Abercrombie/Hollister/Gilly Hicks

I need to rant Ala, and rant hard.

I'm sure you've seen people wearing clothing from these three companies (all of which share the same parent brand). They often come in obnoxious day-glow colors with cheap, iron-on logos of seagulls and peanuts-esque surfer boys with freckly faces, but sometimes I find something cute and cave in. Hollister and Gilly Hicks aren't horribly expensive, and I don't mind buying the occasional winter jacket from Abercrombie & Fitch.

But holy poop, the bane of my existence is how they size their clothing. It's gotten even worse recently, since Hollister added size 00, so what's become my size at their company (an unfortunately tight 0) has gotten even smaller. I did some measuring. My old Hollister "size 0" pants were 30 inches around, still two inches shy of the standard for 00 sized pants. Since they implemented the 00 size? My size zero pants have shrunk to twenty-six loveing inches around!. That's a children's size ten!

When I shop at nicer places such as Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Armani Exchange, I am an unwavering size 00. I fit that size according to the standard at the measurements 30-22-32. Why the hell does it seem like this company is going out of their way to make me feel like a whale?

My new puppy ended up getting into a load of laundry a few weeks ago and destroyed the majority of my bras, so I ordered a few new ones from Gilly Hicks recently, mainly because they're cheap as hell and cute. The smallest band size they carry is a 32, when I'm normally a 30 or 28. I ordered all size 32's, and when I tried them on I noticed they were really tight, even causing bulges on my back. I looked at the bands and noticed they were really, really small. Even compared to a Victoria's Secret 30. I measured them. TWENTY ONE loveING INCHES AROUND.

I hate women's clothing.
I hate it sooooo much.

Steaks

#102925 • 2012-05-18 21:20:59

#102925

"fashion isn't an art form, like some people try to claim" I don't mean to argue, but it kind of is. To create clothes, you need to be artistic, you need to know what patterns look good, what layering looks good, what shape of clothing, length of clothing, colours, designs, etc etc. To wear clothes (and look good) people colour-coordinate, they choose patterns that compliment each other, they choose colours and designs that compliment their weight, etc.. it really is an art form.

Bobbie

#102880 • 2012-05-18 01:10:05

#102880

if it were socially acceptable, I'd gladly wear just whatever fit the functions of clothes 1. to cover up certain bits. 2. to keep warm when it gets cold. :/ XD I care as much about fashion as most people care about the shape of a passing cloud. sadly, more often than not, fashion isn't an art form, like some people try to claim, but rather just social camouflage. Art of any age can be proudly appreciated, and presented, but if you were to walk around wearing garb from a century or two ago, people will give you some very strange looks at best, or attempt to have you institutionalized, at worst. Sorry for the slightly off topic rant.

Steaks

#102813 • 2012-05-17 12:23:58

#102813

its sad, it's the bulls.hit about weight and teenagers. they probably know that younger and younger girls (and guys) are getting money from their parents to buy those clothes.. and are probably suiting it to their sizes OR are giving into the skinnier = better ideals

Abercrombie/Hollister/Gilly Hicks

Replies

Login

Login
Username:
Password: