 years is a _fact_ that much has been written about. You don't have to Google very far to find articles and infographics about it.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification, Cruiser. Many of us need slim-fit, many of us can do without skinny-fit!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I do think it will be funny to see some sort of super slim "Faded Glory" selvedge jeans at Wal-Mart while men are walking out of Barney's with baggy stone washed jeans. Maybe it would just be easier for the two to switch signage every 8 years.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Pink and Green said:


> I'm not sure exactly what we were doing as a nation in the 70's, but judging by photographs of the era, there were a LOT more skinny people (and clothes!) then.


I am the same weight today that I was throughout the 70's, 145-150, and I had no trouble at all buying clothes that fit back then. If I buy the same sizes today in regular fit they tend to be quite baggy. Even a lot of today's "slim" or "tailored" fit clothing is too big.

Cruiser


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I do think it will be funny to see some sort of super slim "Faded Glory" selvedge jeans at Wal-Mart while men are walking out of Barney's with baggy stone washed jeans. Maybe it would just be easier for the two to switch signage every 8 years.


They are probably made in the same factory somewhere, so it would be easy enough to accomplish.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Pink and Green said:


> at 5'6". 145 lbs I'm the exact average male from the 40's-50's.


Perhaps the *18*50's! By the 1950's the average American male was close to 5'10". But bigger isn't necessarily better. Gentlemen of your proportions can, IMO, look better in clothing than men of virtually any other build.


----------



## HalfLegend (Aug 1, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Keep in mind that not all clothing that is labeled as "slim", "trim", or "tailored" is skin hugging skinny. Many clothing items so labeled merely have a little taken out of the seat and/or thigh area to make them fit slender people better.
> 
> For example, a pair of "slim" fit Dockers khakis will fit a slender person much the same way that a regular cut pair will fit a person who isn't so slender. The same is true for Jos. A Banks "tailored" fit pants. It's the same with Brooks Brothers. And most companies that market dress shirts will have a "slim" or "tailored" fit line that will look no different on a slender person than a regular shirt will look on someone else, except for Brooks Brothers. Even their slim fit line swallows me up like a tent.
> 
> ...


Great explanation! I think slim is a fad, just as baggy is. (Check this baggy trend out...seriously riddiculous! https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202941902203746.html) but tailored or 'smart' fit is always going to be in. It's just slim enough to not make us look like we can hide a whale in our shadow, but loose enough that we don't have to worry about losing the potential to reproduce...


----------



## godeacs (Nov 28, 2009)

Amen, Cruiser. Crucial distinction is between "skinny" and "slim." Look at the photos of Cary Grant et al - no shirts blousing out at the hips or swimming in their pants. Perhaps the best label is "smart" -- appropriate for your body type, but neither too big nor too small.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

godeacs said:


> Amen, Cruiser. Crucial distinction is between "skinny" and "slim." Look at the photos of Cary Grant et al - no shirts blousing out at the hips or swimming in their pants. Perhaps the best label is "smart" -- appropriate for your body type, but neither too big nor too small.


Except in NxNW, in which considerable blousing happens (in the borrowed shirt in which he stealthily climbs the house, and in which he surreptitiously tosses monogrammed matches to his lady), but doesn't matter because CG is very lean and smoove.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

So, in golf irons, the club that was a 7 iron when I was 20, is now labelled an 8 iron (by actual loft they are the same), as if to give me the impression that I'm getting stronger, or "technology" has improved, or something. (Used to hit a 7 150, now hit an 8). Similarly (though my weight is unchanged for decades), where a medium used to be too skinny for me, it now fits. These labels don't mean much, when compared to actual measurements.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Some people do need slim fit clothing, and many people really wear their clothes too large. The problem was that people that had no business wearing tight clothes used the slim-fit trend as an excuse to put on things that were obviously too small because _GQ_ and _Details_ said it was okay.

I'm not as slim as I used to be, but I'm relatively slender for my height. The problem is that I need width to accommodate my shoulders and length to accommodate my torso. As clothing shrank with the slim fit movement, it was harder and harder for me to find things that fit off the rack.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> As clothing shrank with the slim fit movement, it was harder and harder for me to find things that fit off the rack.


Actually clothing hasn't shrunk, it's gotten bigger. That is if you stay away from the fashion forward stuff and stick to more traditional clothing. Like I said earlier, the same sizes that fit me in the 70's are too big now. That's what Ramber said also. I suppose this is to accomodate the increasing girth of Americans, although I am in the minority in that I'm the same size now that I was 40 years ago.

Cruiser


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Pink and Green said:


> ...I notice in vintage clothing/80's LL Bean there's no such thing as "slim fit" - it just fits better because it's not cut as big...


This is not accurate. Ivy/preppy clothing of the late '70s/early '80s was not necessarily "baggy" but was certainly generously cut. The LLB chinos were famously roomy; the regular Brooks Brothers oxford shirts of today are less roomy than their counterparts 30 years ago.

The availability of "slim" clothing today says less about style, fashion, or today's physique than it does about the desire of merchants to provide the consumer with options in clothing as in everything else.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Actually clothing hasn't shrunk, it's gotten bigger. That is if you stay away from the fashion forward stuff and stick to more traditional clothing. Like I said earlier, the same sizes that fit me in the 70's are too big now. That's what Ramber said also. I suppose this is to accomodate the increasing girth of Americans, although I am in the minority in that I'm the same size now that I was 40 years ago.
> 
> Cruiser


Yeah, it's bigger than it was in the '70s and '80s, but I came of age in the '90s, when large was king. It's been a gateway for me to wear things cut in average sizes even though I'm 6'-3" with broad shoulders. It's not so easy anymore. Used to be the cheaper things were, the slimmer they were cut, but now even the better makers are shrinking everything for the sake of fashion.

Off topic somewhat, but fully half of the men's market can be classified as big and tall, but it's an afterthought everywhere menswear is sold. The market is so out of touch with the average consumer that the local Macy's is only now selling a small handful of big & tall sportswear, and stores like Target have eliminated the category entirely.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> Still, he noted one more constituency for pleated pants. "We'll still have some pleats for our traditional, conservative customer who never really switched to flat-front trousers in the first place."


Uh, that would be me. For dress trousers, I think they just look "dressier." (Tho' I realize others disagree strongly.)

Good luck,
Don
(still thin, and still liking pleats)


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> Off topic somewhat, but fully half of the men's market can be classified as big and tall, but it's an afterthought everywhere menswear is sold. The market is so out of touch with the average consumer that the local Macy's is only now selling a small handful of big & tall sportswear


What I have seen here is that "big and tall" is now just big. And I mean REALLY BIG. Tall stuff is almost impossible to find.

Don
(6'5")


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

I'll probably always stick with the slimmer side of things, as in fitted and proportional to my body. I don't like things excessively baggy or skinny. But I am glad that fashion is turning back the pendulum from the excessive side as long as it does not go all the way 180 degrees. Some may enjoy the Mercer shirt fit, but I think we all agree that your pants should not be dragging under your heels.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

dcjacobson said:


> What I have seen here is that "big and tall" is now just big. And I mean REALLY BIG. Tall stuff is almost impossible to find.


 Quite true. Rochester B&T is one of the few places that seems to understand that there are still tall, thin people in this world, and even they're a little more biased to burly.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

True. There's little for the thin and tall man out there. I can't get a pair of cuffed trousers with a 35-36" inseam anywhere.


----------



## LeggeJP1 (Dec 3, 2010)

I'll chime in with the rest that 'slim' fit is not part of the trendy fashion-forward movement; it's simply a classification (along with 'fuller cuts') used by most designers to allow their RTW clothing to fit the largest number of people.

In the end, what's truly fashionable to me is clothing that fits *well*. Not too skinny, not too fat. And for someone like me, that means made to measure is the best option. And that isn't ever going to vanish.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

LeggeJP1 said:


> Not too skinny, not too fat.


You could make a song out of that. Wait, someone already has. :icon_smile_big:

"Not too skinny, she's not too fat
She's a real humdinger and I like it like that"

_Devil With A Blue Dress On_
_Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels_

Cruiser


----------



## shorty (Oct 5, 2009)

Pink and Green said:


> at 5'6". 145 lbs I'm the exact average male from the 40's-50's.


Aha! So you're the guy beating me to the sales rack and the reason why I can't find anything in my size! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Man, I'm in trouble if slim fits disappear. At 6'3 170lbs, most things appear bigger on me.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

hookem12387 said:


> Man, I'm in trouble if slim fits disappear. At 6'3 170lbs, most things appear bigger on me.


 Slim fits aren't going to disappear overnight. There's always going to be somebody that offers them even when it's not the height of fashion.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> Slim fits aren't going to disappear overnight. There's always going to be somebody that offers them even when it's not the height of fashion.


I don't think that "slim" fit clothing is the "height of fashion." As has been mentioned before, I think that you are confusing "slim" or "tailored" fit with "skinny" or "super slim" fit clothing. Most slim or tailored fit clothing is simply clothing tailored for slender people.

In other words, a little closer to what a slender person would get if it was MTM or bespoke. When a slender person wears slim or tailored fit clothing, it looks the same as regular fit clothing does on people who aren't slender. If I might use a picture that I've posted a couple of time before, this is me wearing a pair of Dockers "slim fit" khakis. As you can see they just look like a regular pair of khakis because I'm slender, hardly the "height of fashion." :icon_smile:










Please don't confuse the two.

Cruiser


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

shorty said:


> Aha! So you're the guy beating me to the sales rack and the reason why I can't find anything in my size! :icon_smile_big:


Mwu hu hahahaha!

