"Mark" wrote...
I cannot get over the fact that the high-end wader manufacturers refer to a
6' man with a 48" inch chest and a 36" waist as "stout," while at the same
time consider a 6'1 man with a 46" inch chest and 42" waist to be of normal
build (who is in better shape?). IF ANY REPRESENTATIVE FROM A WADER
MANUFACTURER HAPPENS TO READ THIS NEWSGROUP, A MAN WITH 48" CHEST AND A 36"
WAIST IS STILL CONSIDERED TO BE OF ATHLETIC BUILD BY MOST CLOTHING
MANUFACTURERS (i.e., suits with more than six inches of drop between the
chest and waist size are considered to be athletic-cut). REFERRING TO THESE
PEOPLE AS "STOUT," WHICH IS SYNONYMOUS WITH "FAT," DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR
SALES.

Never really gave it much thought. I just read what sizes fit which build and
buy. I usually end up buying size FFT (f..kin' fat tall) and go fishing.

Now, with that off of my chest. Why is it that fly fishing apparel does not
following standard sizing rules? An extra-large in fly fishing clothing is
somewhere between the sizes large and an extra-large in street clothes, and
an extra-extra-large is like wearing a tent. The market is ripe for a
manufacturer who a) does not refer to athletically-built men as "stout," and
b) offers clothing cut for the larger athletically-built man. The last time
I checked a 6' man, with a 33" inseam was not considered to be "short" by
any definition.

It's bad enough there are people wandering around in the rivers making sure
their Orvis/Simms tags are showing. Now they'll want to make sure the "Athletic"
designation is proudly displayed. Since I resemble a Sumo wrestler, maybe I
could get one of them thar Athletic tags, eh?

Nice troll, BTW.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj