Skip

Common Jean Sizes: 34, 32, 36, 30, 38
January 29, 2013 6:42 AM   Subscribe


 
Is this where I bitterly complain about the fact that the pantsmakers of the world are apparently oblivious to the fact that short men exist? Seriously, try finding a pair of off-the-rack men's pants (jeans are particularly bad) with a 28-inch inseam. It's like the entire fashion industry is either in denial of there being men shorter than 5'9" or else wants the shorter 30% of the male population to go pantsless.
posted by Scientist at 6:56 AM on January 29, 2013 [10 favorites]


Why wouldn't you just get your jeans/pants hemmed, Scientist?
posted by modernnomad at 6:59 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah, short leg dudes got nothing on long leg dudes. You can hem, we just go hunt.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:01 AM on January 29, 2013 [10 favorites]



It's like the entire fashion industry is either in denial of there being men shorter than 5'9" or else wants the shorter 30% of the male population to go pantsless.


They do the same to the upper end, too. But, at least you can have long pants altered.

It's even worse for designer stuff, like Triple Aught Design or Ex-Officio. They don't even make pants in a 36 inseam, and some of them aren't available in 34 even.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:06 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Seriously, try finding a pair of off-the-rack men's pants (jeans are particularly bad) with a 28-inch inseam.

Even a 30" inseam is nigh impossible to find in waist sizes large than 32". Maybe I'm a fatty, but even since I hit a 34" waist (or 36", depending on the brand), I've found it tough to find pants that I don't need to have hemmed.

Why wouldn't you just get your jeans/pants hemmed, Scientist?

It's inconvenient and costs extra.
posted by asnider at 7:12 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Lands End offers free hemming on its jeans, so that could be the solution, right there. (I'm guessing the added cost and hassle of hemming jeans was Scientist's actual problem.)

Tall guys, sorry; you remain SOL for jeans at Lands End, where I see they stop at 34" inseams.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:14 AM on January 29, 2013


OK everyone, let's try to stay on topic here.

For instance: Awesome post, nice find, thanks for this! LOL!
posted by Daddy-O at 7:14 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


Well, having them hemmed costs money, for one. I'm already shopping exclusively at thrift stores for bugetary reasons, and getting things hemmed would triple my pants-related expenses. This is a reason why poor people don't dress as well as rich ones.
posted by Scientist at 7:15 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


The high pixelation just added to it's charm for me. Plus, Eurythmics!
posted by arcticseal at 7:28 AM on January 29, 2013


wat
posted by lalochezia at 7:30 AM on January 29, 2013


Hi short people. We're fat people. Welcome to our retail world.
posted by davelog at 7:37 AM on January 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


Even a 30" inseam is nigh impossible to find in waist sizes large than 32".


I dunno about that. I never had a problem getting 30" inseam jeans, even back when I had a 42 inch waist to go with it.
posted by deadmessenger at 7:38 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Well, have you checked Penny's? They have a big and tall section!"

"Yes, they have a big AND tall section. What I need is a "tall" section!"
posted by history_denier at 7:39 AM on January 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


I am reveling in my 32W/30L privilege right here y'all. REVELING LIKE A REVELER.
posted by Mister_A at 7:49 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Why don't you freaks just don potato sacks or something? HAHAHAHAHAHA
posted by Mister_A at 7:50 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


As a 6'3" transwoman.... don't even get me started, y'all.
posted by jeisme at 7:54 AM on January 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


Well, I tried.
posted by Daddy-O at 8:04 AM on January 29, 2013


Is this where I bitterly complain about the fact that the pantsmakers of the world are apparently oblivious to the fact that short men exist? Seriously, try finding a pair of off-the-rack men's pants (jeans are particularly bad) with a 28-inch inseam. It's like the entire fashion industry is either in denial of there being men shorter than 5'9" or else wants the shorter 30% of the male population to go pantsless.

Even a 30" inseam is nigh impossible to find in waist sizes large than 32". Maybe I'm a fatty, but even since I hit a 34" waist (or 36", depending on the brand), I've found it tough to find pants that I don't need to have hemmed.


