In Defense of the Slim-Cut Shirt

Someone had to defend it.

Before: Full-cut

 A pony-insignia dress shirt in very soft cotton purchased for $19 new from RL.  Out of the package, it immediately proved too large around the middle, and a bit long in the sleeve, though the tag claimed a shorter sleeve length.  Maybe that's why it had been reduced to $19.  Tucked in, it would have a blouse-like fit with cloth muffin-top love handles above the belt.  The photo above is what a full-cut looks like.  Baggy, flappy, floppy, and tent-like.

For men with mid-sections of a smaller diameter than their chests and shoulders, the fitted or slim-cut shirts are appropriate.  These "Yarmouth" cottons (whatever that means) are very comfortable, but the cut is equally unflattering to a non-round torso.  I took them to the cramped and awkward fitting room at the seamstress shop and had them taken in in an attempt to improve them.

After: Better fitting slim-cut

 Severely fitted (tight) shirts look amateurish, while a trim fitting shirt is complimentary to the male figure (as Mrs. tells me).  After it was taken in ($10), it fit better without being tight, and the seamstress gave the side seams a more elegant single stitch instead of the bulky doubled stitch that all shirts have.

Purists seem to hate the slim cut shirts for some reason, but since one size does not fit all, you may have to take matters into your own hands to fine-tune the cloth to your specific liking.  If your torso tends towards a more athletic shape you are usually out of luck when it comes to shirts out of the package, because they weren't built for you.  For $29 total, I got a shirt that actually fits right and I can wear it without a jacket or sweater.