>Suits are made to be able to be tailored to the wearer’s measurements. But modern clothes aren’t. For example, even though there are high, medium, and low rise pants, I can’t adjust their rise to my proportions.
To me it seems like this is really the only point OP have, which seems to have more to do with how modern clothes are produced? (factory, based on some averaged out categories of body type)
Other than that it seems like all the things he say are "better", you can find modern variants that do as well.
And the women's cloth rant is weird. Isn't that... Same for (most common) women's suite too? Pockets being too small is enough of an issue that I know some women just buy men's jeans (smallest size) instead, if their proportions are not too different (hip) from average for men.
Also, I didn't see any defense for neckties. What's good about that?
">Suits are made to be able to be tailored to the wearer’s measurements. But modern clothes aren’t."
It's understandable that modern pre-made clothes have to trade off the number of sizes and fittings. Unlike tailored clothes, economies of production mean they cannot be an ideal fit for everyone.
However, what I find completely inexcusable is that modern pants' pockets are almost inevitably too small, and often even zippers are too short making changing in and out of them awkward. These are rarely an issue with suits.
I'm fed up having my smartphone, keys and coins fall to the floor whenever I sit down. The problem is even worse in vehicles as the seats tilt back further. I've permanently lost smartphones because of shallow pockets.
Unlike clothes' sizes, there is no intrinsic limitation to pocket sizes, so why do we continue tolerate pockets that are not fit for purpose?
It's not only a pants problem, shirts regularly have pockets that are too shallow to take a pen, even the upper pockets of my overalls are not deep enough for a pen let alone a notebook or 6" rule.
Surely I'm not the only person who whinges about this. Why are pocket sizes a problem nowadays when never so decades ago?
I owned several early Nokia phones so I understand your point. Trouble is I've various brands of work pants whose pockets wouldn't even safely hold those Nokias. You'd think more attention would be paid to the depth of pockets in work pants but not so. Thus it's not one wayward manufacturer who is to blame, they're all at it.
My solution is to have my local drycleaning shop that offers an alteration service to deepen the pockets. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get right-sized pockets manufacturers should have provided.
No, I have the same problem with pockets. Ear buds love falling out of my pockets in the car.
It's the main reason I mostly wear jeans. The five pocket configuration's vertical orientation holds onto its contents better than the slanted pockets of slacks and chinos.
I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets. Jeans get so boring.
Right. My earlier comments are not aimed at jeans, they're pretty much the exception. Their two main pockets being positioned at the front make it difficult for objects to fall out unnoticed.
I'm guessing, but I'd imagine as jeans first became popular in the days of horse riding side pockets really weren't a practical option, the rider's motion would contribute to things sliding out of them.
My complaint is that modern clothes designers have forgotten or stopped implementing good pocket design that was fully solved several centuries ago.
"I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets."
So would I, and deep pockets do exist but unfortunately not in mass produced pants that are commonly available (one's regular clothing). I have some army BD fatigues/dungarees with really good side pockets. They're not only deep but they're cut in a sort of a shallow 'P' shape. The P-cut at the bottom forces keys etc. to slide down one's side at 90° to the pocket exit when one is sitting. It's thus almost impossible to accidentally lose something out of them.
The questions are why don't manufacturers just copy this excellent design and why don't more people complain. If people stopped buying pants with shallow pockets the problem would be solved overnight.
NalNezumi · · focus · HN ↗
To me it seems like this is really the only point OP have, which seems to have more to do with how modern clothes are produced? (factory, based on some averaged out categories of body type)
Other than that it seems like all the things he say are "better", you can find modern variants that do as well.
And the women's cloth rant is weird. Isn't that... Same for (most common) women's suite too? Pockets being too small is enough of an issue that I know some women just buy men's jeans (smallest size) instead, if their proportions are not too different (hip) from average for men.
Also, I didn't see any defense for neckties. What's good about that?
hilbert42 · · focus · HN ↗
It's understandable that modern pre-made clothes have to trade off the number of sizes and fittings. Unlike tailored clothes, economies of production mean they cannot be an ideal fit for everyone.
However, what I find completely inexcusable is that modern pants' pockets are almost inevitably too small, and often even zippers are too short making changing in and out of them awkward. These are rarely an issue with suits.
I'm fed up having my smartphone, keys and coins fall to the floor whenever I sit down. The problem is even worse in vehicles as the seats tilt back further. I've permanently lost smartphones because of shallow pockets.
Unlike clothes' sizes, there is no intrinsic limitation to pocket sizes, so why do we continue tolerate pockets that are not fit for purpose?
It's not only a pants problem, shirts regularly have pockets that are too shallow to take a pen, even the upper pockets of my overalls are not deep enough for a pen let alone a notebook or 6" rule.
Surely I'm not the only person who whinges about this. Why are pocket sizes a problem nowadays when never so decades ago?
ikr678 · · focus · HN ↗
hilbert42 · · focus · HN ↗
My solution is to have my local drycleaning shop that offers an alteration service to deepen the pockets. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get right-sized pockets manufacturers should have provided.
lucumo · · focus · HN ↗
It's the main reason I mostly wear jeans. The five pocket configuration's vertical orientation holds onto its contents better than the slanted pockets of slacks and chinos.
I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets. Jeans get so boring.
hilbert42 · · focus · HN ↗
I'm guessing, but I'd imagine as jeans first became popular in the days of horse riding side pockets really weren't a practical option, the rider's motion would contribute to things sliding out of them.
My complaint is that modern clothes designers have forgotten or stopped implementing good pocket design that was fully solved several centuries ago.
"I would really like some slacks with vertical deep pockets."
So would I, and deep pockets do exist but unfortunately not in mass produced pants that are commonly available (one's regular clothing). I have some army BD fatigues/dungarees with really good side pockets. They're not only deep but they're cut in a sort of a shallow 'P' shape. The P-cut at the bottom forces keys etc. to slide down one's side at 90° to the pocket exit when one is sitting. It's thus almost impossible to accidentally lose something out of them.
The questions are why don't manufacturers just copy this excellent design and why don't more people complain. If people stopped buying pants with shallow pockets the problem would be solved overnight.