At Last: Tech Clothing in "Real" Sizes...

[Serafina]

I spend a lot of time cursing the manufacturers of women's technical gear because all of it runs bloody small, and the sizing is not correct. I'm anywhere from an 16-18, depending on how roomy I want the clothes to be, and I have not been able to find ANY women's ski gear in that size range. No pants, no parkas. I've found stuff that says "16" or "XL", but it's clear that Arcteryx 16 = Regular Person's 12. I have tried on "XL" jackets that were so small in the arm I couldn't even get them on up to the shoulder, let alone come close to zipping. I have tried on "size 18" pants that were so small they wouldn't go halfway up my thigh. I don't care what the number is, I just want them to make clothes that will actually fit me, but most of them don't. Abercrombie and Fitch and Lululemon just said out-loud what a bunch of these technical gear manufacturers act like they think: we don't want big people wearing our clothes because it cheapens the brand, so we just won't make anything at all in a larger size than we want to be associated with.

I had resigned myself, sadly, to wearing nothing but men's ski gear, and having lifties address me constantly as "sir"...until yesterday, when I had some time to kill and decided to waste it (again) by poking through the women's ski clothes (again) in the desperate hopes that some manufacturer would decide to make an XXXXXXL that I might be able to fit into. There were three pairs of "size 18" pants from different makers that I tried...two of which were really size 12, and one of which - holy mackerel - was actually a size 18. If anything, they even ran a little large. Not only did they actually go on but they had enough room to sit down. And bend my knees. Miracles will never cease, so I found one of the jackets from this line. Marked "size 16". I knew this wasn't going to fit, because I'm really broad across the shoulders and usually do need a men's top, but I wanted to know how much it wasn't going to fit by. Imagine my shock when I found that I could actually zip it up, breathe, and move my arms at the same time.

So. For those of us who are strapping lasses, under-served by the mainstream technical gear manufacturers, there is a line you can buy your Normal Size in and have it fit. Sunice. From Canada, it figures. These clothes fit so well I would even buy them online. I know I'm not the only Diva with this issue, so I definitely wanted to put the word out. I can't give a review because I haven't tried them out yet, but I'm just so thrilled that someone has decided to serve my end of the market.

 

[ski diva]

Have you tried Junonia? They run ads on the site, and specialize in larger size outerwear. Click on one of their ads next time it shows up. Very reasonable prices, too.

 

[Serafina]

I haven't seen one of their ads - will keep my eyes peeled for it, though.

 

[ski diva]

Keep refreshing until one of their ads pops up. Or you can click here.

 

[Serafina]

done. And that certainly answers a question I have had for several years. I constantly see women in the lodge who are WAY broader across the beam than I am, and they have women's ski pants. They're usually anywhere from 6 to 10" shorter in height than I am, so I was never sure if they had some kind of secret source for pants, or if they just looked broader across the beam because they were so much shorter. There was, of course, no way on earth I was going to stop any of them and ask. When I went to Junonia I recognized more than a few of their pieces, so I'm going to go with the "secret source" explanation...that's really good to know, and their size charts look about right for 16-18.

 

[ski diva]

Plus as an advertiser, they support the site. So if you buy from them, please do so by clicking on one of their ads on on the link I gave in my prior post. The site benefits.

(They're nice folks, too.)

 

[segacs]

There's definitely a stigma in the athletic wear industry where people assume that larger sized ladies are probably not fit or active and are therefore not keen to buy activewear. So they only make stuff in teeny-tiny sizes. I'm a women's 12 -- hardly an unusual size, in fact, right in the median of women's sizes -- but I have a hell of a time finding ski stuff that fits me. Add to that the complete and total lack of options for us vertically challenged women in this sport -- a women's L jacket or pair of pants will usually fit around the waist and hips, but the shoulders, sleeves, torso length and pant legs will be miles long on me. If you go into a store in Montreal and ask for petites sizes, they'll direct you to the size smalls. It's a problem.

Anyway, all that to say I recommend Obermeyer as another brand that gets "real" women's sizes -- they sell plus and petites sizing. Their sizes go up to 18 in both regular and petite, and a 12 is a true 12 so I'm assuming an 18 is also a true 18. Their proportions are spot on, IMHO. I had to order my jacket special from the US and have it shipped to a retailer in Vermont who then sent it to me. But it was worth it, even despite all the extra shipping and customs charges, because it's the best fitting ski jacket I've ever owned.

