Shirts Bigger Than Your Jackets

Allow me to preface this with saying that I am primarily an online shopper. I mostly hate going to brick and mortar places for a number of reasons I will not explain here. I'm usually pretty good at judging sizes based upon vendor-supplied size charts on websites and have generally been very successful in getting my size right while buying online. 

While discussion around these parts seems to settle on pants most of the time, inconsistencies in shirt sizing aggravate me as well. The rest of this rant data-driven study explores just one example of the root cause of this aggravation.

As far as sport shirts in the realm of an everyday essential, I could not stop hearing about how great Brooks Brothers was (most notably the extra slim fit). Sport shirting at Brooks Brothers comes in standard, nonspecific sizing (S, M, L, XL, etc.). Consulting the size chart on the site (scroll down to MEN’S SIZE TRANSLATION CHART) and you'll see that the large (L) would be best for someone between a 42 and 44 inch chest and 35" sleeve. This is nearly perfectly describes my sizing. But ah yes, the cut of the shirt...how is that? Directly above that size translation chart, you'll see a description of all the cuts offered at Brooks Brothers. I've transposed them below (I've omitted the Luxury Fit because it is the same as the Traditional Fit only available in longer sleeve and body lengths).

• Traditional Fit
•  Our fullest cut sport shirt
•  Slim Fit
•  Measures 3” slimmer through the chest, 5” slimmer through the waist and 2” slimmer through the seat than our Traditional Fit Sport Shirt.
•  Extra Slim Fit
• Measures 2" slimmer through the chest, 2" slimmer through the waist and 3" slimmer through the seat than our Slim Fit Sport Shirt. Higher arm holes and narrower sleeves complement the trimmer silhouette.

So it would stand to reason that the Extra Slim is 5" slimmer through the chest, 7" slimmer through the waist, and 5" slimmer through the seat than the Traditional Fit (simple addition of SF to ESF reductions). Now, I'm not exactly a slim guy but I'm not cut like an action figure either. I was actually debating originally between the Slim Fit in large and the Extra Slim Fit in large. One of the reasons for this debate was that I saw a friend who had one of these very shirts (Brooks Brothers Extra Slim). He had one in medium and he reported to me that it was very trim through the chest and that he probably should have gotten the Slim Fit in medium on account of him having an unusually large chest for his height (shorter than me). So using this information and the information on the Brooks Brothers site, I ordered an Extra Slim Fit oxford cloth buttondown in large.

Upon receiving the shirt, I was disappointed to say the least. Not because it was too slim through the torso but because it was way, way too full. I'll let the measurements do the talking. I took measurements of the chest pit-to-pit, the waist where it would tuck into pants, and the largest part of the sleeve, pit to outer shoulder.

A: Chest : 23.5"

B: Waist : 22.5"

C: Sleeve: 9.5"

At least for me, wearing this shirt has resulted in considerably annoying bunching around the waist while tucked in and sail-like excess through the sleeves. I never realized just how large it was until I threw a Levi's trucker jacket (size large) over it. This is actually what prompted me to measure the shirt in the first place. For reference, I've included the same measurements for the jacket as well.

A: Chest : 22.5"

B: Waist : 21.5"

C: Sleeve: 8.5"

Thus, the "Extra Slim" shirt (compared to the Levi's jacket) is 2" larger through the chest, 2" larger through the waist, and 2" larger in the sleeves! This shirt is larger than an article of outerwear of the same tagged size! I understand that different brands have different guidelines and that you can't assume that a large is a large is a large, always. Having said that, why on earth is this shirt described as extra slim? It's not even slim by conventional standards. Also, the minuscule collar with rear button that prevents all but the slimmest ties from fitting through is some kind of sick punctuation mark on this bloated, adverb-laden sentence of a shirt.

I am aware that Brooks Brothers is a traditional brand with generally traditional (see: full) sizing. But when heard repeatedly from young people on the Internet championing "BB-ESF" as the gold standard for off the rack sport shirting, I figured that Brooks was trying to target a wider demographic and hey, better for everyone, right?

What is the explanation for my dissatisfaction with this shirt? Is it just me? Do I just have unreasonable standards compared to those of my peers? Did I read the size chart wrong? Is there something wrong with the Large pattern at Brooks Brothers? Did my shirt get tagged wrong at the factory? Either way, this shirt fitting me properly will require it to be entirely recut through the side seam.

Pro Footwear Tip: Use Tongue Pads

It is well documented that I am a shoe junkie. I have many pairs, some of which that do not fit me perfectly. I blame it on an awkward foot size. Technically I should be a US size 12.5 M based on actual foot measurements. Since 12.5 is not a common shoe size (most shoe makers will do half sizes through 12 then skip directly to 13), and size 12s are nearly always too small I'm left with sizing up to a 13. For the most part, this isn't a problem and I have many size 13 shoes that fit me pretty well. However, it is not unusual for me to buy a pair of shoes that are just a tad too large. The consequences are usually heel slippage and what ShoeMD diagnoses as CSS (Clown Shoe Syndrome). Heel slippage is treatable whereas there is currently no known cure for CSS but patients diagnosed with it have been known to live long and happy lives.

This is a typical tongue pad.

For the cure to heel slippage, enter the tongue pad. The concept is simple enough: shim up the shoe to accommodate a smaller foot. The modern tongue pad takes the form of a 1/4" thick felt patch with adhesive on one side. The pad is stuck, via the adhesive, to the inside of the vamp on the shoe's tongue. This pushes the foot back into the heel  Truth be told, I had no idea that these little guys existed until I bought a pair of lightly used shoes on eBay that had them already installed. I didn't know what they were but they felt nice against my foot and the shoe fit perfectly because of it. I Googled "tongue pad" and low and behold, that's what they're called. I immediately ordered seven pair. I've put a few into some of my not-so-snug-fitting shoes and I now have shoes that fit! As an added bonus, if you're a trend-hopper like me and you sometimes wear your dress shoes sans socks, a tongue pad is a comfortable buffer between the top of your foot and bare leather.

I know the shoe snobs will deride the use of tongue pads and be all "ALWAYS try on shoes before buying" or "only buy shoes that fit perfectly" and "take out a second mortgage on your house and buy made-to-measure shoes". But for me, they work. They're a simple, inexpensive alternative to selling or returning shoes that are only slightly too large. A particular pair of chocolate brown suede loafers I thought I would have to sell on eBay wound up fitting after popping in a pair of tongue pads. Hey, that's worth it to me.

The Long and Short / Big and Small of It

WARNING: This post contains personal history, shoddy statistical analysis, and old images of United States Presidents (one of whom got stuck in a bathtub).

Growing up, I was always fairly big. In fact, I was pretty chubby for the first 20 years of my life (I distinctly remember my mother taking me to the department store to buy "husky" jeans). I now lift weights to convert some of the junk I eat into muscle. This leaves me with an above average mass for my height (albeit slightly less insulated).

Willam Howard Taft: 6'0", 340 lbs.

When I first started caring about how I presented myself to the world, I was convinced that only slender people could look good. Hey, I never claimed to be insightful or intelligent. Since then, through research and experience, I've realized that anyone can look like a million dollars if they just wear clothes that fit their bodies and their personalities (easier said that done, apparently). I also realized that this is true for that of people on the opposite end of the spectrum as well. Small and skinny or tall and lanky guys can often have trouble finding clothes that flatter their body types.

James Madison: 5'4", 100lbs.

Since being larger than average is kind of my angle (and reality), I am constantly thinking about how different pieces of clothing will fit me. Most of the times, at least when it comes to pants, even trying stuff on is out of the question. But more generally, this got me thinking about variation in mens sizing and it's relation to access to good-looking, well-made stuff. My left brain took over and I started wondering if there was a typical male body size with regard to who is "into" looking good or not. I basically wanted to characterize who I'm constantly talking to all the time about clothes in terms of height and weight. Now, I'll be the first one to tell you how little credence I put in simple height and weight figures (don't get me started on the use of BMI as an indicator of health) but for raw data like this, it will do for now. So I basically asked every dude who I've spoken with via Twitter their info. This data includes some of your favorite bloggers and in general, just style enthusiasts (I've also included myself). This is the data I got:

For reference, 72 inches is 6 feet

The output graph of height vs. weight kind of surprised me. First of all, there is a lot more variation than I expected. On the other hand, there are no extreme outliers. The data does not follow a very clear trend (obviously in general, the taller one is, the more likely one is to weight more). One fact that is easily noticable is the cluster of points toward the middle-left of the graph. The cluster contains people who stand between 5'9" and 6'0" and weigh between 150 and 170 lbs. This group would be at the top of your standard bell curve (the normal distribution) and would generally be considered "average" for the age group surveyed (to my knowledge: 18-35 year old males). In this data set, 11 of 27 (40.6%) people are within this window. The points above and below this cluster represent the outlier combination of height and weight that are sometimes more difficult to fit off the rack. [Aside: What is also interesting is that the median weight for those taller than 6 ft. jumps disproportionally compared to those shorter than 6 ft. There is a hole in the graph in the 5'11"-6'3" / 170-190lbs. block. This is likely explained by a limited data set (only 27 data points).]

When a clothing designer makes a pattern for anything off the rack that will have more than one size, they usually try to do so such that the garment will fit the most number of people within their target audience of customers (most likely the top of the bell curve of body measurements). Outliers are often left out, especially in a company that makes high-quality products in limited runs. But hey, that's business. I know I'm really oversimplifying/over-complicating this but I hope it isn't too difficult to understand. My findings were overly simple because I didn't take body type into account; perhaps fodder for a future investigation.