Actually what's rough is finding normal clothes that fit well that aren't designed to be "slim fit" in a fashion conscious way. What I mean by this is getting pants with a normal rise and that come to near your natural waist.

The only time I've questioned RTW in my size was when I ran across a pair of G.I. Fit Polo chinos in my size (32 x 30). It looked like my legs got stung by 1,000 bees. The only case of something being "too non-slim fit" for me.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Welcome back, 1980s.


----------



## straw sandals (Apr 14, 2010)

Actually, looking at the original post, I think that we're seeing a return to the early 90's. Flared thighs and narrow ankles - they look a bit like Z Cavaricci pants. Anyone else remember those? Ick.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Sigh...back to deeply pleated trousers and full cut shirts, I assume. Ugh.

I'm not a fan of skinny jeans (unless you are, of course, emaciatedly skinny). However, I do think most people wear their clothes too big and baggy. Flat front trousers, for example, tend to be more slimming for those of relatively normal proportions. Try this the next time you purchase a suit or sportscoat: go down one size. Chances are the fit will be better.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think that "slim" fit clothing is the "height of fashion." As has been mentioned before, I think that you are confusing "slim" or "tailored" fit with "skinny" or "super slim" fit clothing. Most slim or tailored fit clothing is simply clothing tailored for slender people...
> 
> Please don't confuse the two.
> 
> Cruiser


 With all due respect, I'm not confusing the two. Slim fits are hot right now. Even Macy's has splashed the term all over their spring men's advertising. Maybe not the "height of fashion" (ugh) but it's definitely trendy. I was trying to assure hookem12387* that there will still be clothes on the market to fit him, just as there are clothes on the market to fit the larger man, even with the slim fit becoming mainstream. *

I'm not huge by any means, but slender at 6'-3" is markedly different than slender at 5'-8". What may be voluminous on you could be perfect for me, and what you find fits you well could be too small for me. Most clothing vendors understand that you can take away fabric a lot easier than you can add it back and the mainstream ones size accordingly. Is it fair to the average height, slender man? Not always. That's what alterations are for. Neither is it always fair for to the tall man, the big man or whoever it is that buys clothes. But it's advisable to size for the majority of your market or offer different fits. That's always been around and it'll always be around.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> With all due respect, I'm not confusing the two. Slim fits are hot right now.


It sure looks like you are, or at the least you are lumping everything that is marked "slim" together. I ask you, what is particularly "hot" about Brooks Brothers slim fit pants or shirts? Or JABanks tailored fit pants? When you refer to slim fit as being a "hot" fashion item, you are clearly referring to what is often called "skinny" and usually marketed by a more fashion forward company; not the slim fit clothing that is marketed by the more conservative clothing retailers like I've mentioned.

For example, my Dockers slim fit khakis have an 18 inch leg opening at the bottom, essentially the same as their full cut khakis. The only difference is that the slim fit ones have a little less in the seat and thigh areas because guys like me have a little less in the seat and thigh areas.

My "tailored fit" (their name for "slim") JABanks wool dress pants have leg openings of 17 1/2 inches, essentially the same as their full cut pants. Like the Dockers, the big difference is they took a little out of the seat and thigh.

As for Brooks Brothers, even their slim fits are too baggy for me. They swallow me up, and I tend to like my clothes to be much looser than most in this forum like. I think that many of you guys wear your clothes much too tight for my liking. All I'm saying is that just because something is marketed as "slim" fitting doesn't mean it's the same as the ultra skinny fashion forward stuff that is out there.

Cruiser


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Listening to everyone chat about the vagaries of slim fits, it occurred to me that I need to loose some weight.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> It sure looks like you are, or at the least you are lumping everything that is marked "slim" together...


And it seems like you're taking my opinion on this as some kind of personal assault on your ability to find clothes that fit. Just drop it.

I'm on here to learn and give advice and opinions like anybody else. I don't know it all and neither does anybody else here. We all have a right to our own individual opinions, even if others insist that they're wrong, repeatedly...

Again, I am not lumping all clothes that are too tight together with slim fits. I know fashion and the industry just as well as anybody here and I also know what I see on the streets. I'm not going to argue with you about your personal sartorial situation or how I perceive you interpret the market as you've just done to me over the course of the thread.

End of line.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> And it seems like you're taking my opinion on this as some kind of personal assault on your ability to find clothes that fit. Just drop it.


Actually it appears that you are the one taking this conversation personally.

If I remember your past posts you're a big guy so you don't really have any 
personal experience with this type of clothing. That's probably the problem.

I'm sure you see guys like me every day wearing slim fit clothing from places like Lands End, Jos A Bank, Dockers, JCPenney's Stafford brand, Izod, Eagle, Brooks Brothers, etc., and never recognize it as slim fit clothing. Why? Because it looks and fits us just like what you are wearing fits you.

Oh well, as you wish. Good night. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------

