At Law

Senior Member
Good Afternoon,

I have been 6'4" and 205-210 lbs for most of my adult life.

Over the last two or three years and perhaps even worse in the last year, I have noticed my tried and true brands of clothing makers have significantly reduced the size of their shirts/pants/short.

Brands I have commonly purchased for decades are Polo Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers, Lacoste, Vineyard Vines, etc.

I have commonly purchased from these manufacturers online for convenience in the past and typically had very few sizing issues.

As of late, the same sizes and fits I have ordered area not only a hair smaller, they are absolutely tiny as well as significantly shorter.

Has anyone else noticed this issue? I understand the style is a bit slimmer now, which is fine. However, cutting out 4-6" in the body of a shirt and 2-3" in length and 2-3" in waist size is absolutely ridiculous.


Interesting, but not surprising.

I haven't purchased mainstream clothing for a long time, preferring fuller cut clothing sources that most commonly refer to their clothing, and often cuts, as traditional. And among those few from which I've needed to purchase recently, this affliction has not yet manifested. My need to add to such items is fortunately very limited, though perhaps this trend yet will affect them.

There are a variety of reasons this likely is happening, and while I don't entirely discount cost savings for materials as motivation, I think there is less motivation to do that in this sphere as contrasted to food and other consumables where downsizing in number, size and quantity has become ubiquitous. But there the motivation for doing it not mainly material cost savings, but instead requiring that consumer make more purchases at, or near, the same cost to satisfy their needs.

Rather I'd place the blame for dinky clothing on these factors, and in this order; fashion/fit preference, manufactures accustomed to smaller physiques, and only last, a desire to reduce the cost of making by using smaller quantities. The last is more typically accomplished via using poorer material, rather than less.

Charles Dana

Honors Member
For casual clothes, you could try Orvis. Their clothing still tends to be generously sized. And the full cut of Mercer & Sons shirts continues to be a force in the trad world. LL Bean’s “traditional” fit is roomy.


Active Member with Corp. Privileges
The most frustrating example I've come across of this is the changing fit of Charles Tyrwhitt shirts over the years. Not the most interesting garment in the world but they were serviceable shirts and almost always available on sale.

I've lost 11lbs since I first started buying them in 2014 and over the years I went from an XL slim-fit to XL classic fit to an XXL classic-fit. Eventually they started cutting them shorter for man-children who want to wear untucked shirts so I jumped ship to Cordings and have stayed there ever since.

Matt S

Industry norm is the opposite of OP...vanity sizing.
This was the case for menswear 10-20 years ago. But over the past decade many brands have slimmed down their clothes to go after the younger market. Before I lost weight 5 years ago, my butt couldn't fit into most trousers I tried on that fit my waist. I could only fit into the most full-cut pleated trousers, which were out of fashion and very difficult to find.

You may still find that a size 32 trouser will measure 34 inches at the waist, but this is because they're designed to fit someone with a 32-inch waist who wears their trousers around the part of their hips that measures 34 inches.

Women's clothing is far more guilty of vanity sizing.


Active Member with Corp. Privileges
Tyrwhitt certainly have shrunk. I always wear classic fit and have noticed that some (though not all new shirts are skimpier around the waist). I’ve probably put on a few pounds over the years, but that can’t account for the skimpier fit, because some shirts are as generous as ever. I guess it’s a question of supplier. A big buyer such as Tyrwhitt can demand keen prices, so they should also demand proper fits.

richard warren

Senior Member
When India several years ago imposed export restrictions on cotton, it was predicted the price would rise substantially.

Within a year I noticed that shirt tails on new shirts were shorter, and the material thinner.

Style is one thing. Cost is another.

And I suspect it is the cost of materials that has been driving manufacturers to make ever smaller garments, which are then sold as fashionable.

Steve Smith

Super Member
XXL????? I guess that is a pretty loose 210 lbs. Or maybe he just needs to go to dress shirt sizing. Sport shirt sizing doesn't fit everyone.

I am 6' 0", 207 lbs and wear a Brooks Brothers L Regent, 16.5-35 Slim.

And the overall gist of this thread is that you can't please everybody and you're lucky if you can please anybody. Most comments about Brooks Brothers shirt fits over the last decade have been that they are too loose fitting. People don't seem to understand that they have 4 different fits which range from very full (now Madison) to almost freakishly slim (now Soho).
Last edited: