Plenty of you guys have sent in style tips about the D.C. based shirtmaker Hugh & Crye. They’re one of many next-level shirt companies that claim better quality and a better fit, with prices starting in the high double digits and running into the low $100s. That’s a lot for a shirt, but some seem to swear by them and their fit system. Instead of neck and sleeve sizing, they use a height/build chart, or a fit finder widget that asks two questions. But here’s the problem:
What if each of these methods gives you two different answers?
At 5’10”, 165 – 170lbs with not much junk weight on my frame, I’m in-between sizes for Hugh & Crye. My neck size is 15.5, and my jacket size is a 38-39. I usually swim in a 40. Here’s their two methods for getting your size:
Method #1: Their fit chart
According to the chart (scroll to the bottom over here), my measurements put me in the average/slim square. All that gym time for Slim instead of Athletic? Aw. Man. Anywho, it’s also worth noting that there is overlap between the types (slim: 145 – 185lbs, athletic 155 – 205), but the next step up would be a no-go. To move up from average/slim to average/athletic, I’d be looking at a 16-17″ neck shirt, with a 40-42 chest. That’s not going to work on me.
Method #2: Their Fit Finder Tool
Meanwhile, their fit finder tool (scroll halfway down here) tells me that I might just be an average athletic. It just depends on how boastful I want to be, since they ask for height and then for you to identify your body type.
Look, I asked Mrs. Dappered. She said I looked most like dude #3. So, there. Not trying to pound my chest here. And after that designation, the fit finder then told me I was “Average Athletic”.
Average Athletic? Or Average Slim?
I chose average slim. There’s no way I want a 40-42 chest according to the fit chart for athletic. Not happening.
Again, these shirts aren’t cheap. Retail prices start at $85 and head well into the $100s. Most of their shirts are made in India, with higher end fabrics. The shipping was fast, they’re packaged nicely, and they do appear to be really well made. Buttons are nice and thick, the button holes have noticeably nice stitching, and the collars feel solid. The cotton on this particular dobby weave shirt felt a little scratchy out of the box, but it’ll probably soften up in the wash.
Could be trimmer at the front, and the back seems to pull on my frame.
The fit is good, but not great. Again, I seem to be an in-between with Hugh & Crye, and that “should I go with slim or athletic?” question cropped up once I got the shirt on. It fit well in some places, but not so well in others. It’s trimmer than most off the rack dress shirts, but still has a little extra around the middle. Meanwhile, instead of a box or side pleats at the upper back, this shirt has darts on the lower back. Nothing on the upper. Which was something I felt before I saw, since my shoulders and back felt restricted. And on camera, it almost appears to bulge out just a bit around the mid section (no, I haven’t been hitting the hamburger shack).
The collar is tight, and no pleats, but darts at the lower back?
The Bottom Line
This was an odd one since I seemed to be in-between sizes, and the end result was a shirt that was too tight in some places (collar, upper back), yet too big in others (mid section + lower back). The good news is that Hugh & Crye seems to have a loyal following, they just released a new set of great looking blazers, and their customer service seems top notch. But for me, personally, Hugh & Crye… and I… just aren’t a good fit.
Have any of you tried Hugh & Crye? What was your experience? What’s your take on all of these shirt makers claiming better fits? Have you found a next-level shirting company that you love? Leave it all below.