Solving the Sizing Debacle: Why We Went Down the Rabbit Hole (and Came Out Better)
Why don't garments fit right? How do so many big brands overlook this critical topic? Rather than rely on historical norms, we had to build out our own system of sizing for gear and apparel. Entering this new land would be a ton of work, but the outcome so incredibly worth it.
Don’t mistake our silence for inaction. We’ve been busy.
If you know anything about me (Derek Aspinwall), you know I’m a certified gear freak. I have very few fears in life—rattlesnakes aren’t my favorite, heights aren’t great—but my biggest phobia might be ill-fitting gear. Pants that are too short. A t-shirt that rides up. A jacket with three-quarter sleeves. Even a missing belt loop is enough to keep me up at night.
This level of obsession? I’ve come to embrace it. Because when you control the details, you can change an entire industry standard.
The Dirty Secret of Apparel Sizing: There Is No Standard
When we design our clothes, the first step is building a tech pack—the instruction manual that tells the factory exactly what the garment should look like, how it’s constructed, and—most importantly—how it should fit. This is the tedious, nerdy work that turns a generic blank into an actual Aspinwall piece.
But here’s where it gets wild: there is no universal sizing standard in apparel.
Every factory uses its own grading scale. One jumps sizes one way, another does something completely different. We’ve seen it firsthand. A master size large comes in perfect (because we nail that one first), but then the XL and 2XL samples arrive looking like MC Hammer pants, and the mediums and smalls might fit a youth. Chaos.
We traced this problem back to the same root: lack of care in the details of sizing. Big brands suffer from it too. Without naming names, I’ve tried on pieces where one style fits great and the next feels like a different brand entirely. That inconsistency is why the launch of the Beartooth Pant and Jacket was delayed two months. The large was spot-on. The rest? Nightmare.
Down the Rabbit Hole: Becoming the Mad Scientist
I had to become a nerdy scientist.
I built our own sizing system from the ground up. I started with a master size large — the fit I personally want (6 feet tall, 190–200 lbs). Once that was locked, I measured 8–10 key points on every garment and built an Excel spreadsheet with formulas to calculate percentage of growth or shrinkage for each measurement.
Important discovery: not every measurement grades the same.
• Chest might show 8–9% change.
• Neck opening only 3–5%.
• Body length just 1.5–2%.
A person’s neck doesn’t grow at the same rate as their belly. Anatomy doesn’t lie.
I then tested other brands — elite ones — measuring every size of their best sellers. The inconsistencies were shocking. One style would grade perfectly; the next would be all over the place. It explained so much about why people complain about fit across a brand.
Now, internally, we have our own standardized grading formulas. Every new product starts with the master large, then we demand consistent percentages across the size run.
The result? Much more predictable, consistent fit across styles.
Abraham Lincoln said: “If you give me 6 hours to chop down a tree, I’ll use 5 hours to sharpen the ax.”
Don’t mistake our silence for inaction. This has been our ax-sharpening. We’ve been in the lab, measuring, testing, reworking. The end result is better, more consistent, more predictable fit for every garment we make.
We’re not perfect yet, but we’re obsessed with getting it right. Because the last thing a person needs is gear that fails him in the field — especially when the details are what separate good from legendary.
Be Legendary!
— Derek Aspinwall