Hey, there's a solution for that. I don't know about quality (as I'm 6'3") and kind of pricey, but may be worth a look for shorter men.
posted by hoboynow at 8:09 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


I can do a 31 or 32x30, and those sizes (along with medium shirts) are always the first to get raided from the pants tables at Costco. If I want to get a good price on casual pants, I pretty much have to luck out and shop on the same day as the stock is replenished. Oh, the anguish of being median!
posted by Burhanistan at 8:10 AM on January 29, 2013


My favorite part of the shopping experience is that "inch" is no longer a standard unit of measurement. I keep a cheat sheet to remind myself what the conversion factor is between retailers, because I have to buy my pants online if I want tall jeans, and depending on where I'm buying them, my waist size can vary by as much as 4 inches. Thanks, pant makers.
posted by Mayor West at 8:10 AM on January 29, 2013


I am on a neverending quest for more pairs of 33x32s that don't suck and have button flys. The pickings are surprisingly slim, everywhere, all the time. That should be an easy to find size, right? It isn't. Instead they make lots of extra jeans for basketball players, from what I see leftover at clearances.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:11 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


As a three-legged man, don't. EVEN. get me started.
posted by horsewithnoname at 8:13 AM on January 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


Metafilter: Best of the Web.
posted by humboldt32 at 8:17 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is this where I bitterly complain about the fact that the pantsmakers of the world are apparently oblivious to the fact that short men exist? Seriously, try finding a pair of off-the-rack men's pants (jeans are particularly bad) with a 28-inch inseam.

Option 1: Hem.
Option 2: Check the children's section.

Count your blessings; tall men get neither of those options.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:19 AM on January 29, 2013


The obvious solution is more men in utilikilts. Or possibly plus fours.
posted by elizardbits at 8:23 AM on January 29, 2013 [6 favorites]


I have a pair of skinny black levi's that self-advertise as 32 inseam but which actually measure 40. I just gave up after that and don't even bother to look at length tags.
posted by mwhybark at 8:23 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


My favorite part of the shopping experience is that "inch" is no longer a standard unit of measurement.

Yeah, that's messed up. Why the hell even use the word "inch" if it's not gonna be standard. BOO to you, vanity sizing! BOO I SAY
posted by Greg Nog at 8:23 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks, or perhaps I should say no thanks, to genetics I wear a 32" inseam but have a 36" sleeve. So I can buy pants anywhere but finding shirts is a hit-or-miss proposition even online. Luckily for me, "fashion" is word I have heard but don't actually know.
posted by tommasz at 8:26 AM on January 29, 2013


I have a pair of skinny black levi's that self-advertise as 32 inseam but which actually measure 40. I just gave up after that and don't even bother to look at length tags.

Levi's are the absolute worst, in my experience. Their waists are always at least 2" smaller than advertised. If I try on a pair in my size, the button is nowhere near the buttonhole, no matter how much I suck in. Any other brand might be a bit tight or a bit loose, but at least I can do them up.

(Of course, it may well be that Levi's is the only accurate brand, the last holdout on vanity sizing, and I am way fatter than I think.)
posted by Sys Rq at 8:30 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you wore 32" in high school but for some crazy reason the 32" jeans don't fit you any more as an adult, it isn't you, it is the jeans.

You need to get 'relaxed fit' or if the jeans seem to have gotten a lot smaller, get 'loose fit' jeans. The adult size 32" fits you better than the kids 32".

I always wonder what would happen if clothes companies where more honest. Instead of calling them 'loose fit' jeans, they should call them Big Ass™ jeans.
posted by eye of newt at 8:33 AM on January 29, 2013


I always wonder what would happen if clothes companies where more honest.

They'd sell fewer products.

Instead of calling them 'loose fit' jeans, they should call them Big Ass™ jeans.

See?
posted by asnider at 8:38 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


it may well be that Levi's is the only accurate brand, the last holdout on vanity sizing, and I am way fatter than I think.

I only realized how far off vanity sizing has become when I was ordering a kilt, and the kilt company was all "DO NOT USE YOUR STANDARD WAIST MEASUREMENT. ACTUALLY GO MEASURE YOURSELF WITH A TAPE MEASURE, YOU FUCKER" and then I was like, "Oh, wow. That's... kind of a big difference."

So now that I know what my actual waist size is and what my Standard Storebought Pants Size is, I'm even more confused about what to say my waist measurement is.

I have settled on the compromise of saying it is "a moderately sexy length"
posted by Greg Nog at 8:40 AM on January 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


unit of measurement = 1 nog
posted by elizardbits at 8:53 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why wouldn't you just get your jeans/pants hemmed

何不食肉糜? Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

Kidding, kidding. My pants budget has an upper limit of $19.99 per pair. Paying extra for hemming is out of the question. I've thought about hemming the pants myself, though it looks like sorcery on par with cooking.

Life offline is hard.
posted by fatehunter at 9:18 AM on January 29, 2013


Is this where I bitterly complain about the fact that the pantsmakers of the world are apparently oblivious to the fact that short men exist? Seriously, try finding a pair of off-the-rack men's pants (jeans are particularly bad) with a 28-inch inseam

Can't help you with the thrift store part, but find where the hispanic population shops in your area.
(Around here, it's Sears, oddly enough).
In my experience, you'll find a much larger selection of smaller sizes.
posted by madajb at 9:19 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


Paying extra for hemming is out of the question.

There goes your pay again,

falling on your hem like a tragedy.
posted by orme at 9:29 AM on January 29, 2013 [7 favorites]


Hold your leg up (hemmin' on)
Keep your leg up (hemmin' on)
Hold your leg up (hemmin' on)
Keep your leg up (hemmin' on)
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:40 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


I have nothing to say about jeans except that this video is amazing. Also it features jeans. The jeans are tangential to how amazing it is.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 9:43 AM on January 29, 2013


Instead of calling them 'loose fit' jeans, they should call them Big Ass™ jeans.

Duluth Trading Co sells BallRoom jeans. I'm guessing they aren't formalwear, exactly.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:22 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Instead of calling them 'loose fit' jeans, they should call them Big Ass™ jeans.

That would be great if everyone were either skinny or fat, but some of us wasting our days on the Internet are athletic and weirdly-proportioned; I buy loose fit jeans because my thighs are each as big around as the average guy's head and I get ragey when I actually find a pair of 34x34s* and I can't get them up past my knee.** As a gay, I'd love to have a bigger ass; as it is, that wasn't meant to be.

*What I've learned from this thread so far is that apparently every size is hard to find in the wild, albeit for vastly different reasons.

**Not to name names,
UNIQLO, but retailers who put all their chips on skinny jeans can eat me.
posted by psoas at 10:23 AM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Even a 30" inseam is nigh impossible to find in waist sizes large than 32". Maybe I'm a fatty, but even since I hit a 34" waist (or 36", depending on the brand), I've found it tough to find pants that I don't need to have hemmed.

I wear 34~36" as well, and a 30" inseam is easy to find for jeans. Just not as easy as 32". (Disclaimer: I'm in Canada). For many other pants - slacks, khakis, etc. the default leg seems to be more like 32", and occasionally 34". I just get them hemmed.

I have a pair of skinny black levi's that self-advertise as 32 inseam but which actually measure 40. I just gave up after that and don't even bother to look at length tags.

That sounds like a one-off error to me, which can happen with most brands. I don't think Levi's intentionally mislabelled the sizing. There is no vanity sizing for inseam, and an 8" longer pant leg than expected is going to be immediately obvious when you put it on.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:24 AM on January 29, 2013


Carhartt jeans on Amazon.com come in an extremely wide range of sizes, are very true-to-size, well-built and pretty cheap. Just FYI.
posted by yoink at 10:24 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


Carhartt is a great brand but most of their stuff is made for very large people, except their highly expensive European fashion line .

And Uniqlo can fuck off. Anyone who makes their normal jeans with spandex and polyester should be smacked.
posted by Liquidwolf at 10:41 AM on January 29, 2013


I buy loose fit jeans because my thighs are each as big around as the average guy's head and I get ragey when I actually find a pair of 34×34s and I can't get them up past my knee.

Trade you my ass for your athleticism.
posted by Nomyte at 10:41 AM on January 29, 2013


Pogo_Fuzzybutt: "Duluth Trading Co sells BallRoom jeans yt . I'm guessing they aren't formalwear, exactly."

They have gusseted crotch. (I've not bought any Duluth Trading Co, but I've had great luck with some REI pants with that feature. I sure as hell wouldn't have liked running 9 miles on the cold, 2am Kansas highway in *jeans*!)
posted by notsnot at 10:45 AM on January 29, 2013


Carhartt is a great brand but most of their stuff is made for very large people, except their highly expensive European fashion line

If by "very large" you mean, say, 28x28 and by "highly expensive" you mean $30.
posted by yoink at 11:03 AM on January 29, 2013 [2 favorites]


"I am reveling in my 32W/30L privilege right here y'all. REVELING LIKE A REVELER."

Invisible pants of privilege?
posted by etherist at 11:33 AM on January 29, 2013


Invisible? I was assured that this suit of denim is of the highest quality and only looks invisible in the store. The many scornful or scandalised looks I've received in the vegetable aisle are certainly attributable to base jealousy.
posted by Mister_A at 11:42 AM on January 29, 2013 [4 favorites]


I had a red denim two-piece suit when I was ten. In the late 70's. My mom made it.

It was beautiful in ways that even today I can only barely appreciate.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:02 PM on January 29, 2013 [8 favorites]


Just another problem that could be solved if someone would just hurry up and invent the synthesizer. Though for some reason, the Star Trek people who had access to a machine that could presumably make them perfectly tailored clothes kept having to yank down on their waistbands every time they stood up.

