Re: [RBW] Re: The evolution of sizing and fit
+1 to what Bob said. You want whatever lines are athletic or slim fit. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:17:06 PM UTC-7, Robert Barr wrote: To the OP I would respond that the Patagonia line has shifted a bit. The Snap T used to be a slightly technical piece of midlayer insulation. That niche now belongs to the regulator fleece. If you look on the website you will see regular fit casual wear, and slim fit technical wear. From what you wrote you would prefer the slim fit. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, George Schick bhi...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Now this is a rant with which I can definitely identify. A month or so ago I went to a well known men's store to by a couple of pairs of dress slacks. I wanted pleated and a size up from my 36 waist to accommodate my late-middle-aged beer gut. Nothing available; not one pair. Further, the straight front one's that I tried on fit so tightly that I had trouble even sticking one leg in, not mention zipping them up. I asked the sales clerk what was up with all of this sizing and style BS. He said that they've had quite a few complaints from customers about exactly the same thing recently, but that the fashion wizards have taken the clothing market back to the mid-60's - high water pants (at or above the ankle), seriously tapered, and straight front (picture the dress of the original Beatles band from that time period) and there's nothing they can do about it. Well, that's fine, I suppose, except where's the market they're trying to attract? Further, I have found that the less expensive you buy, the smaller the fit-per-size becomes. I bought some cheap T's from Kohl's this Summer to use for general work around the house and biking. They fit so snug that I had to take 'em back and exchange for several sizes larger to get ones that were comfortable. On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:44:11 PM UTC-6, jinxed wrote: A couple weeks back my trusty Patagonia Snap-T Synchilla that's been with me since college mysteriously disappeared at a coffee shop. Needless to say, I was mad to lose such a long owned and well used piece of clothing. Today, I go to check out what colors they come in now so I can make that my one wish for the coming holiday season. Thankfully I find they still make the Snap-T...BUT WTH happened to the cut and sizing?! When I pulled a medium (same size I had) off the rack, I could not believe how HUGE it was! I honestly assumed it was mislabeled. Then I looked at the small...it was a bit smaller, but I realized it was the fit that had changed. It's like it lost all shape and became a trash bag with holes in it. I realize baggy fit was in for a while, but never really associated that with outdoor apparel. So it seems I'll have to find an old one if I want the same thing. Ugh. This got me thinking about cycling specific clothing and how (or if) it's changed. For the most part the lycra set has remained unchanged...tight and stretchy is tight and stretchy. But my interest was with styles closer to and specifically Rivendell type items. I noticed a couple of the new clothing items have specifically undergone a slimming recently and mentioned as requested. Not that I saw any of their clothes as baggy per say, but more relaxed. I'm fairly normal 5'8 @ 145lbs so I tend to skirt the small/medium in the MUSA range depending on cut. SO for me a slimmer cut is fine and will most likely fit as intended. But then I know some of the older wool jerseys were more traditionally form fitting. My medium Seersucker fits a little loose in the body, but the collar and sleeves are spot on. Same with the Railroad shirt. Interestingly I have a couple pair of old MUSA shorts in size XL! that work fine on my 32 waist. Weird. I've been biking since about 88 and realized that aside from the lycra, all my casual cycling gear has been purchased based on the same fit. Room enough to move, but never baggy. That has worked no matter what type of riding I'm doing. All that brought me to thinking about bike fit and sizing too. There has been lots of discussion on the RBW vs. conventional types of fitting and it's probably safe that if you're here you at least in part agree with the former. But then it seems RBW fitting has evolved over time too. Looking at the first All Rounder it was clearly not a bars above the saddle fit. The head tubes got taller, then up sloping top tubes, and newly designed bars to go even higher. I wonder if it will keep going up? Do you find yourself wishing that a certain era of fit had frozen in time or do you tend to like the evolving nature of it? Like my Patagonia fleece, I'm disappointed they changed it as it seemed like a perfect design to ME. But then I'm very happy that the fatter tire revolution seems to be gaining steam. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: [RBW] Re: The evolution of sizing and fit
@ Patrick- I totally understand that and shop appropriately. But I was looking at the same garment from the same manufacturer. And it's funny how most things athletic fit are generally fashion clothes not intended for athleticism. I think I was mainly surprised to see an overly baggy piece from a company like Patagonia. My experience is that the outdoorsy / sports apparel suppliers are by default athletic fitting. It's funny, looking into actual physical measurements of the snap t by sellers on eBay, many of the current mediums are listed as 24-25 pit to pit. That's a 50 chest! I'm guessing my old one was right at 40. That a pretty drastic upsizing. Regardless, it's just an interesting look into how standards and perceptions of them are always in flux. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: The evolution of sizing and fit
'Nother anecdote (you asked for it). Years ago I had several Performance LS jerseys in an incredibly bright and neon greenery-yellow. I wore them everywhere I biked to, which included school (middle aged MBA program), stores, church, and so on. People all would wince when they saw me, but our priest at the time said it best: They won't hit you by accident, but they might do it on purpose. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, ascpgh asc@gmail.com wrote: I was in Jackson, WY summer before last and in an effort to have the clothing for the spectrum of conditions expected I tossed in an old Synchilla Snap-T in the most horrific tennis ball yellow (acid in that year's catalogue) my wife wore often and I had a full zip Marmot rough fleece jacket with me. Folks called us out for those two garments every day, each is over 25 years old. Once had a guy in a grocery check out line tell me he bought the same Snap-T for his grand mom in the nursing home because he was sure no one would steal it. Color palette attractiveness changes as much as sizing, although much less objective as sizing. -- *RESUMES THAT GET YOU NOTICED!* Certified Resume Writer http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: The evolution of sizing and fit
To the OP I would respond that the Patagonia line has shifted a bit. The Snap T used to be a slightly technical piece of midlayer insulation. That niche now belongs to the regulator fleece. If you look on the website you will see regular fit casual wear, and slim fit technical wear. From what you wrote you would prefer the slim fit. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, George Schick bhim...@gmail.com wrote: Now this is a rant with which I can definitely identify. A month or so ago I went to a well known men's store to by a couple of pairs of dress slacks. I wanted pleated and a size up from my 36 waist to accommodate my late-middle-aged beer gut. Nothing available; not one pair. Further, the straight front one's that I tried on fit so tightly that I had trouble even sticking one leg in, not mention zipping them up. I asked the sales clerk what was up with all of this sizing and style BS. He said that they've had quite a few complaints from customers about exactly the same thing recently, but that the fashion wizards have taken the clothing market back to the mid-60's - high water pants (at or above the ankle), seriously tapered, and straight front (picture the dress of the original Beatles band from that time period) and there's nothing they can do about it. Well, that's fine, I suppose, except where's the market they're trying to attract? Further, I have found that the less expensive you buy, the smaller the fit-per-size becomes. I bought some cheap T's from Kohl's this Summer to use for general work around the house and biking. They fit so snug that I had to take 'em back and exchange for several sizes larger to get ones that were comfortable. On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:44:11 PM UTC-6, jinxed wrote: A couple weeks back my trusty Patagonia Snap-T Synchilla that's been with me since college mysteriously disappeared at a coffee shop. Needless to say, I was mad to lose such a long owned and well used piece of clothing. Today, I go to check out what colors they come in now so I can make that my one wish for the coming holiday season. Thankfully I find they still make the Snap-T...BUT WTH happened to the cut and sizing?! When I pulled a medium (same size I had) off the rack, I could not believe how HUGE it was! I honestly assumed it was mislabeled. Then I looked at the small...it was a bit smaller, but I realized it was the fit that had changed. It's like it lost all shape and became a trash bag with holes in it. I realize baggy fit was in for a while, but never really associated that with outdoor apparel. So it seems I'll have to find an old one if I want the same thing. Ugh. This got me thinking about cycling specific clothing and how (or if) it's changed. For the most part the lycra set has remained unchanged...tight and stretchy is tight and stretchy. But my interest was with styles closer to and specifically Rivendell type items. I noticed a couple of the new clothing items have specifically undergone a slimming recently and mentioned as requested. Not that I saw any of their clothes as baggy per say, but more relaxed. I'm fairly normal 5'8 @ 145lbs so I tend to skirt the small/medium in the MUSA range depending on cut. SO for me a slimmer cut is fine and will most likely fit as intended. But then I know some of the older wool jerseys were more traditionally form fitting. My medium Seersucker fits a little loose in the body, but the collar and sleeves are spot on. Same with the Railroad shirt. Interestingly I have a couple pair of old MUSA shorts in size XL! that work fine on my 32 waist. Weird. I've been biking since about 88 and realized that aside from the lycra, all my casual cycling gear has been purchased based on the same fit. Room enough to move, but never baggy. That has worked no matter what type of riding I'm doing. All that brought me to thinking about bike fit and sizing too. There has been lots of discussion on the RBW vs. conventional types of fitting and it's probably safe that if you're here you at least in part agree with the former. But then it seems RBW fitting has evolved over time too. Looking at the first All Rounder it was clearly not a bars above the saddle fit. The head tubes got taller, then up sloping top tubes, and newly designed bars to go even higher. I wonder if it will keep going up? Do you find yourself wishing that a certain era of fit had frozen in time or do you tend to like the evolving nature of it? Like my Patagonia fleece, I'm disappointed they changed it as it seemed like a perfect design to ME. But then I'm very happy that the fatter tire revolution seems to be gaining steam. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: The evolution of sizing and fit
That's my wife's line on my orange Riv wool long sleeve jersey-thing. Well that's nice. No one's going to hit you... by accident. Philip www.biketinker.com On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:48:50 PM UTC-8, Patrick Moore wrote: 'Nother anecdote (you asked for it). Years ago I had several Performance LS jerseys in an incredibly bright and neon greenery-yellow. I wore them everywhere I biked to, which included school (middle aged MBA program), stores, church, and so on. People all would wince when they saw me, but our priest at the time said it best: They won't hit you by accident, but they might do it on purpose. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM, ascpgh asc...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: I was in Jackson, WY summer before last and in an effort to have the clothing for the spectrum of conditions expected I tossed in an old Synchilla Snap-T in the most horrific tennis ball yellow (acid in that year's catalogue) my wife wore often and I had a full zip Marmot rough fleece jacket with me. Folks called us out for those two garments every day, each is over 25 years old. Once had a guy in a grocery check out line tell me he bought the same Snap-T for his grand mom in the nursing home because he was sure no one would steal it. Color palette attractiveness changes as much as sizing, although much less objective as sizing. -- *RESUMES THAT GET YOU NOTICED!* Certified Resume Writer http://resumespecialties.com/index.html patric...@resumespecialties.com javascript: http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ Albuquerque, NM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
