At Law

Senior Member
619
United States
Nebraska
Omaha
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.
 

Old Road Dog

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
201
United States
Indiana
Indy
When putting on the coat, take a deep breath; button the ......no, forget that*; remain standing; smile, even though you are wearing a face mask.

Repeat.

*Please note that the tip of your tie and your belt buckle will be clearly visible even with the coat buttoned. Yes, that's on purpose.
 

Danny

Super Member
1,712
United States
Maryland
Baltimore
I do notice that many clothing brands tend toward slim fit these days, that may just be the default cut that people in their 20s/30s expect. Perhaps PRL and Brooks are just trying to adjust over to this expectation.

I wonder what the history of vanity sizing has been though, because with pants the numerical size bears little relationship to the actual measurement of the waist it's intended to fit. This is true with casual pants at least, not sure how much it's the same with dress trousers.
 

At Law

Senior Member
619
United States
Nebraska
Omaha
Polo has always been guilty of just the opposite of vanity sizing for men's pants. Their pant sizes are typically a minimum 2 -4 sizes under.
Hence if you typically wear a 36, it is sized sometimes as low as a 32.
God help you if you order a slim fit in Polo.
And Brooks Brothers has now followed suit with this horrible sizing.
 

mfs

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
157
United States
California
San Diego
Polo has always been guilty of just the opposite of vanity sizing for men's pants. Their pant sizes are typically a minimum 2 -4 sizes under.
Hence if you typically wear a 36, it is sized sometimes as low as a 32.
God help you if you order a slim fit in Polo.
And Brooks Brothers has now followed suit with this horrible sizing.
And BB is now in bankruptcy.
 

triklops55

Super Member
1,133
United States
California
San Jose
I just bought a Zegna jacket at Last Call. It's a European size 58. The oldest stuff in my closet is size 54 and fits well, and I was buying European size 56 the last eight years or so. The last couple of new things I've bought this year are size 58. I haven't gained much weight, if at all, so I don't get why the size has to be bigger

I guess unlike women, guys want to feel like they are bigger than reality?
 

drpeter

Senior Member
518
United States
Wisconsin
Stevens Point
When putting on the coat, take a deep breath; button the ......no, forget that*; remain standing; smile, even though you are wearing a face mask.

Repeat.

*Please note that the tip of your tie and your belt buckle will be clearly visible even with the coat buttoned. Yes, that's on purpose.
I have noticed this feature of the "new slim look" and think it is truly unbecoming. I have watched people on TV shows sport this look, even though they are neither young nor especially slim. The tip of the tie and belt buckle plus a swath of shirt material all showing beneath the bottom button of the jacket -- why is that elegant? I'm assuming elegance is what the makers and wearers of this style are aiming for, some version of it, at least.
 

Charles Dana

Honors Member
3,233
United States
California
San Francisco
I have noticed this feature of the "new slim look" and think it is truly unbecoming. I have watched people on TV shows sport this look, even though they are neither young nor especially slim. The tip of the tie and belt buckle plus a swath of shirt material all showing beneath the bottom button of the jacket -- why is that elegant? I'm assuming elegance is what the makers and wearers of this style are aiming for, some version of it, at least.
Here on Ask Andy, what you are describing is referred to as the “Triangle of Death.”

And no, it isn’t “elegant”—it’s unflattering. Why it’s in style nowadays is beyond me. A high button stance, a short jacket, and low-rise trousers (all of which result in the Triangle of Death) come together to create an unbalanced look.
 

drpeter

Senior Member
518
United States
Wisconsin
Stevens Point
Here on Ask Andy, what you are describing is referred to as the “Triangle of Death.”

And no, it isn’t “elegant”—it’s unflattering. Why it’s in style nowadays is beyond me. A high button stance, a short jacket, and low-rise trousers (all of which result in the Triangle of Death) come together to create an unbalanced look.
Good, now I have a name for this abomination! Thank you, Charles Dana.
 

rl1856

Senior Member
500
United States
South Carolina
Charleston
The trend has been with us since the 08 Recession. Trimmer cut garments to appeal to a younger generation of buyers. The real reason is higher or steady profit margins from the need for less cloth per garment. Always follow the money.... The irony is this occurred at a time when the average waistline expanded- customers needed larger and fuller cut clothing. The industry went the other way, and spun their pivot around creating a trend of younger = trimmer. Under DelVechio leadership, BB recut their suit, jacket and shirt patterns to what I call Hipster Proportions, because they wanted to appeal to a "younger, hipper buyer". We know how that worked out.