Have any other men noticed this?

True, and I don't really mind when it comes to pants and jeans! I've taken 36" waist jeans and pants since my teens, (apart from a coupla 'lost' years when I didn't eat properly, drank too much and was down to 30") and it's always been a real bummer trying to find dress pants that actually have a decent amount of room around the waist, to stop that horrid 'spare tyre' effect when suited (hey, I'm 6' 4", I can carry a few extra lbs!)...

So now I habitually get size 38" waist, which always gives me room to put a relatively thick shirt & beater on, if it's chilly. With regards to vintage-style khakis, work pants and jeans, I find that having 'em a bit loose and cinching 'em in with a belt gives a nicer look than buying 'em tight around the waist and looking like you're gonna bust out any minute!

Having said that, I was more than embarrassed last time we wuz in Memphis and I went to the excellent K&G store to get some wide-leg dress pants, of which they had a HUGE selection. Ended up getting a really, really nice pair of Hollywood-style pants by Sean John (yup, P Diddy), which have reverse pleats, double dropped belt loops, a really high waist and deep cuffs, but they're true-to-size, and I had to buy a pair of 40"s! lol

However, with regards to 'vanity sizing' in shirts, tees and sweaters, I agree that it's a pain - there's also 'reverse sizing' in some of the more designery shops, where a large is actually about the size of a regular medium! Guess they're trying to tell you that their wares are really only for spindly, slope-shouldered teens, not blokes with proper man-shaped bods!

 

^or they're just trying to reverse the trend of vanity sizing and go back to what the sizes should be.

Not everybody is fat, and not everyone wants clothes that are giant on them. I have a shirt or two that are marked as smalls that would be larges or perhaps even XL if the makers were honest about it. For a small guy like me, that's a problem. While they may be making fatter men feel better, they're screwing over those of us who are actually in shape, and I don't see why we should have to go through much more effort just to find clothes that fit just so some people who need to lose weight don't have their feelings hurt by having to see what size they actually wear.

 

A Vintage Pendleton Shirts in Medium has a 44 Chest, a modern Pendleton Shirt 48"
Vintage Trousers are marked true to size without spare room. Most modern Trousers are 1-3 " inches larger than marked. Bad for Online Buyers.
Most modern clothing is to long and to wide in the waistline, also the smaler sizes. When you buy a smaler size Pant the leg wide is too tight.
Ok we can say this universale sizes fits everyone, the Problem is , Athletic Peoples looks bad on it !
The solution ? Buy Vintage Clothing or go to Mc Donalds and "Supersize you".

 

I find the 'one size fits all' approach as annoying as you do!

I was merely pointing out the advantage in having 'slightly' larger than measured pants sizing, on a personal basis.

I agree that when it comes to say, Rockmount western shirts, whose medium fit is basically an XL (I'm guessing to fit over the large guts sported by their target market) it's a real pain. I usually find that if I can get shirts - vintage or otherwise - which fit well in the chest (I'm 44" so want a 46"-47" as measured size in dress shirts and no larger than a 48"-50" measurement in Hawaiians and sports shirts), then they're too short in the arms and too tight across the shoulders... I agree, these 'wonky' modern sizings are all to accommodate over-eaters!

I'm 6' 4", broad-shouldered, and pretty much 'straight up'n'down', although far from having a six-pack (unless we're talking beer!), so I do have problems with getting stuff to fit right.

A good friend of mine who's around 5'6" / 38" chest has recently been severely ticked-off by modern sizings, even a small is waaaay too big for him. At its worst, one mate of mine had to go to the kids' department to buy a pair of Levi's when we were in the States! Man, he was REALLY miffed...

 

All I know is that a 30 inch belt does not, to the smallest setting fit my 30 inch waist. And I know which one is right, I was just measured by the tailor the other day.

I'm thinking of having some leather belts custom made. Jeese, what a century.

 

I've had a couple of belts custom made, and it didn't work out much more expensive than 'off the shelf', and the quality was WAAAY better. I simply looked for nice buckles on E*ay, then had belts made up to match.

 

My little bit....

A belt is measured to the middle notch (typically a belt has 5 holes), and holes are in 1' increments to allow for gains and losses.

 

I don't doubt that vanity sizing is happening in men's wear these days, but what I see more often seems like poor quality control. It's not unusual to take four pair of the same style of 32-inch slacks into the fitting room and have each one fit differently, from one that I can't get buttoned to another that's quite roomy.

 

I wish that modern clothing was made too long. I tend to find that nothing is long, even in the big and tall stores (I am sorry, but 52-32 trousers do not belong in the big and tall)

 

Yup, that's another factor!

As I'm tall and broad, I agree with Yeps that there's some sizeist guff going on - Gap recently did some really nice duck work pants but they only did the 38" waist in 32" leg! Us larger fellas aren't all short! But I reckon anyone who either wants non-'one size fits all' or is non-typically-sized (whether that's the 'generous' or 'teenage' silhouettes that are mostly favoured these days) finds shopping just as frustrating...

At least, even in chainstores like Sears, you can get such wonders as different shirt arm lengths, half-sizes and different width fittings in footwear and 'between' sizes in pants & jeans. You should try shopping on the UK High Street, jeez, that's pretty grim...