 

[bounceswoosh]

This is good info! I've definitely gone up a few sizes in the last year or two. I have two pairs of ski pants that *just* fit me, both XL. If I need to buy a larger pair, I'll know where to start looking.

I want to point out, though, that there are two ways of interpreting this thread title. One, fitting true to size. I think this one is a little tough, anyway, because women's sizes are in no way standardized. Two, making clothing for women on the large end of the spectrum. It's important to note that women who do wear the sizes that manufacturers tend to produce are "real" women. I just wish manufacturers would recognize that women come in a variety of shapes and sizes!

Hmm. I wonder if @geargrrl could open up a sideline in custom fit ski pants ...

 

[segacs]

Very true, Bounceswoosh. Not implying that smaller women aren't "real" by any means. I'm just saying that companies who only make a few sizes to fit a small percentage of women aren't being very realistic, as in "real", about the variety of sizes that women come in.

 

[altagirl]

Snowmobiling/Motorcycle gear is also usually available in larger sizes, and you should be able to find good cold weather clothing.

I first noticed that when I got my first dirt bike. I'd never been able to fit into even the largest size of Fox Racing mountain bike shorts, which only came in S/M/L, but when I got my moto, discovered that the Fox Racing women's moto pants range goes to a 14, which fit more like a 16. I'd say their size "Large" MTB shorts fit more like an 8 and only accommodate very skinny little thighs. Anyway, I realized at that point that motorsports oriented clothing generally goes up to bigger sizes and accommodate bigger thighs too. And I've noticed hunting gear tends to be the same way - jackets go up to a women's 2XL, etc. Not that you probably want to ski in a camouflage jacket, but it's interesting that apparently other sports seem to more commonly acknowledge that women (even athletic women) aren't all the same size!

 

[geargrrl]

Thanks for the props but I do not/will not do custom. It's a huge time suck and takes away from all the other stuff I do.

 

[pinto]

Doesn't Columbia do a good job with plus-sized ski gear? It's good-looking, too, what I've seen.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Thanks for the props but I do not/will not do custom. It's a huge time suck and takes away from all the other stuff I do.

Understood. I also imagine the price point on custom ski gear would easily be Kjus-level, so it might be hard to find a market.

 

[Serafina]

This is good info! I've definitely gone up a few sizes in the last year or two. I have two pairs of ski pants that *just* fit me, both XL. If I need to buy a larger pair, I'll know where to start looking.

I want to point out, though, that there are two ways of interpreting this thread title. One, fitting true to size. I think this one is a little tough, anyway, because women's sizes are in no way standardized. Two, making clothing for women on the large end of the spectrum. It's important to note that women who do wear the sizes that manufacturers tend to produce are "real" women. I just wish manufacturers would recognize that women come in a variety of shapes and sizes!

Hmm. I wonder if @geargrrl could open up a sideline in custom fit ski pants ...

Yeah, that's why I said "real" sizes, not "real" women... this is 100% about BS sizing. It's about women to the extent that the BS sizing calls the "average" woman (size 14) an XL, when really, that ought to be a M, or possibly a L, but how they can make the statistical average into an "XL" is beyond me. It's the opposite of vanity sizing.

Women's sizes aren't standardized - but they're not nearly as unstandardized as the manufacturers of technical gear would have us believe. It's not just skiing. Yoga is possibly even worse. Equestrian clothes, same thing. Kerrits XL is at best a 14, Goode Rider XL is at best a 12, possibly even a 10. "Extra wide" riding boots are designed for women with a calf circumference of maximum 15 7/8", which no random individual would ever look at and say "That's a really thick calf."

I can mail-order pants in a size 16 from Lands End, Woolrich, and LLBean. They'll all be a little differently proportioned, but none of them are going to come in with a 28" waist. Unfortunately, a "size 16" ski pant could have anything from a 34" waist (fairly typical for a size 16, and very unlikely in a ski pant) all the way down to a 28" waist (way more common than the 34" waist).

I don't think I'd have this beef if ski clothing was equally likely to run small as to run large, but that's not the case. It just flat runs small, and a lot of the time it runs insanely small. If I go to Macy's and start pulling size 16 pants, I will be able to get into half of them. They won't necessarily look good, but I will be able to pull them on and get them fastened. The rest of them will be slightly small. At no point will I be trying on a pair of size 16 pants and find that I can't even get one leg into them, nor will I find myself wrestling into a pair of pants to find a six-inch gap between the snaps or buttons on the waistband. And yet, with ski pants, this is how it is most of the time for me. It's completely unreasonable. Again, I don't care if the tag says XXXXXXXXXXXLLLLL, as long as the thing fits, it's groovy. But the lines, for the most part, stop making larger sizes once they have something called "XL".

 

[pinto]

...
So. For those of us who are strapping lasses, under-served by the mainstream technical gear manufacturers, there is a line you can buy your Normal Size in and have it fit. Sunice. From Canada, it figures. These clothes fit so well I would even buy them online. ...

To be fair, so is Arc'teryx... (from Canada, I mean)

I do agree with you ...I too have found a lot of ski gear to run small; I wonder how much the US/UK/Europe size conversion plays into this. I always hate looking at my UK size, because it's 2 higher than my US one (which is silly, I know). But it seems that this happens a lot with clothes with multiple sizes on them -- does this even make sense? When the tag says

M -UK
L - Japan
M - Eur
S- US
M- Aus

you know, that sort of thing. But there are European brands where I wear one or two sizes larger than normal, and I wonder if they just don't get the conversion right. ie, I'm usually about an 8 US, even sometimes a 6. I am almost never a US 10 ... except occasionally in ski clothes, and some Arc'teryx stuff, as you pointed out. Now, I have room to go up, but like you say, if you're already a 14, for example, there's nowhere to go in many brands.

Anyway, I don't know why, but I see what you are saying.

 

[bounceswoosh]

To be fair, so is Arc'teryx... (from Canada, I mean)

I can't remember if I've tried Arc'teryx pants, but I do find their jackets to fit really well in XL, and have a flattering cut, as well. In contrast, very few other brands have women's XL jackets that I can even zip up. That was true even before I gained my recent extra weight.

I do wonder if fitness companies think larger women aren't active, or if they don't want us wearing their brands because it's "unsightly." I hope it's just the former, which can be mitigated with data.

 

[pinto]

I can't remember if I've tried Arc'teryx pants, but I do find their jackets to fit really well in XL, and have a flattering cut, as well. In contrast, very few other brands have women's XL jackets that I can even zip up. That was true even before I gained my recent extra weight.

I do wonder if fitness companies think larger women aren't active, or if they don't want us wearing their brands because it's "unsightly." I hope it's just the former, which can be mitigated with data.

I've found it totally depends on the item. Some things are cut looser (many of the ski jackets, for layering), I have size small shells that fit fine. And imo recently Arc'teryx has really really improved on cut, made for a women's figure, for sure, rather than an overgrown teen boy. But a few base layers and fleece things seem really quite small, and I need a large. And I wear size 10 shorts, which is strange. TBH, I haven't tried on that many base layers lately from Arc, so that might have changed.

As to the why, I think it's a bunch of things, actually. I think the market for $500 technical shells is small to begin with, and so sizes are limited because of that. (The same reason they don't make hardly any women's skis in 185 length...) Add to that material costs being higher, for supposedly more expensive technical fabrics, and they would need to charge more for larger sizes, which would not be a good pr move. I don't even know if this is really a factor or not, I read it somewhere (probably in the lululemon defense, who knows). It is true that generally speaking, income level and weight are correlated, and income level and choice of hobby are correlated, and putting that together, an expensive pasttime like skiing will most likely have participants that are thinner than the national average.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with all that, but those are some reasons I've heard. I would think there is some data backing it up, though, since companies do like to sell clothing and it's silly to shoot yourself in the foot....

 

[bounceswoosh]

As to the why, I think it's a bunch of things, actually. I think the market for $500 technical shells is small to begin with, and so sizes are limited because of that. (The same reason they don't make hardly any women's skis in 185 length...) Add to that material costs being higher, for supposedly more expensive technical fabrics, and they would need to charge more for larger sizes, which would not be a good pr move. I don't even know if this is really a factor or not, I read it somewhere (probably in the lululemon defense, who knows). It is true that generally speaking, income level and weight are correlated, and income level and choice of hobby are correlated, and putting that together, an expensive pasttime like skiing will most likely have participants that are thinner than the national average.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with all that, but those are some reasons I've heard. I would think there is some data backing it up, though, since companies do like to sell clothing and it's silly to shoot yourself in the foot....

*nod* Yeah, it's the same reason that it's extremely difficult to find women's gear for a lot of my sports. Any women's gear at all. Which I suppose is why the stabilizer straps on my mountain biking neck brace double as "boob enhancers." Clearly not designed with a woman's body in mind.

All the more reason, though, for those of us who need this stuff to support companies that are going out of their way to cater to this narrow demographic. Reward them for taking the risk.

Even in my best shape, I'm still going to be wearing XL. As my friend laughingly says, she and I come from "hearty German farmer stock." Big muscles to go with the layers of fat. That doesn't mean that manufacturers have an obligation to cater to me - but I'm going to sit up and take notice when they do, and happily funnel some of my income their way.

 

[Serafina]

The arguments about cost are BS, and I say this as an expert in the area of cost accounting and business strategy, and the two combined. First, the margins on these products are significant - and I have that first-hand from buddies who are senior marketing people for North Face and Nike. Second, the kind of volume buying that these companies are engaged in results in raw material prices that are significantly lower than any of us would ever see. Third, the incremental amount of time required to sew a seam that is 24 inches long beyond sewing a seam that is 18 inches long is trivial. It's not material, as we accountants would say.

And all three of these are why a size 14 isn't more expensive than a size 2.

Think on it: if the arguments about having to use more materials/time were at all true, we'd see differential pricing for every size: a 2 would be cheaper than a 4 which would be cheaper than a 6, in turn cheaper than a 10, and so on. Even if you want to clump and argue that somehow there's a step cost involved (one that gets more expensive at certain points rather than continuously) you'd expect to see it kick in somewhere between a 2 and a 16. The size 18 Sunice pants I bought were exactly the same price as the size 2 pants in the same make on the rack.

So, no, in my professional opinion, the "it costs more so we don't do it" argument holds no water at all. It's a scam that these companies are using to deflect undesirable public opinions, and it only works because people don't know more about accounting.

The argument that the market is too small also doesn't work. Size is approximately distributed along a bell curve, and the average on that is roughly a size 14. In statistical terms this means that there are approximately the same number of size 12s as size 16s. And the same number of size 10s as size 18s. And the same number of size 8s as size 20s. So the starting point for the decision about sizes to manufacture should be that they should make the same number of pants and jackets in size 10 and size 18.

Now, there is some correlation - but not nearly as much as people would like to think - between engagement in athletic activity and size, so it makes sense to me to manufacture fewer size 18s than size 10s...but the decision to manufacture tons of 10s and not to manufacture 18s at all is not supported in the least by statistical analysis. There is undeniably a market for these items; the company could serve that market at minimal incremental cost (if any), but they choose not to. What they choose to do instead is take the risk that the public will notice that they're engaging in size discrimination, and that they'll be able to whitewash it somehow, because they're incorporating that size discrimination into their branding campaign. This is exactly what happened with A&F and Lululemon this past year. It is also, indirectly, the subject of quite a lot of investigative work involving exactly why it is that we have such a high prevalence of eating disorders and ongoing issues with women and their body image. It's institutional.

What also ticks me off roundly about this situation is the implicit assumption that "large" = "fat". I was 10 lbs and 23" long at birth. Even when I was whippet-thin from a divorce and grad school - to the point where you could count my bones and people kept asking me if I'd been extremely ill recently - I still wore a size 14. I wear a Euro size 41 shoe. I'm just big all over.

I do think that there's a huge potential for confusion in translation between Euro sizes and US sizes, but that doesn't excuse our domestic gear manufacturers.

 

[ski diva]

Serafina, in some measure, I feel your pain. At 5'1", I don't consider myself that short, yet I still have tremendous difficulty finding ski pants that aren't so long that I'm tripping over them. Some ski apparel manufacturers do produce them -- Columbia, TheNorthFace, & Obermeyer come to mind -- but they ain't always easy to find.

I guess most manufacturers direct their production efforts to where they see the most profit. And in their (misguided) eyes, big girls and tiny ones must not be worth it. Which is weird, because it's not like I'm a freak or anything. I see loads of women my size, and yes, we're all tripping over our pants.

I do agree that there should be some consistency about sizing. I usually go by the size measurement chart instead of the number on the tag, but that only works if you're buying online. In a store, it's anyone's guess.