# The ridiculous fit of Turnbull & Asser's RTW shirts



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

What were they thinking when they changed the fit of their RTW shirt? I have not worn their shirts for several years but on a whim recently I popped into the Jermyn St store to pick up a couple of new ones. The assistant advised that I try my usual size on since it had been a while since I last purchased from them. My god - I could hardly button the thing up across the chest it was that "slim"!!! Now before I go on, let me add that I'm not overweight. I'm just over 6' and around 190lbs - waist about 35". Reasonably athletic build.

So what the hell were T&A thinking when they changed the standard fit?! I was shocked at how slim the new fit is- and btw I like a slim profile in a shirt...but this is ridiculous. It's like they designed it for malnourished under 15s...I expressed my bemusement and disappointment to the assistant who nodded politely, lowered his voice and told me it had been "a controversial move...". On further questioning it seems it was done mainly to position them more in the current fashion for slimmer profile (but their shirts were never too baggy to begin with) AND to propel long-time buyers of the RTW brand into the bespoke service where of course you can easily get the old standard cut made if you so choose. But it seems this has not played out as well as they had hoped and the core 35-50 market has shrunk significantly. Now they seem to be targeting teenagers for RTW while maintaining the shrinking older, wealthier clients for bespoke. Not much inbetween. A bad move I think on their part.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Yes, a _really_ bad move. Why not offer a separate, slimmer line of shirts instead of replacing the regular fit?


----------



## BOAZNY (Jul 15, 2011)

Did you try the next size up?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

ARGHGH! Compare this thread with this one: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...113107-What-s-the-big-deal-about-Brioni-again

I am beside myself at irritation with the "slim fit" crowd. They seem never to be satisfied with the ability to buy slim fit this and that. They want slim fit _only_ and from _every_ purveyor! I'd like to offer them a deal: *I will not ask for normal-cut stuff from Dolce & Gabana, Gucci, Prada, or any of the other eurotrash crapweasels who started this anorexic-proportions fad, and you will not ask for slim cut stuff from the merchants that used to focus on selling to middle-aged professionals and had clothes that would fit us.*


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BOAZNY said:


> Did you try the next size up?


Trying "the next size up" is bullsh!t when you are talking about a dress shirt. The collar *has* to fit. If you size up to get something that will go around your chest or gut, then your collar will not fit.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

I'd just like to give a slow clap to the term "eurotrash crapweasels". Well done, sir. Well done.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

It is interesting that someone like me who might actually _care _and be able to _afford _their wares is ignored by making clothes that don't fit a 45 year old's body....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

This slim-fit hootenanny has gone too far.

Pear shaped men, unite!!


----------



## mdh (May 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> *eurotrash crapweasels*


I think you just named my next band. I don't know if we'll get any gigs, but it will be worth it.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> ARGHGH! Compare this thread with this one: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...113107-What-s-the-big-deal-about-Brioni-again
> 
> I am beside myself at irritation with the "slim fit" crowd. They seem never to be satisfied with the ability to buy slim fit this and that. They want slim fit _only_ and from _every_ purveyor! I'd like to offer them a deal: *I will not ask for normal-cut stuff from Dolce & Gabana, Gucci, Prada, or any of the other eurotrash crapweasels who started this anorexic-proportions fad, and you will not ask for slim cut stuff from the merchants that used to focus on selling to middle-aged professionals and had clothes that would fit us.*


Don't blame the "slim-fit crowd". At least, not all of us. BTW, what does "middle-age professionals" mean WRT sizing?

I don't want some sleazy, spangled D&G jeans or such, and I don't know why you'd think everyone thin does or only warrants this. Blame T&A for doubling-down on a single segment, instead of covering the spread. Really, at T&A prices, wouldn't custom shirts from, say, Hamilton be a better bet, anyway?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mad Hatter, I *do* blame the slim fit crowd. When they find a high-quality garment that is _not_ slim fit, they are rarely content to simply not buy it. They insist that the manufacturer is somehow producing a bad product. Witness all the reviews complaining about a "bad" fit, or extolling the "excellent" fit of a more "modern" brand. *A FIT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD*. For a small minority of the population, a slimmer fit does indeed _fit_.* For the majority, it does not. But rather than accept that the "slim fit" is properly a specialty niche, they whine and complain until every retailer has glutted their stores with sh!t that fits very few men well.

As for what "middle aged professionals" have to do with fit, let us just say that the number of men in their late 30's to late 50's who can genuinely fit into "slim" clothes is smaller than the number of early 20's hipsters. Sure, some men are ectomorphic beanpoles their whole lives. More power to them. But for most of us who are professional required to sit a chair 8-12 hours most days, even regular trips to the gym, sensible diet, etc., cannot fully offset a fundamentally sedentary life.

* Incidentally, the minority of men who fit into a slim is *much* smaller than the number who prefer and wear slim fits. I see an awful lot of badly dressed men with their guts straining against their shirts, their pants rendered creaseless by the outward pressure of their thighs, their jackets and crotches starred by stress lines, etc.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Wisco said:


> It is interesting that someone like me who might actually _care _and be able to _afford _their wares is ignored by making clothes that don't fit a 45 year old's body....​





CuffDaddy said:


> As for what "middle aged professionals" have to do with fit, let us just say that the number of men in their late 30's to late 50's who can genuinely fit into "slim" clothes is smaller than the number of early 20's hipsters. Sure, some men are ectomorphic beanpoles their whole lives. More power to them. But for most of us who are professional required to sit a chair 8-12 hours most days, even regular trips to the gym, sensible diet, etc., cannot fully offset a fundamentally sedentary life.


This is my confusion. I know I can't afford T&A shirts, as much as I'd like them. Nor can I, or most of my coworkers, fit into the ultra slim fit shirts. Do they really have enough 15 year old yet looking like a 12 year old girl customers with the money for their shirts to shift their model? That's surprising.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Exactly, Hanzo. This is one of the (few) negative consequences of the explosion of online clothing enthusiasm - those who prefer a "slim" fit are disproportionately vocal. So they get lots of attention. Eventually, retailers and makers decide that their customers must generally want this stuff. 

Like most designer-isms, though, it is a self-defeating approach. By making stuff that makes the majority of men look bad, makers are only turning off the non-ectomorphic men which constitute the huge majority of future consumers. The philosophy of quickly selling a bunch of items to a very small number of men is not much of a long-term strategy.


----------



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

This is really disturbing. Did they stop offering ANY fuller cut shirts at all? Their shirts were always well cut and not blousy and there was nothing wrong with them.


----------



## el caballero (Jan 23, 2011)

Here here! I could not agree with you (CuffDaddy) more!


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> But rather than accept that the "slim fit" is properly a specialty niche, they whine and complain until every retailer has glutted their stores with sh!t that fits very few men well.
> 
> As for what "middle aged professionals" have to do with fit, let us just say that the number of men in their late 30's to late 50's who can genuinely fit into "slim" clothes is smaller than the number of early 20's hipsters. Sure, some men are ectomorphic beanpoles their whole lives. More power to them. But for most of us who are professional required to sit a chair 8-12 hours most days, even regular trips to the gym, sensible diet, etc., cannot fully offset a fundamentally sedentary life.
> 
> * Incidentally, the minority of men who fit into a slim is *much* smaller than the number who prefer and wear slim fits. I see an awful lot of badly dressed men with their guts straining against their shirts, their pants rendered creaseless by the outward pressure of their thighs, their jackets and crotches starred by stress lines, etc.


Then, either retailers are enabling their demise or catering to where the money is. We'll see if their degrees in marketing/management and research pays off.

Myself, I don't whine. I look for a brand that fits better and go with it. Oddly, I don't think T&A shirts are unreasonably ample-I still have them taken-in on the sides, though. Charvet fit me much better RTW.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Mad Hatter said:


> Then, either retailers are enabling their demise or catering to where the money is. We'll see if their degrees in marketing/management and research pays off.
> 
> Myself, I don't whine. I look for a brand that fits better and go with it. Oddly, I don't think T&A shirts are unreasonably ample-I still have them taken-in on the sides, though. Charvet fit me much better RTW.


There is no way you would get the current T&A RTW shirt "taken in at the sides"...!! Unless you are under 100lbs in weight...which you might be of course and that's fine too...but I doubt this market would sustain T&A's business.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Benjamin E. said:


> This is really disturbing. Did they stop offering ANY fuller cut shirts at all? Their shirts were always well cut and not blousy and there was nothing wrong with them.


Exactly Benjamin. I was told they no longer offer the old regular cut at all and to get it you need to go bespoke or maybe their mtm program. It is a completely bizarre business decision for them to do this. Like someone else said...offer two cuts for RTW rather than going all in on the slim fit trend. The biggest surprise is just how aggressive the slim cut is...we are not talking your usual Jermyn street slim profile here...this is definitely more of a eurotrash label slim profile. They had a few shirts on racks...I swear I thought I was in the boys section! And again, I'm not overweight. They must be losing a helluva lot of business by doing this. Idiots.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I wear slim-fit shirts and I'm not even gonna argue with CuffDaddy. That was too good a rant. Plus, he's right.

It's not so much the vocalness of the "slim fit crowd," but their idiocy. They confuse quality with style/cut, and style/cut with size. I've never asked Turnbull & Asser (or anyone else) to make a "slim-fit" shirt. All I've ever asked is for from the upper end/business professional clothing lines is for them to make a shirt with the same quality, fabrics, and style in a smaller size for small dudes like me. 

Don't replace your regular line. Just add another option for smaller people. I don't mind paying a small premium. There's still a lot of room for profit to make a shirt for say, the 25% outliers on the small side with a small surcharge and it will still be cheaper than us having to go to the tailors. That way both Cuff Daddy and I can look like well-dressed professionals in your shirt. And hopefully other people will then buy your shirt because it looks good. I may not be your core purchaser, but I can still be a walking billboard for your company. You put me in a nice-looking shirt, other people will ask where I got it and buy one for themselves. Most likely in a regular size.

I haven't seen the new Turnbull & Asser shirts, but if they are as slim as you say then I think it is a big mistake. Because they are changing their audience from professionals wishing to appear well-dressed to trendy jokesters. In two years when people realize they look like clowns in their too-tight shirts that they can only wear because they leave two top buttons and the cuffs undone, they'll be in serious trouble.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

The OP is about their London store, right? Anyone know if the US branches (NY and California) offer the same cut, or something else? I know some other brands differ in their US versus British/European offerings, so I wonder if Turnbull follows a similar practice.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Taliesin said:


> The OP is about their London store, right? Anyone know if the US branches (NY and California) offer the same cut, or something else? I know some other brands differ in their US versus British/European offerings, so I wonder if Turnbull follows a similar practice.


A good question Taliesin. I'm a Brit but live in San Francisco and the trip to T&A coincided with me being back in London on business. However, I am down in LA next week and plan to visit T&A in Beverley Hills (I still love their ties). Whilst there I will check once more on the RTW shirts and report back. The only problem with buying anything from T&A in the US though, as you probably know, is the dreadful mark-up applied on price. Hence I wait till I'm back in the UK etc.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

SW100 said:


> There is no way you would get the current T&A RTW shirt "taken in at the sides"...!! Unless you are under 100lbs in weight...which you might be of course and that's fine too...but I doubt this market would sustain T&A's business.


Dunno. I'm 5'11", 142 pounds but wear a 41 neck in T&A, so that skews things. And don't get me wrong-I know the trend is larger folks, and _it is_ playing to an extreme. But saying "they shouldn't do it because thin men whine"; well, there's always the "Big & Tall" shops.


----------



## ThreeLegDog (Jun 3, 2011)

Allow me to pile on, but in an orthogonal direction. 

I too, am frustrated with not only the "slim" trend, but the "full cut" option as well. Where is the athletic cut option for us with a 9/10" drop? Very hard to find shirts that cater to this market segment.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
Because you are _really_ talking about a truly small niche now. It sounds as though you truly have an athletic build. For that matter--so does Wisco, albeit on a larger frame. I am often amused at the seeming vanity with which so many of the guys--mostly younger--describe themselves. A guy who is impossibly skinny will describe himself as having "an athletic build". Maybe...for a marathoner. Most of them just haven't reached the age where no matter how much you try, as I believe Cuff-Daddy (my new hero btw) pointed out, the effects of living in a largely sedentary society begin to take an inevitable toll on one's mid-section.

I read where Clark Gable had a 44 inch chest and a 32 inch waist. Now that is an athletic build! Most American suits billed as "Athletic cut" offer an 8" drop. Few, even with dedicated workouts can do much better than that. I suggest you try mtm...and count your blessings. I hope you are able to hang onto your athletic frame for many years to come. Unless you are truly blessed, or center your life around maintaining your physique, the challenge will be a daunting one. But at least you sound accurate in your description.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Was T&A's fit just changed again this season? My shirt from last season is slimmer than their old shirts, but it's not a slim fit shirt. And I'm a little smaller than the OP. I wear a 16" collar. Maybe they just export bigger shirts to the US.


----------



## DaveTrader (Jun 11, 2011)

The rush for retailers and designers to focus on the slim fit crowd does not stem from market research, demographics, or even requests from current or potential customers. 

It stems from two things. 1 - Their opinion leaders. And 2 - the mistaken belief that they will become stodgy or irrelevant.

Many fashion businesses take their cues from higher profile designers. The rise of Varvatos in recent years is a clear example of this. His clothing is very much catered to the slim and tall crowd. Because T&A does not get the publicity of Varvatos, (and because his designs are "in" now), they feel a strong pull to do what he does, and share in his success, or be left in his dust.

They mistakenly take their current clientele for granted and even go so far as to turn their back on them. Time will tell whether or not this is a sustainable move. I am betting against it. The real question then becomes, if they do retreat and resume making shirts in the old sizes, will you as a consumer patronize them again?


----------



## 15DollarMan (Dec 28, 2005)

SW100 said:


> What were they thinking when they changed the fit of their RTW shirt? I have not worn their shirts for several years but on a whim recently I popped into the Jermyn St store to pick up a couple of new ones. The assistant advised that I try my usual size on since it had been a while since I last purchased from them*My god - I could hardly button the thing up across the chest it was that "slim"!!! *. Now before I go on, let me add that I'm not overweight. I'm just over 6' and around 190lbs - waist about 35". Reasonably athletic build.
> 
> So what the hell were T&A thinking when they changed the standard fit?!...


