I checked the search feature but couldnt find anything that answered my question. I have a pair of 46 reg. coveralls that are a bit too snug in the body and arms and about an inch too short in the legs. I used a sizing chart and bought a pair of 48 long which ended up being way too big. Both body and length. Unfortunately there are no stores in my area that carry unlined coveralls so I cant go and try anything on. Before I waste any more money can someone tell me what size would best fit someone at 6’1" 210 lbs? Ive noticed some seller have number sizes, like Ive bought, while others are listed as Large, Xlg, etc.
It’s odd that the 48’s were too big and long. Usually, there isn’t that big of a difference. I guess, if you have two different sizes, and maybe two different brands, sometimes that happens. Anyways, my best advice would be to stay with the 46-48 range (probably 48 at your weight and height) and keep your eyes out for a different pair. Try them, and see what happens. The numbers always seem to be in the evens, so, there wouldn’t be a size 47. Good luck.
If you went with 48 “tall” you should have a decent fit if the 46/reg was just a little small on you. The key would be if the coveralls are the same brand.
Brands do vary in size between each other and even if they are the same brand sometimes older pairs are smaller than today’s, even if the size on the tag is a match. I ran into this with a pair of vintage Big Macs, they were the same size as my newer ones according to the tag but actually fit a full size smaller.
I would suggest getting a 48/tall in the same brand and roughly the same year. This hopefully will solve your problem once and for all.
If that is not an option then make sure you are getting a good chest measurement and use the chest measurement (like 48") along with “tall” and hopefully you will snag a pair that fit this time.
I have recently run into the same BS. (I wish they would size them more like mens clothing). I found some totally bad-ass 60’s era coveralls on the bay and they were listed as 38-S. The person selling them gave some measurements and I bought them thinking they would fit perfect. WRONG! About 2 inches too small everywhere, the sleeves, legs, inseam, everything.
I will be putting them in the classified this weekend to get my money back.
As Michaelantern stated ealier, go by your chest size. If you measure 46" around the chest, and under the armpits, then your chest size would be 46 in coveralls. That’s the general rule. As for height, anybody who is 5’6" or shorter should get S (short). Anybody 5’7"-5’10" should get R (regular). Anybody 5’11" and taller, should get T or XTL (tall/Xtra tall).
Stick with those rules, and you will be in the ballpark. Different brands, styles, and makes will vary. It took me the purchashing of MANY coveralls before I knew what fit me the best, and what coveralls I liked the best. FYI, Big Macs are DEFINITELY the best for quality, and comfort.
Yeah. Was talking with a friend of mine who has a Myers outfit, nothing high end, just basic, and told him what happened with my sizing delima. He actually has Red Kaps now and suggested that I get a large. Thats what he bought and were pretty close in size. Said that hes found that RK makes their coveralls a bit larger than most. Also while getting my pay check at work today I ran into our companies uniform reps while they were dong their weekly run. He said that a basic rule of thumb, since coveralls are basically made to go over clothes, is subtract 2 inches from your pant size in length due to the lower crotch cut. And take your suit jacket size. Said its perfect almost every time.
I know this may seem so simple, but with sizes on any clothes, it never really is. lol
That’s strange that they would not fit. What material are they? you could always throw the 48s in a washer and dryer to shrink them a tad. I’m 6’ 3" and 220lbs and 48T fit me perfect.