Can you fit into clothes you bought 10 years ago?

[CMcG]

I can -- and do -- still wear clothes from around 15 years ago. Before that, I was still growing in height! Lately my feet have increased half a size, to a size...

[Ryan Ross]

10 years ago I was 430lbs, so yes, I, and most of my family members can all fit in them at the same time.

Ten years ago, I was probably around 270, so yeah- me and a friend could probably still fit into stuff from back then.

The one kilt that dates to that period has been taken in twice though, so it still fits. I guess that speaks to both the skill of Prof. Newsome, and the fortitude of the kilt in question.

[biblemonkey]

On average, yes.

[Jimmy of Perth]

No significant body change in 30+ years
I do usually buy quality however very few of my clothes are over 10 years old. Even quality wears out when worn often enough - which is what I tend to do.
The older clothes exceptions are:
One black leather 'bomber' style jacket is 30+ years old. Worn heaps but not in past 15 years. Probably will again one day
1 woolen suit is about 15 years. I hate wearing suits. Last worn at my last job interview about 5 years ago. Will be fine if the moths havent got to it.
Numerous ties. I hate wearing ties and have no intention of ever wearing one again. So I will give them away. (Golly, this thread was the prompt I need. Thanks!)
1 pair of leather lace up light brown brouges. Age unknown. Worn about four times (inherited, unworn, 20 odd years ago from dead relative). These may get more airings in future - if I get a kilt which suits

[RAF]

Yes, on the whole I could probably wear today items from 20-30 years ago.
And I do have and wear a few pieces of clothing that old - notably, a Harris Tweed sport coat from HS (1983) and 3 or 4 Norwegian sweaters.
No trousers survived the years however.
(I joined the kilted forces just 5 or so years ago, so ask me again in 5-10 years.)
Most things wore out over the years, or styles changed too much for me to consider keeping. Imagine if you will, a c.1979, lt. grey, pinwale corduroy, 3-piece suit with bell bottom trousers and tan "earth" shoes. My mother still has the picture - it haunts me.

[kc8ufv]

10 years ago, sure, 12 years ago, not so much. But go to 6 or 7 years ago, and the clothes I wore then are falling off of me. Elimination of a medication when I got out of HS caused my weight to explode. I'm still working on getting it under control, though I almost have it where I want it.

[davidlpope]

Yes. I've found that a helpful nudge towards weight loss when I'm carrying around excess fat is my reluctance to buy a new wardrobe.

Since I'm a Venn Diagram fan...



I wonder if there is significant overlap between those who think:

1. High quality clothing represents a good value.
2. One should maintain one's "normal adult weight" (~at age 25, age 30?) throughout one's life.

[Alan H]

By this mornings quick and dirty tally, this is what I come up with...

Category A ...CAN wear clothes bought 10, 15+ years ago... 27

Category B ... Can NOT wear clothes bought 10, 15+ years ago... 12

Category C ... somewhere in between, for various reasons such as "the jackets fit but the pants don't" and others ..... 10

-----------------------------------


MY INTERPRETATION .... again, your mileage may vary.

First, I am ONLY addressing the issue that is often presented on XMts, which goes like this... "It is always best to buy top quality clothes, because they will last your lifetime. Buying less expensive stuff is a waste of money and false economy, because it will wear out."

Personally, I have always found that argument to be silly, because I change sizes constantly through weight loss, weight gain, working out...NOT working out and so on. So I've rejected it. Mind you all, I'm ONLY talking about that one argument. There may be other reasons to buy first quality clothes...for example, you enjoy them!. Gee, what a concept!

HOWEVER.... from this poll, I am forced to reconsider, and now say that for at least half of the potential kilt-wearing population, and maybe quite a bit more than that, IN FACT that argument makes pretty good sense. If your body type doesn't change for a decade or more, then it makes pretty good sense to drop some extra dough on "good kit" because you're not going to "grow out of it"..... or "shrink out of it".

Of course you still may dump red wine on it, but that's another discussion!

See? I CAN learn something new, and CAN come around to a different point of view.

On the other hand, there is still a significant part of the population for whom the argument does NOT make sense, because they will not be able to wear that expensive jacket/kilt/waistcoat in a couple of years. Our sample size is now up to 49 people. Of that, 12 absolutely change clothing sizes over the span of several years. I think about 4 of the respondants in Catagory C were young enough that they don't have a decade of "adult clothes wearing" behind them, so I kind of have to drop them out of the tally. That leaves 6 more that for various reasons may or may not be able to wear clothes for a decade or more. Add those together and we have 20 of the 49 who likely won't be able to wear clothing for over a decade. For them....and 20/49 = 40% of the population ... the logic of "It is always best to buy top quality clothes, because they will last your lifetime. Buying less expensive stuff is a waste of money and false economy, because it will wear out." ... doesn't really make sense.

Those people may still just plain enjoy wearing first quality kit, and not mind the expense at all...but again, that's another discussion.

So....looks like I was WRONG. The argument DOES make sense for a lot more people than I thought it did. I stand corrected.

On the other hand, guys who believe in that axiom should realize that while it may work for them, for possibly as much as 40% of the population, it just ain't gonna fly.

[Chas]

Put me down as a C. My weight tends to pendulum. Nothing becomes unwearable, just uncomfortable. When that happens, I take a bit more exercise and reduce my intake. But both, only a little bit. Gradually, uncomfortable becomes comfortable again.

Regards

Chas

[MacLowlife]

I am still wearing shirts I bought 25-30 years ago. Some of them fit better than others. I think one had better count on changing sizes at least until age 30, particularly if one goes to college and professional school, then enters a long career of sitting down, or expects to.

Much of fit depends on which garment you are checking. Dress shirts have room for expansion at many points, other than the neck and arms. I suspect there are those who need more circumference at the biceps, but not most of us. Trousers have a way of slipping below the expanding girth. Waistcoats and jackets are the ones that will tell on you- and kilts worn at a consistent traditional height.

I will be 54 soon. Can most XMarkers of a similar age cite a period of gradual growth, followed by a period of serious reduction, or am I being optimistic?

ALLAN, I have just read your summary. One more factor to consider is that good clothes are more readily altered than cheap ones. The average person's weight gain seems to be in the neighborhood of 5-20 pounds, which can frequently be accommodated by a good tailor. I vote for the best quality you can afford, a serious period of reflection before making an investment that costs more than you earn in a week, and some kind of sensible limit on how many garments you buy in a year, particularly a year in which your size may vary.*

Think about this: If clothing really is "an investment" it ought to be treated like any other investment. Do not go too heavily in any one direction and do not risk your money without research. AND take care and protect it against moths.


* I realize this flies in the face of many members' kilt acquisition strategies, but it might save a few entries in the want ads later on.