Why do four different brands of shirt ...
 

Why do four different brands of shirt come in four different sizes of extra large?

I have four brands of shirt in extra large size, and they are four distinctly different sizes.

The smallest is Honig's, which is actually a large (I actually have to order two sizes larger for a plate shirt). The second smallest is Cliff Keen, which is large for a large or small for an extra large. The third largest is Dalco, which is actually slightly oversized for an extra large. The largest is the Official's Choice, which is generously oversized, both in the chest and length of the shirttail. It's actually as much oversized as the Honig's is undersized.

Why is this so inconsistent? And why is Honig's the farthest off in their sizing?

Actually, I'd say Honigs is the closest to a "normal" size. I wear a medium in a casual shirt and the Honigs' medium fits me the same as a medium "street" shirt by Dockers or Manhattan. With Honigs, I have to go up a size to get a shirt that fits over my chest protector. I believe both Cliff Keen and Dalco tell you their shirts are oversized to fit over a chest protector and to "size down" for a shirt to wear on the bases.

Shirts by Official's Choice are ridiculously huge, but then they're changing the industry one umpire at a time...except for this umpire.

I'm going by the standard shirt meter too, and of my dozen or so golf shirts, every single XL is bigger than the Honig's. Honig's are minimum a half size smaller than a normal shirt. I need a 2X to get a tighter fit than a 1X Cliff Keen.

Should it not be basic to have the shirt be the size that it says on the label?

I've used 3 of the 4 shirts listed (have never had a Dalco) and would agree with Kevin's opinion on how they fit, relative to each other. The Honig's are on the tight side, the Cliff Keen's are in the middle and the Official's Choice fit like a freakin' tent! (Actually, that is one thing I do like about the OC shirts).

In the clothing world, labels like "Medium", "Large" or "Extra Large" are somewhat meaningless. There is no industry standard or benchmark sizing guide that says, for instance, a large must be 40" across the chest, or medium will be 36" long. Each manufacturer measures, cuts and assembles clothing to their own standard and the difference between different makers can be frustrating.

Sure, you can just buy the next bigger size, but the unfortunate thing is that you usually have to buy a shirt first before you know if it's going to be a little tight or a little bigger.

Do you see the same odd sizing in umpire pants? I wear a 36" in jeans or Docker-type pants and have slack at the waistband. A 36" Cliff Keene, or my old +POS pants, are on the snug size- almost uncomfortably so. A pair of 36" Fechiemer's I tried on, I could hardly even button! Another lesson learned the hard way- I now buy my umpire pants a size or two bigger than my day-to-day pants, but I had to buy those first pairs to find that out I needed to do that.

It probably depends on the stretchiness of the material.

Quality thrown out
 

Lay the shirts flat, measure the width from armpit to armpit, and multiply times two. Sizes should vary from 34-36 small, 38-40 medium, 42-44 large, 46-48 XL, 50-52 XXL, 54-56 XXXL, and up.

I bought large Official's Choice basketball shirts last summer and they were generously sized, but they have shrunk some from being washed and dried. I have Dalco baseball shirts. I wear a large in a regular shirt most of the time, but my base shirts are mediums and plate shirts larges.

I have Sansabelt basketball pants and Smitty baseball pants all in 34s and they fit perfectly.

Echoing what Bret said, I once ordered and tried on a pair of Fechheimer plate slacks. I made the mistake of ordering them in my actual size. Stupid, I know.

Such stupidity cost me $29.00 to try them on ($8.00 shipping to me; $11.00 to hem them; $10 shipping back to the supplier). So of course, I eventually turned to Honig's, the place that has shirts that run too small and slacks that fit beautifully.

Had the same problem with Flechiemer. Not even close to buttoning. Smitty, +pos and CK were on the money.
OC shirts, besides running large is the MLB blue and the creme are no where close to the other manufacturers. I now have an OC and another brand of each, just so I'll match my partner.

I'm not sure what I'll do this season. I've lost some (OK, more than some) weight -- I'm in a size 38 jeans and an XL polo shirt, although I am getting through basketball season with one pair of 40 pants that I "Welmer" every trip just about and an enormously huge 3XL shirt (talk about shirts that run small - basketball shirts, in my experience, do this, but I would probably be fine in a XXL and a bit snug in an XL).

I'm thinking about heading up to Davis in Appleton where I can try stuff on, but I hate, hate, hate their dark gray pants (umpire Dickeys). I'll probably just guess on premium pants sizes from Honig's and not get a hem put in them and if I have to reorder, so be it. I'm also hoping to drop another pants size by April, so I'm going to wait a bit.

If you don't like the finish of the GDs, and are uncertain of your exact size, go for the Honig's "Ultimate Slacks." They have two-inch adjusters on each side that lock into place with tuxedo buckles. They have a nice crease and a nice grain to the fabric. They're not poly/wools, but they are pretty nice slacks. They're a big step up from the GDs and Smitty's at only a few extra bucks.

They used to just be available in combo, but now they have them in all three styles.

http://www.honigs.com/img_item_full/B7.jpg

http://www.honigs.com/detail.asp?Cat=2&Sub=41&Item=797

[QUOTE=Kevin Finnerty;576831]If you don't like the finish of the GDs, and are uncertain of your exact size, go for the Honig's "Ultimate Slacks." They have two-inch adjusters on each side that lock into place with tuxedo buckles. They have a nice crease and a nice grain to the fabric. /QUOTE]


But the color doesn't match the poly-wool, or the Smitty, or the Gerry Davis. It will be noticeably different.

FWIW, the same "sizing" problem exists in almost all clothes -- I have shirts ranging from M to XL that fit me the same., and pnats that are labeled to be the same size that I need to snugh up or suck in my stomach to button.

Nothing will ever match the GDs, because they have that flat color, and it's a bit darker than the others. But the Honig's ultimates are not significantly different than the Smitty's or the other new charcoal entries. It's a general match, but not a complete match.

And I am not naive; I realize that clothing sizing can have differences from one to another, but we are talking about a two-size difference in the same industry! And the one that's most inaccurate is the so-called industry leader. They're even called uniforms.

Weren't you not too long ago complaining about how the trim on the Official's Choice shirts was slightly wider than other brands? Now you are on here saying that a different shad of pants isn't a big deal. I would have assumed someone so into the small details of shirt trim would be equally as interested as having the proper shade of pants.

Then why start this discussion? You already knew that every brand (of everything, not just officiating clothes) will have slightly different sizing but you asked the question of why sizing is so inconsistent anyways.

I didn't set the standard on the shirts, an assignor rejected them, and I agreed that it looked bogus. The pinstripe is the standard and it looks better. The Official's Choice is an arrogant joke of a company and guys should be warned so they don't get burned.

Now, the shade on the Honig's may be different than the Davis. I carry both to match whatever my partner wears, because yes, it's important to me. But if the guy wears the Smitty's charcoal, the Honig's is a closer match than the GD, and it's almost indetectible.

And the sizing in the umpire industry should be more uniform and bringing it up might save some guys some time and money that we have wasted getting stuck with the wrong sizes. If you don't have the time to waste on this subject, then pass.