Are you saying you really could not button the shirt? Or are you saying that the fit is different to what you were used to and therefore you don't like it.

Your weight seems to be at exactly the "ideal" weight for a 6'1" male, so if the shirt did not fit, you have a point. But if what you are talking about is a different 'fit', then it is just a matter of getting used to shirts that are not blousy. You can buy those 'regular' fit shirts when you no longer have a "Reasonably athletic build."


----------



## shepdawg (Jul 31, 2011)

If 190/6'/35 is athletic, I should be in the NFL.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

shepdawg said:


> If 190/6'/35 is athletic, I should be in the NFL.


So you go by a chart that says 130lbs. for 6' is a HEALTHY weight? If I saw someone stumbling around at that size and weight, I'd fear the guy was re-enacting Auschwitz for giggles.

It depends on his muscle mass, not on weight. You can be 6' and 250lbs. and be healthy because you are a bulked body builder.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I am not slim, yet the Turnbull & Asser shirts fit me really well at "my" OTR size. 

So I'll say that you might be wrong on this one. If they where roomier I would say that their sizing was off. They are only slightly slimmer than a really full shirt, not slim fit at all. 

They are also really well made and the collar has a perfect spread. 

I have some slim fit shirts as well, from Italian makers, and that fit is completely different than T&A:s. They are definitely roomier than my 2 TM Lewin slim fit shirts. ?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> I am not slim, yet the Turnbull & Asser shirts fit me really well at "my" OTR size.
> 
> So I'll say that you might be wrong on this one. If they where roomier I would say that their sizing was off. They are only slightly slimmer than a really full shirt, not slim fit at all.
> 
> ...


Are your shirts from this season? I know about 2 years ago the fit was changed to be trimmer from what it was, but it was still not a slim fit by any means and could still fit someone heavier than me (and I'm not that slim). They would definitely fit anyone I've seen walk into the New York store. Has the fit just been changed again in the past few months?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This slim-fit hootenanny has gone too far.
> 
> Pear shaped men, unite!!


Here, here. With snack-wraps in our hands and fire in our hearts we'll march against the insidious forces of slenderness. Then it's onto the crumb-bums who design jacket vents.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Matt S said:


> Are your shirts from this season? I know about 2 years ago the fit was changed to be trimmer from what it was, but it was still not a slim fit by any means and could still fit someone heavier than me (and I'm not that slim). They would definitely fit anyone I've seen walk into the New York store. Has the fit just been changed again in the past few months?


I got 2 shirts last year. That's the latest I've shopped there (LDN).

They are a bit out of my price range, unfortunately.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

DaveTrader said:


> The rush for retailers and designers to focus on the slim fit crowd does not stem from market research, demographics, or even requests from current or potential customers.
> 
> It stems from two things. 1 - Their opinion leaders. And 2 - the mistaken belief that they will become stodgy or irrelevant.
> 
> ...


Why is this such a bad business model? I actually think it makes plenty sense. This is a way of luring the younger consumer into their stores, thus ensuring the longevity of the brand for future generations to come. I just did a search on the history of T&A, the name has been around since 1885. They started as a hoisery.

by the way to the OP, a 35' waist is not small.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> Why is this such a bad business model? I actually think it makes plenty sense. This is a way of luring the younger consumer into their stores, thus ensuring the longevity of the brand for future generations to come.


That, in and of itself isn't so bad, but they're alienating their established clientele. And, as for the younger consumer, doing a quick search I see that their shirts start at 135GBP, which equates to around $221. I don't know many young people who can afford that. I don't know if I'm considered young or not, but I know I can't afford it.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> That, in and of itself isn't so bad, but they're alienating their established clientele. And, as for the younger consumer, doing a quick search I see that their shirts start at 135GBP, which equates to around $221. I don't know many young people who can afford that. I don't know if I'm considered young or not, but I know I can't afford it.


Well they are probably targeting the young people that could afford a $221 shirt, and those that have absolutely no problem dipping into their trustfund or simply droping mommy and daddies hard earned cash. Makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry to say but those are the ones that are going to keep T&A stores open for the next 30 or 40 years.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Preu Pummel said:


> So you go by a chart that says 130lbs. for 6' is a HEALTHY weight? If I saw someone stumbling around at that size and weight, I'd fear the guy was re-enacting Auschwitz for giggles.
> 
> It depends on his muscle mass, not on weight. You can be 6' and 250lbs. and be healthy because you are a bulked body builder.


Exactly. I'm 190lbs and not from overeating! I do a lot of sport and cross-training etc.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

sirchandler said:


> Why is this such a bad business model? I actually think it makes plenty sense. This is a way of luring the younger consumer into their stores, thus ensuring the longevity of the brand for future generations to come. I just did a search on the history of T&A, the name has been around since 1885. They started as a hoisery.
> 
> by the way to the OP, a 35' waist is not small.


I didn't say my waist size was small. What I did say was I was not overweight.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

15DollarMan said:


> Are you saying you really could not button the shirt? Or are you saying that the fit is different to what you were used to and therefore you don't like it.
> 
> Your weight seems to be at exactly the "ideal" weight for a 6'1" male, so if the shirt did not fit, you have a point. But if what you are talking about is a different 'fit', then it is just a matter of getting used to shirts that are not blousy. You can buy those 'regular' fit shirts when you no longer have a "Reasonably athletic build."


I'm saying a bit of both really. I own some T&A shirts which I bought back around 2004. They are what was considered normal standard cut back then...a little blousey, quite a relaxed fit. Basically your normal jermyn street business shirt cut for a wide range of body shapes etc.

Last month in London I went in to T&A for some new ones and the fit is radically different. I could button across the chest but the two buttons below the top button were straining and the material gaping as a result! The arm holes were also considerably higher and the sleeves much narrower. Now my biceps are reasonably big but not that big that a shirt sleeve should feel uncomfortable in that area...but it was very noticeable. The Sales assistant immediately concurred. Way too tight. We then discussed the changes they had made to their OTR shirt fit and he intimated that they had lost a lot of business and that it continued to be a big sore point with their regular clientele.

A final point. I'm not averse to a slim cut shirt. In fact, I prefer them if they are cut well. I have a number of Zegnas, dunhills (in their "engineered" fit) and a couple of hacketts and even an older paul smith (that is extremely "trim"...awful quality shirt...a present from the missus) that are all on the slim side. So I know what to expect. My point is that the T&A shirt was slimmer than anything I've experienced before and that was what surprised me. Unusual for a traditional Jermyn St brand etc.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> Why is this such a bad business model? I actually think it makes plenty sense. This is a way of luring the younger consumer into their stores, thus ensuring the longevity of the brand for future generations to come. I just did a search on the history of T&A, the name has been around since 1885. They started as a hosiery.
> 
> by the way to the OP, a 35' waist is not small.


They're changing the fit of their shirts PERIOD, not offering a separate "slim fit." This is bad business all around. They've established themselves as a traditional shirt maker. Those who don't want a slim fit are going to be disappointed that they have to pay even more on top of $221 to get full cut. They're going to lose business trying to reinvent themselves as a fashion brand, simple as that.

Basically, try to imagine if Brooks Brothers started only carrying the Extra-Slim Fit shirts, Milano Fit trousers and Milano Fit suits. It's not a sustainable business model.