Until then I will continue to buy clothes that fit me only approximately, and in only some weathers, depending on how I'm standing.
posted by emjaybee at 1:11 PM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


I had a red denim two-piece suit when I was ten. In the late 70's. My mom made it.

It was beautiful in ways that even today I can only barely appreciate.


I had a rust-colord Toughskins two-piece suit when I was around that age.

I wouldn't exactly call mine beautiful.
posted by larrybob at 1:25 PM on January 29, 2013


I am not a 32 leg. I am not a 34 leg. I'm a 33". DAMMIT.

And not many places that sell jeans as long as 34" (ie. three shops, ish - most stores' 'long' is a 32 leg) are big enough to fit my 'womanly' hips. Even when I was a stone underweight, I took a 14 at Topshop.
posted by mippy at 2:01 PM on January 29, 2013


Looking at jeans in a store yesterday, I noticed that a lot of the jeans were labeled with WAIST SIZE ONLY!!! and maybe a "T" after that if I was lucky.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 2:06 PM on January 29, 2013



If by "very large" you mean, say, 28x28 and by "highly expensive" you mean $30.
posted by yoink


Har har. No, I mean the cut is big and the shirt and pants sizes run big compared to other brands. And no I don't mean $30 , I mean $475 for a coat. That's the fashion line like I said, not the normal stuff.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:45 PM on January 29, 2013


No, I mean the cut is big and the shirt and pants sizes run big compared to other brands

You said they made clothes for "very large people." Unless you're suggesting that their sizing is simply hilariously wrong (which has not been my experience nor seems to be that of the many positive reviews on Amazon) then the 28x28 jeans they sell for $30 on Amazon suggests that your comment was simply made in ignorance of the facts.

What impresses me about Carhartt is precisely the fact they they have a wide range of sizes (I take 33Wx36L, and most manufacturers don't even offer that as an option) and they deliver pretty much all their styles in all sizes--and they do this for both men and women. And, as I say, I have found that there sizes are pretty accurate.
posted by yoink at 4:07 PM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Carhartt jeans on Amazon.com come in an extremely wide range of sizes, are very true-to-size, well-built and pretty cheap. Just FYI.

Yeah, if by a range of sizes you mean 30" inseam and up. Curse my short troll legs.
posted by Scientist at 6:07 PM on January 29, 2013


You know you can just roll them up, right?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:16 PM on January 29, 2013


Just another problem that could be solved if someone would just hurry up and invent the synthesizer.

Moog took care of that for us. What you're looking for is a replicator.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:18 PM on January 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, if by a range of sizes you mean 30" inseam and up. Curse my short troll legs.

I'm looking right at 28x28 listings on Amazon (plus larger waist sizes with 28" legs).
posted by yoink at 9:27 PM on January 29, 2013


Why wouldn't you just get your jeans/pants hemmed, Scientist?

It's inconvenient and costs extra.


Roll 'em, pin 'em, tape 'em. Regardless of my fluctuating weight (5'10" - 165) I've been 34-30 forever and the problem is that it's more like 33-31 so there's always going to be belting or rolling.

And don't even get me started on my huge penis.

So I get 32-34 or 34-34 and roll 'em. Jeans are pretty much a pain for any body size or shape outside a very small "standard."

Great song. So nice I watched it twice.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:57 AM on January 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


That's weird yoink, I looked at several styles and none of them were listed at less than a 30" inseam for any waist size. I wonder if there's some kind of bizarre localization going on.
posted by Scientist at 12:54 PM on January 30, 2013


I'm male. Years ago, when I was at university, I had a 38-inch waist. I once went to a shop and told an assistant my dimensions, and he didn't believe me.
posted by Sarariman at 1:33 PM on January 31, 2013


That's weird yoink, I looked at several styles and none of them were listed at less than a 30" inseam for any waist size. I wonder if there's some kind of bizarre localization going on.

I guess it could be, but that would seem really odd.

Try doing this. Go to Amazon. Enter "jeans" as the search item. Then select "men's jeans" from the options on the left. Then select "28" for the "inseam" option from the filters on the left and see what remains. I have "Carhartt Men's Men's Relaxed Fit Straight Leg Jean" and "Carhartt Men's Relaxed Fit Jean" and "Carhartt Men's Washed Denim Work Dungaree" among a bunch of others from other brands. (Some brand called "Bullhead" seems to have the monopoly on 26 inch inseam jeans).
posted by yoink at 1:48 PM on January 31, 2013


« Older We don't need no shovel let the muthaf**ka melt!...   |   Cash is (still) King Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post