Hanzo said:


> That, in and of itself isn't so bad, but they're alienating their established clientele. And, as for the younger consumer, doing a quick search I see that their shirts start at 135GBP, which equates to around $221. I don't know many young people who can afford that. I don't know if I'm considered young or not, but I know I can't afford it.


And that's what matters right now in this economy -- keeping their established customers. I bet even their regulars haven't been dropping by as often since late 2008.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

SW100 said:


> I'm saying a bit of both really. I own some T&A shirts which I bought back around 2004. They are what was considered normal standard cut back then...a little blousey, quite a relaxed fit. Basically your normal jermyn street business shirt cut for a wide range of body shapes etc.
> 
> Last month in London I went in to T&A for some new ones and the fit is radically different. I could button across the chest but the two buttons below the top button were straining and the material gaping as a result! The arm holes were also considerably higher and the sleeves much narrower. Now my biceps are reasonably big but not that big that a shirt sleeve should feel uncomfortable in that area...but it was very noticeable. The Sales assistant immediately concurred. Way too tight. We then discussed the changes they had made to their OTR shirt fit and he intimated that they had lost a lot of business and that it continued to be a big sore point with their regular clientele.
> 
> A final point. I'm not averse to a slim cut shirt. In fact, I prefer them if they are cut well. I have a number of Zegnas, dunhills (in their "engineered" fit) and a couple of hacketts and even an older paul smith (that is extremely "trim"...awful quality shirt...a present from the missus) that are all on the slim side. So I know what to expect. My point is that the T&A shirt was slimmer than anything I've experienced before and that was what surprised me. Unusual for a traditional Jermyn St brand etc.


Sure you haven't 'sized up' a little ? 

Did you go up a size?

I can't really afford TA at retail price but would sure hope they maintain current OTR fit since they fit me so well. The collars are excellently made as well, I think.


----------



## Bluegrass Man (Jun 26, 2011)

Preu Pummel said:


> So you go by a chart that says 130lbs. for 6' is a HEALTHY weight? If I saw someone stumbling around at that size and weight, I'd fear the guy was re-enacting Auschwitz for giggles.
> 
> It depends on his muscle mass, not on weight. You can be 6' and 250lbs. and be healthy because you are a bulked body builder.


According to that chart, my weight should be between something I haven't weighed since I was 3 inches shorter and 20 years younger, and a weight that the last time I was within 10 lbs. of I was told "You look like sxxx, kid". The health insurance companies can take their charts and stick them, as far as weight "standards".


----------



## caravan70 (Mar 18, 2010)

"Slim fit" used to be normal. Now, Americans eat so many Big Macs and so much Kraft mac 'n cheese that average proportions have changed. I'm 41 years old, 6 feet tall and I weigh 165 pounds. That's normal. It isn't normal to be 6 feet tall and weigh 250 pounds, unless your name is Buford and you live in the middle of nowhere and eat chicken-fried steaks every day for lunch and porterhouses for dinner.

It's pretty simple, I think... you get your neck and sleeve sizes down, then you go from there. Find a shirt that works for you. I haven't bought a T&A shirt for a few years, but I found their fit fine to wear under business suits. If you want a slimmer fit, try a Lorenzini. Hell, you could even go a bit downmarket and try H&M. It's all a question of what fits you, what looks good on you, and what will last you a few years.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

caravan70 said:


> "Slim fit" used to be normal..... It's pretty simple, I think... you get your neck and sleeve sizes down, then you go from there. Find a shirt that works for you.


Regarding the first part: baloney. I used to be quite a bit heavier than I am now, yet would virtually _never_ find a shirt with proper neck size that did not otherwise fit. I did not have to try on dress shirts - just buy the correct size. That's not true now. The last 3 years or so have seen a sudden and dramatic shift in what many manufacturers are cutting as their standard cut. Prior to the last few years, men rarely _expected_ their shirts to be body-skimming.

As to the second part, you seem to have missed the point of this thread entirely. T&A *was *a shirt that worked for some of us. If they have changed their standard cut to a slim one, that no longer works. As I recently lamented, those who prefer a body-hugging cut do not seem satisfied with being to buy shirts that fit them. They want _all_ available shirts from _all_ manufacturers to fit the way _they_ like, and more muscular or fat men be damned.

For a point of reference, I cannot do better than this picture, shamelessly borrowed from A Suitable Wardrobe's helpfully-timed post of this Sunday. This is how a T&A shirt fit in the 60's. Notice the "extra" fabric that would be decried as "blousing" today.


----------



## caravan70 (Mar 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy, I do actually understand the point of the thread. It's a lament that T&A shirts no longer fit the way they once did. As I mentioned above, I haven't bought any in roughly three years, so I can't speak to the fit issues some have with the newer shirts. The point of my post was to augment the discussion by suggesting that there are other shirt brands that might work better for the poster.

As for your first statement, I didn't mean to suggest that traditional shirts weren't somewhat billowy. I meant that people tend to be bigger today than they once were, but fashions have changed. There's a disconnect between those fashions and the bodies of most of the American public. Again, if one doesn't like the current slimmer cuts in shirts, it's probably best to move to a brand that suits one's physique. BB still makes quality traditional-fit shirts, for example.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

caravan70 said:


> There's a disconnect between those fashions and the bodies of most of the American public. Again, if one doesn't like the current slimmer cuts in shirts, it's probably best to move to a brand that suits one's physique.


Hmm, OK. I guess I read your prior post as saying "let them not eat cake." This clarified position seems hard to refute. If a T&A won't button around your chest and/or gut, I agree: move to a different shirt. I don't really see what the alternative would be. Wearing the shirt unbuttoned? Draped over the shoulders and knotted around the neck in the style of a preppy tennis sweater?


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Regarding the first part: baloney. I used to be quite a bit heavier than I am now, yet would virtually _never_ find a shirt with proper neck size that did not otherwise fit. I did not have to try on dress shirts - just buy the correct size. That's not true now. The last 3 years or so have seen a sudden and dramatic shift in what many manufacturers are cutting as their standard cut. Prior to the last few years, men rarely _expected_ their shirts to be body-skimming.
> 
> As to the second part, you seem to have missed the point of this thread entirely. T&A *was *a shirt that worked for some of us. If they have changed their standard cut to a slim one, that no longer works. As I recently lamented, those who prefer a body-hugging cut do not seem satisfied with being to buy shirts that fit them. They want _all_ available shirts from _all_ manufacturers to fit the way _they_ like, and more muscular or fat men be damned.
> 
> For a point of reference, I cannot do better than this picture, shamelessly borrowed from A Suitable Wardrobe's helpfully-timed post of this Sunday. This is how a T&A shirt fit in the 60's. Notice the "extra" fabric that would be decried as "blousing" today.


....and to the photo of James Bond, I would say that is an ill fitting shirt on 007.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

sirchandler, that's exactly my point. Men have forgotten how a shirt is supposed to fit. It is _not_ supposed to be snug, or anything like it, except at the collar and cuffs. Bond's shirt is not "ill-fitting." The modern "slim" fit that some now prefer is what is ill-fitting.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> ....and to the photo of James Bond, I would say that is an ill fitting shirt on 007.


And how is it ill-fitting? There's nothing wrong with a full-cut shirt. It's serves it's purpose just as it should.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shirts are slimmer these days, frock coats are no longer worn, and black tie is formal wear. 

There's no going back. T&A shirts are not full fit, but they aren't really slim either. Try the size that fits you, if the collar is good as well, then it's a fit.

It's not a 'ridiculous' fit.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Matt S said:


> And how is it ill-fitting? There's nothing wrong with a full-cut shirt. It's serves it's purpose just as it should.


The amount of fabric just hanging there seems superfluous.

I wouldn't buy a tent to wear under
my suit. What would be the point?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Notice the "extra" fabric that would be decried as "blousing" today.


Sure, but today many shirt wearers don't keep their jackets on, or wear a jacket at all. Therefore, the cut of the shirt needs to be more exact.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> sirchandler, that's exactly my point. Men have forgotten how a shirt is supposed to fit. It is _not_ supposed to be snug, or anything like it, except at the collar and cuffs. Bond's shirt is not "ill-fitting." The modern "slim" fit that some now prefer is what is ill-fitting.


I don't think men have forgotten how a shirt is supposed to fit. In fact I think it is still too early to determine whether the "slim fit" fad / style /trend / craze, or whatever you want to call it is here to stay. Correct me if I am wrong but this trend has only really reached US shores in I would say the last 6 or 7 years?... if that?

The photo of 007, although taken in the 60s, is how American men have been wearing their shirts up until the other day.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Bottom line is that if you are not slim in proportion - Turnbull and Asser no longer wants your business. Period.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Bottom line is that if you are not slim in proportion - Turnbull and Asser no longer wants your business. Period.


I wouldn't go that far but I get your point.

Even if that were true....

The price of MTM or bespoke has come down considerably. Someonelse mentioned that T&A shirts are $221 a pop, personally I think that's insane. Why anyone would want to pay that much for a shirt?...full cut, slim cut, medium cut or whatever.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> The amount of fabric just hanging there seems superfluous.
> 
> I wouldn't buy a tent to wear under
> my suit. What would be the point?


Bjorn, a fuller cut shirt (i.e., one that actually FITS, not one that is snug) is infinitely more comfortable.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bog said:


> Sure, but today many shirt wearers don't keep their jackets on, or wear a jacket at all. Therefore, the cut of the shirt needs to be more exact.


Respectfully: bullsh!t. An "exact" shirt cut is simply impractical, not to mention untraditional.

Moreover, it is at odds with the emphasis in men's clothing, at least over the last century, of emphasizing dignity over overt sexuality/body display.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> I don't think men have forgotten how a shirt is supposed to fit. In fact I think it is still too early to determine whether the "slim fit" fad / style /trend / craze, or whatever you want to call it is here to stay. Correct me if I am wrong but this trend has only really reached US shores in I would say the last 6 or 7 years?... if that?
> 
> The photo of 007, although taken in the 60s, is how American men have been wearing their shirts up until the other day.


sirchandler, I chose a picture from the 60's because that is the era from which today's slim-fit proponents _claim_ to take their inspiration. Clothes were generally a bit smaller and snugger in the 60's than they were for the 15 years on either side of WWII. But today's designers have gone so preposterously overboard that even 60's clothing seems very "full."

Men's wear changed very little for 80 years for a simple reason: it had reached an optimal configuration that flattered all men. In the name of "design," and for the sake of masturbatory self-gratification of "designers" and the desire of men's retailers and marketers to make men's clothing as cyclical and faddish as women's wear, we have departed from all good taste in favor of grotesquery. How can "slim fit" as standard be "here to stay" when every year there are fewer men who can physically put on such clothing, never mind that NOBODY looks better in it than in more traditional clothes?

What I fear is that the "designers" will, instead, kill men's clothing altogether. As fewer and fewer men are able to wear what is available in "real" clothes, more and more men will revert to sweat suits, gym shorts, and other sub-casual clothing. The only men who dress at all will be the throwbacks who have their clothes made (that's where I'm increasingly finding myself), and the anorexic hipster metrosexuals.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Well said Cuff Daddy.

My size 16 neck Turnbull & Asser shirts measure 48" in the chest and 44" in the waist. I'd really like to know what the new ones measure. What I see as the most important measurements in a shirt after collar and sleeve length are shoulder width and armhole size. I have no problem with the fit of my T&A shirts, and my chest and waist measure 40" and 34", respectively. I like my shirts to be a little more fitted, probably 4 inches less in the chest and waist, but as long as they fit everywhere else I'm okay with that. But a shirt should not fit tightly and should not be fitted the same way as a suit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> ....and to the photo of James Bond, I would say that is an ill fitting shirt on 007.


I'm sorry but... no nice way to say this...

That's a load of crap and you know it. I wear slim fitting shirts most of the time (CuffDaddy probably disapproves of them along with my tapered trousers) but that doesn't mean anything fuller than my preference is "ill fitting" on other people. Objectively, it would be ill fitting only if he wore his collars too loose and sleeves too short/long.



Bjorn said:


> Shirts are slimmer these days, frock coats are no longer worn, and black tie is formal wear.
> 
> There's no going back. T&A shirts are not full fit, but they aren't really slim either. Try the size that fits you, if the collar is good as well, then it's a fit.
> 
> It's not a 'ridiculous' fit.


It's not a ridiculous fit... for those who can wear them. Which is what percentage of their customers?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry but... no nice way to say this...
> 
> That's a load of crap and you know it. I wear slim fitting shirts most of the time (CuffDaddy probably disapproves of them along with my tapered trousers) but that doesn't mean anything fuller than my preference is "ill fitting" on other people. Objectively, it would be ill fitting only if he wore his collars too loose and sleeves too short/long.
> 
> It's not a ridiculous fit... for those who can wear them. Which is what percentage of their customers?


Well I'm not slim and I'm a tad heavier than the average, so my guess is 90%?

As to blousier shirts being more comfortable, the TA shirts I wear are more comfortable than my Italian shirts (a bit too snug) but more comfortable than my TM L full fit shirts. IMO


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

How "superfluous" is that extra material when you have to sit or twist your body?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> How "superfluous" is that extra material when you have to sit or twist your body?


Fairly so I'd say, the TAs don't really cling, there is some give in the fit. They are in no way uncomfortable. I could measure them but I'm not sure how to do so (?)


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry but... no nice way to say this...
> 
> That's a load of crap and you know it. I wear slim fitting shirts most of the time (CuffDaddy probably disapproves of them along with my tapered trousers) but that doesn't mean anything fuller than my preference is "ill fitting" on other people. Objectively, it would be ill fitting only if he wore his collars too loose and sleeves too short/long.
> 
> It's not a ridiculous fit... for those who can wear them. Which is what percentage of their customers?


I agree with you, "It's not a ridiculous fit... for those who can wear them". Sean Connery, in that photo cannot wear that shirt because its a ridiculous fit. It's simply to big on HIM. Ridiculously big is how most American stores have been setting their OTR sizes.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> Sean Connery, in that photo cannot wear that shirt because its a ridiculous fit. It's simply to big on HIM.


LOL! Yes, classic clothing is ridiculous.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

While I'm not saying it's the same thing, when did you last wear your frock coats? Shirts as full as Bonds are somewhat anachronistic. I don't think even full fit shirts are that big anymore. 

Also, shirts have been getting closer to the skin in size largely due to customer demand. 

To wear a slimmer or fuller fit is a matter of personal taste, and TA does offer bespoke for those of us who want a wider fit than what they have in their OTR shirts. OTR shirts need to reflect what the customers want, and what they want is not a full cut. 

I would not wear the shirt that Bond wears in that picture. I think it doesn't fit right. It's not flattering, nor comfortable. It's too big.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

For further reference, here are a couple of photos of Fred Astaire, often esteemed as one of the very best-dressed men of all time, in shirtsleeves:



















Look, if one wants to say that one doesn't _care_ how shirts traditionally fit, that's fine. Just recognize that you are rejecting tradition in favor of a newly-minted aesthetic that is _not_ traditional, _not_ time-tested, and _not_ demonstrated to last for decades. Given that the "slim fit" aesthetic is physically _impossible_ for the majority of men, I think there's almost no chance it is anything other than a fad.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

And again: the TA shirts are not really that slim. 

And I do reject the full fit shirt for a slightly slimmer fit. Knowing full well that the slimmer shirt is a break with tradition (or at least 'current' tradition, since history is full of slimmer fit clothes). 

The traditional shirt estetique relies heavily on the jacket never coming off, traditionally it us an undergarment. That is no longer the case, so additional care in how the shirt fits and looks 'in itself' should be taken. The shirt therefore needs to fit the body in a flattering way. For me, that's somewhere between a traditional full fit and a real, Italian, slim fit shirt. 

For any garment that shows, fit is most important.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn, I agree that fit is important. And it is very important that the fit not be too tight, nor restrict freedom of movement, nor look as though the wearer didn't have sufficient funds to buy enough shirting. The "slim fit" fails most men on all 3 counts.

All that said, we are now down to a matter of taste, if it is stipulated that "slim fit" is a departure from the previous 80-100 years of men's style.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I agree that genuine slim fit shirts, often also short, fail most men. However, this is abou TAs shirts, and they are fuller than slim fit. In that, they have superior fit to many other OTR offerings, including most Italian shirts at the same price point. 

They are also top quality, entirely British made, have excellent collars, come in good fabrics (quality wise and colors/patterns) and are sold in-store with genuine concern for the clients best interest (in my experience, LDN). They allow for shrinkage in the collar at size, their seems don't pucker, and they are durable.

For most men (I stipulate) they also have an excellent OTR fit. 

Fit is not simply a matter of taste, and the shirts worn by mr Astaire do not have great fit, and they were never supposed to have, as they were essentially 'underwear'. 

If you consider your shirts underwear, get a full fit with blousing. If you consider your shirts clothes to be seen, get them in a good, suitable fit to your body. Never buy a shirt that is tight.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't see how slim fit shirts could possibly flatter anything except the perfect body that almost no one has.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't see how slim fit shirts could possibly flatter anything except the perfect body that almost no one has.


Do you think mr Astaires shirts have good fit? Or are they cut too big?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn, think about what you are saying. You are arguing that Mr. Astaire, Mr. Connery, and practically every other paragon of style - most or all of whom had their shirts custom made for them - were made and sold shirts that did not fit them.

Rubbish. They fit _exactly_ as the wearers wanted. They _wanted_ "blousing." Blousing when standing is the *only* way for 99.9% of men to avoid strain when seated. The human body changes shape as it moves. What is a touch-fit, or 1mm slack, at parade rest will be under stress when seated, reaching, twisting, or otherwise *doing *things, rather than just posing for pictures.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Do you think mr Astaires shirts have good fit? Or are they cut too big?


I think they look fine.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, think about what you are saying. You are arguing that Mr. Astaire, Mr. Connery, and practically every other paragon of style - most or all of whom had their shirts custom made for them - were made and sold shirts that did not fit them.
> 
> Rubbish. They fit _exactly_ as the wearers wanted. They _wanted_ "blousing." Blousing when standing is the *only* way for 99.9% of men to avoid strain when seated. The human body changes shape as it moves. What is a touch-fit, or 1mm slack, at parade rest will be under stress when seated, reaching, twisting, or otherwise *doing *things, rather than just posing for pictures.


I agree, I just don't think there has to be quite as much of it as seen in the pictures of Astaire and Connery. And there's a lot more than 1mm slack in TA shirts. My shirts are not uncomfortable to sit in. I work sitting down.

I think that my point is that:
1. TA shirts are not 'slim' fit, and
2. Shirts are often cut slightly slimmer these days than the days of mr Connery and mr Astaire for the same reason that jackets adhere to the shape of the body, namely that outerwear needs to have a flattering fit.

Blousy dress shirts may indeed 'come into fashion' once again, but I would hesitate to use them since I don't find them as comfortable. I own 2 that I use, I'm just not as happy with them.

To each his own...


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

Obviously this argument gets carried out on the extremes. There are two separate issues, body size and subjective fit. Different people have different amount of meat on their bones---hence the need for different fits.

But within a given body proportion, people disagree about how much loose fabric there ought to be. In the past, there was more than is fashionable now, for the reasons Bjorn mentions: for lots of average shlubs, a button-down shirt is about as formal as it gets.

Now I'm pretty slim (5'9, 135 lbs), but I don't want my shirts to be form-fitting. I wear BB Slim Fit because it gives me the fit that BB Trad fit would give someone of heftier proportions. So I would say that I and the hefty Trad-fit-wearer largely agree about how shirts should fit. Now, BB Extra Slim is for hipsters and other anorexics. No way around it.

If you look at shirts in _Take Ivy _you can already see some not-billowy cuts, but nothing like the stuff sold currently. Any shirt design from any company is going to fit a wide swathe of people and not fit some smaller tranche of society. I have no experience with the specific T&A shirts that spawned this thread, but my inclination would be to say, as a slim guy I can attest that a lot (a LOT) of clothing is still cut for (sorry) fat people. Buy BB Trad, buy anything by LL Bean. Lands End doesn't stock "small" in a lot of things, for God's sake---and their "Medium" tops typically measure something like 23" pit-to-pit, which just seems nuts to me.

I'd contend that in the realm of traditional American and British clothing to which T&A belongs (this excludes the fashion Italian brands), it's still much more difficult for a slim guy to find a decent fit than for a larger guy.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

What happened to the original complaint of this thread about T&A shirts being too small? If it can't fit a man with a 35" waist then it surely is too small. I would assume that would have to be a shirt that went through QC unnoticed. According to the UK website, the shirts have the same measurements as the ones I bought 2 years ago. He would only run into a problem if his neck is less than 15". The OP needs to exchange his shirt for one without the problem.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Matt S said:


> What happened to the original complaint of this thread about T&A shirts being too small? If it can't fit a man with a 35" waist then it surely is too small. I would assume that would have to be a shirt that went through QC unnoticed. According to the UK website, the shirts have the same measurements as the ones I bought 2 years ago. He would only run into a problem if his neck is less than 15". The OP needs to exchange his shirt for one without the problem.


Nothing happened to the original complaint. T&A shirts are not too small, the OP just needs to size up.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

unmodern said:


> Obviously this argument gets carried out on the extremes. There are two separate issues, body size and subjective fit. Different people have different amount of meat on their bones---hence the need for different fits.
> 
> But within a given body proportion, people disagree about how much loose fabric there ought to be. In the past, there was more than is fashionable now, for the reasons Bjorn mentions: for lots of average shlubs, a button-down shirt is about as formal as it gets.
> 
> ...


Agreed, I would go to a tailor and get darts to take the shirts in a bit. As described by Mr Compton here: https://www.permanentstyle.co.uk/2011/08/five-tips-on-shirts.html

Also, I would check the more somber shirts from Pasqui out (Italian though).


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> Nothing happened to the original complaint. T&A shirts are not too small, the OP just needs to size up.


But the whole problem is that there is no 'sizing up' on dress shirts. This isn't women's wear. The collar fits, or it does not. The OP just needs to gravitate toward companies still producing traditional fit shirts.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

unmodern said:


> But the whole problem is that there is no 'sizing up' on dress shirts. This isn't women's wear. The collar fits, or it does not. The OP just needs to gravitate toward companies still producing traditional fit shirts.


But according to the measurements on the website, the shirts still have a traditional fit, unless the OP has a very small neck in proportion to his body. In that case, only BB will fit him. He probably got a defective shirt. That's not a good thing either, but that's most likely the case.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Is it possible to get a TA rep to login to this forum and comment on this topic?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Some data, taken from the BB and Turnbull websites. 

_______________
Brooks Brothers, size 16, by chest measurement for each fit:

Traditional: 53.5
Regular: 51
Luxury: 49.5
Slim: 48.5
Extra Slim: 45.5
_______________

Turnbull, size 16, by chest measurement: 48.125
________________

So it looks like T&A comes in right around the same as BB's "Slim Fit."


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Taliesin said:


> Some data, taken from the BB and Turnbull websites.
> 
> _______________
> Brooks Brothers, size 16, by chest measurement for each fit:
> ...


If you still have the numbers at hand, what are the waist measurements?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

T&A didn't list the waist measurement. BB did, but since there's be no basis for comparison I didn't include that info.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Ok, I found it. If you go thru T&A's online "custom" program, at the end of it, after you've made all the aesthetic choices like collar style, it gives the default measurements for the neck size you've chosen. For size 16, they list the default waist size as 43 inches, and the program indicates that this is appropriate for a 36 inch waist. This compares to BB as follows:

Traditional: 49.75
Regular: 48
Luxury: 47
Slim: 44
Extra Slim: 43

So the T&A shirt would appear to have a chest measurement similar to BB's Slim Fit, and a waist measurement similar to BB's Extra Slim Fit.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Taliesin:

Thank you for your research. You have, I believe, successfully brought indisputable objectivity to what heretofore has been a subjective free for all. Now those who were right may gloat, while those who were wrong may delete their posts.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

So compared to BB, T&A shirts are slim. But still with a 43" waist, there should be plenty of room for a 35" waist. On my 40" chest and 34" waist, a slim fit shirt for me has a 45" chest and 40" waist. T&A's sizing seems quite reasonable.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Bjorn said:


> Well I'm not slim and I'm a tad heavier than the average, so my guess is 90%?
> 
> As to blousier shirts being more comfortable, the TA shirts I wear are more comfortable than my Italian shirts (a bit too snug) but more comfortable than my TM L full fit shirts. IMO


Read my original post. The cut of the latest OTR has been controversial due to the aggressively slim profile and has alienated a lot of T&A's existing OTR customers - that from the sales assistant who was serving me. No way in hell 90% of T&A's "normal" customers fit the cut of the shirt I tried on. The move was made to push existing OTR customers towards the more lucrative m-t-m and bespoke services. It has backfired on them according to the SA. To not offer both a slim cut and a traditional cut is bewildering.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Matt S said:


> So compared to BB, T&A shirts are slim. But still with a 43" waist, there should be plenty of room for a 35" waist. On my 40" chest and 34" waist, a slim fit shirt for me has a 45" chest and 40" waist. T&A's sizing seems quite reasonable.


The T&A shirts I own from a few years back are more or less those dimensions you noted - according to a quick "measure" I've just carried out. The shirt I tried on recently in London was considerably smaller/narrower across the chest and waist (and sleeves). The collar fit fine (I'm a 16"). Ergo I posit they have changed the profile of what they are selling now - at least in Jermyn Street.

Finally, as I previously stated, I have no aversion to a well-cut slim fit shirt. I own a few. But I had yet to come across anything slimmer than the Paul Smith shirt I own until I tried on the T&A shirt. That was very surprising to me.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

But here is the rub. BB is well-known (some would say notorious) for its outrageously full cut Trad Fit. Famously, BB Slim Fit is only marginally slimmer than most other companies' regular fit clothing. The Trad Fit, though BB has always offered it, is now more relevant than ever, given our country's ballooning waistlines. The point being, there probably isn't a single traditional manufacturer that offered significantly larger-cut shirts in the Golden Age (1950's-60's) than they offer today, and so I doubt that shirts fit the average-sized man any more blousily than they do today---it's just that we are running out of average-sized men (who lust after traditional shirts)!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

BB's traditional fit is over-the-top baggy. Neck sizes typically grows with waist size. The purpose of those shirts is to fit very large, because it's very rare that someone with a 16" neck needs a shirt with a 53.5" chest and 49.75" waist. That is ridiculous. T&A's fit (the one on the UK website) should be able to accommodate everyone, but still with a classic fit. I'd really have to see the new shirt to believe it, because it hasn't hit New York yet. And it doesn't seem like something they would do.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Hanzo said:


> I'd just like to give a slow clap to the term "eurotrash crapweasels". Well done, sir. Well done.


+1. LOL. It would seem that the honorable CuffDaddy is a fan of Stephen King and has some familiairty with his book entitled Dreamcatcher!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid, eagle. I'm not _not_ a fan of King, just not that interested in his usual genres. Apparently I blundered onto a phrasing that Mr. King had previously invented. Dumb luck on my part, I suppose. You know what they say about a thousand monkeys with typewriters... I figure I'm not quite as smart as a thousand monkeys, and Stephen King isn't quite as good as Shakespeare, so there you go.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

unmodern said:


> But here is the rub. BB is well-known (some would say notorious) for its outrageously full cut Trad Fit. Famously, BB Slim Fit is only marginally slimmer than most other companies' regular fit clothing.


This is a good point.

In addition, my reaction to the T&A measurements is more about the drop than the circumference itself. In the size 16 example I provided, T&A's shirt has a drop of a little over 5 inches. All of the BB examples except Slim Fit have drops of about 3 inches (Slim Fit is 4.5 inches). Based on that, it would appear, "slimness" aside, that T&A is closer to an "athletic" fit than the BB shirts are.

I have no idea if this is different from the T&A shirts of the past.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Taliesin:
> 
> Thank you for your research. You have, I believe, successfully brought indisputable objectivity to what heretofore has been a subjective free for all. Now those who were right may gloat, while those who were wrong may delete their posts.


So BB sets the standard for sizing on classic (=British) shirts?

Indisputable objectivity indeed 

I guess you can flame any brand except BB and Allen Edmonds on this forum 

I think this boils down to the people who want the best British OTR shirt with a good 'middle of the road' fit sticking with Turnbull & Asser, while the people who want a blousy fit look elsewhere.

Sure, you can call it classic if you want, and if huge shirts make you happy, then by all means, buy them. The fit will be ridiculous by my standards, but to each his own. I would never wear a sack suit either.

I don't think TA is likely to have several OTR fits at their size and price point. I think it's good that they are adjusting their fit to what discerning, stylish men want to wear.

A british slim 16 would have a waist of around 41. An Italian slim fit 16 would have a chest of around 44 and a waist of around 38.

Any reference to BB shirt sizing thereby becomes moot. Which anyone who has ever shopped for shirts at BB after being measured for ones correct size and fit in a Jermyn Street or similar shop can attest to.

It's good that we can have spirited discussions on shirt sizes.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'd be very interested to hear the comparison between T&A, Hilditch & Key, Harvie & Hudson, etc. I have more experience with those than with T&A, and their fit is only slightly trimmer than regular BB, or at least has been in the last couple of years.

Regarding the waist measurements, be aware that those are not analogous to trouser waist measurements. Trousers _must_ be a fairly snug fit at the waist (even with suspenders, they shouldn't gap away from the body). Shirts should never be snug. Those two measures should be well apart from one another.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Bjorn said:


> I think this boils down to the people who want the best British OTR shirt with a good 'middle of the road' fit sticking with Turnbull & Asser, while the people who want a blousy fit look elsewhere.
> 
> Sure, you can call it classic if you want, and if huge shirts make you happy, then by all means, buy them. The fit will be ridiculous by my standards, but to each his own. I would never wear a sack suit either.
> 
> ...


That's not the point of the thread. The point I'm making as OP is that the T&A OTR fit is not "middle of the road". It is now aggressively slim compared to their older traditional cut and is slimmer than any other Jermyn Street shirt maker's version of "slim" and even slimmer than the Italian slim fits and the Paul Smith slim fit that I own. The sales assistant in the Jermyn Street store acknowledged this shift in sizing had alienated most of their regular OTR customers. It has proven to be a controversial move and one they are regretting as intimated by the SA. That was the whole point of the thread to begin with - nothing else. Not a comment on brooks or indeed the pros and cons of slim vs trad cuts.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> So BB sets the standard for sizing on classic (=British) shirts?
> 
> Indisputable objectivity indeed
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point. First I have no opinion as to the merits or demerits of any of the shirts.

I did praise Taliesin for finding the shirt measurement specifications because
it seems obvious to me that it makes more sense to discuss size using "inches" rather than "too tight",
"blousy", "trim" etc. When someone says "4 inches" we all know what he is talking about, if he says "middle of the road fit" who knows with any exactitude what he means.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

SW100 said:


> That's not the point of the thread. The point I'm making as OP is that the T&A OTR fit is not "middle of the road". It is now aggressively slim compared to their older traditional cut and is slimmer than any other Jermyn Street shirt maker's version of "slim" and even slimmer than the Italian slim fits and the Paul Smith slim fit that I own. The sales assistant in the Jermyn Street store acknowledged this shift in sizing had alienated most of their regular OTR customers. It has proven to be a controversial move and one they are regretting as intimated by the SA. That was the whole point of the thread to begin with - nothing else. Not a comment on brooks or indeed the pros and cons of slim vs trad cuts.


And my point is that it's simply not true. Check TM Lewins slim measurements or an Italian brand slimfit and they will most often be several inches slimmer than the TA fit as stated by Taliesin above. In the waist.

I have a couple of recent TA shirts as well as several slim fit shirts, 3 from TM. They (TA) are not aggressively slim, no matter what the SA said. TM slim shirts are mostly wider than italian slims, yet tighter than TA. TA wouldn't make shirts as slim as the Italians, cause the Brits won't buy them.

According to measure, they are wider in the waist than true slim fits. IMO

So, the fit is not 'ridiculous', but has gotten slimmER. Most likely it has gotten slimmer per decade since they started producing shirts. Most probably by customer demand, since it's (probably) not hard for TA to track how wide customers prefer their shirts these days.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> I think you missed my point. First I have no opinion as to the merits or demerits of any of the shirts.
> 
> I did praise Taliesin for finding the shirt measurement specifications because
> it seems obvious to me that it makes more sense to discuss size using "inches" rather than "too tight",
> "blousy", "trim" etc. When someone says "4 inches" we all know what he is talking about, if he says "middle of the road fit" who knows with any exactitude what he means.


Good point.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

arkirshner said:


> I think you missed my point. First I have no opinion as to the merits or demerits of any of the shirts.
> 
> I did praise Taliesin for finding the shirt measurement specifications because
> it seems obvious to me that it makes more sense to discuss size using "inches" rather than "too tight",
> "blousy", "trim" etc. When someone says "4 inches" we all know what he is talking about, if he says "middle of the road fit" who knows with any exactitude what he means.


But it seems that the OP's shirt is smaller than what is listed on the website. There is nothing unreasonable with those measurements.


----------



## SW100 (Oct 31, 2004)

Bjorn said:


> And my point is that it's simply not true. Check TM Lewins slim measurements or an Italian brand slimfit and they will most often be several inches slimmer than the TA fit as stated by Taliesin above. In the waist.
> 
> I have a couple of recent TA shirts as well as several slim fit shirts, 3 from TM. They (TA) are not aggressively slim, no matter what the SA said. TM slim shirts are mostly wider than italian slims, yet tighter than TA. TA wouldn't make shirts as slim as the Italians, cause the Brits won't buy them.
> 
> ...


Respectfully, you are missing the point again - as per my other posts, the shirts I tried on in Jerymn Street are of much slimmer proportions than the dimensions quoted on T&A's website. I have T&A shirts from the past which match those dimensions and they are an acceptable cut to me. Not so the shirts I tried on last month. And that move has diminished customer demand not increased it...because as you say, it's not difficult to track demand and it's fell off a cliff for their OTR shirts according to their SA. The move to an aggressive slimmer profile (again different from the T&A shirts you and I currently wear) was done to push their mtm and bespoke services. To move the OTR customers up the value chain as it were. The problem is that not many professionals who are used to buying their business attire from T&A still have the physique they enjoyed when they were 15 years old.


----------



## Carolus (May 12, 2009)

Being a reasonably fit not so young man I have to say that any current T&A OTR rack shirt is way too wide in my collar size. Therefore I happily order T&A MTM shirts and get shirts that are both pleasing to the eye and comfortable to wear.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid, eagle. I'm not _not_ a fan of King, just not that interested in his usual genres. Apparently I blundered onto a phrasing that Mr. King had previously invented. Dumb luck on my part, I suppose. You know what they say about a thousand monkeys with typewriters... I figure I'm not quite as smart as a thousand monkeys, and Stephen King isn't quite as good as Shakespeare, so there you go.


  LOL. Sorry for my misguided assumption.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

The real problem is shirtmakers offering one size as the defacto standard when people vary so much. I suppose this may be their way of encouraging more customers into the MTM/Bespoike market. As someone who is "slimmer", my problem with RTW shirts was always at the waist. Collar, shoulders and chest would be fine, but around the waist, shirts would look like a tent (not just some billowing for movement and comfort). My complaint, was never that shirts weren't slim enough but that only one standard was ever offered. If seems T&A is just making the same mistake in the opposite direction. Of course, my solution was to go bespoke. I haven't bought a RTW dress shirt in over 15 years.


----------

