outdoor gear - clothes

What happened to outdoor activity specific clothing? I was in an outdoors store today killing time before an appointment for the boy. I found a pair of North Face pants that were awesome. Heavy-duty nylon zip-offs in dark grey, also in a far too light tan. I grab a pair in medium, my usual size, to try on and a large as backup as often the sizing can be quite erratic.

I try on the medium pair. They fit, but... They grab my butt and they cling to my thighs. My thighs are pretty muscular, but not Lou Ferrigno muscular. Oh, and my ass looked pretty good in them.

So, they are my size, but the only place I can go hiking in them is on a catwalk. I try on the large. They are bigger and longer. In the bush, I like my pants a touch short. Less likely to get the bottoms wet or mucky. I hum and haw. I put them back and we are almost late for the boy's appointment.

The boy's thing takes less time than I thought it would, so we go back to the store. I check the pants out again. I hum and haw. I decide to get them in large. I will try them at home and see how they feel with my field boots. As we are getting ready to head to the cashier, I see a shirt in a nice rich olive. I love earth tones and hate bright clothing. It is a heavy-duty nylon-poly-cotton blend, with corduroy at the inner cuff and collar. A well made shirt by Marmot. I try it on. It is a taper fit and a bit tight in the shoulders and upper arms (see above about Mr. Ferrigno). Did I mention it is an XL? I buy most of my shirts at Eddie Bauer Canada and most are XL and they provide me with the room I like to move around in in a shirt. So, that is my comfy size. 

Marmot, like North Face, is a respected producer of outdoor oriented clothing. So, why is this shirt tapered and why is it tight in the shoulders and upper arms? I would never be able to paddle a canoe, but I looked great in it. Why are the pants thigh gripping and ass hugging? I will tell you why. More people buy this clothing to look adventurous and outdoorsy than to be such. Honestly people, walking to Starbucks to get some aberration related to coffee is not being adventurous or outdoorsy. Not even if you add cinnamon to your drink.

I know these companies need to make sales to stay viable, but when you betray what you claim to represent, why not just change markets? Well, then it becomes less fashionable. It is ludicrous. They are fashionable because they are not fashionable. This leads them to become fashion conscious in the product line. Well, that sucks for people like me. Honestly, I look pretty good in most everything I wear. However, the vast majority of clothing I buy is durable, rugged, comfortable, and generally more at home in the forests and on the rivers than the concrete jungle. I do not buy my clothing so people will stop sipping their unpronounceable coffee and glance my way. (I talk loudly for that.) I buy my clothing for my comfort and my preferred activities. Why not just make a "street wear" line. Kühl is basically that. Their materials are durable and their styling is outdoorsy, but their cuts are generally urban as are some of their fabric choices.

Columbia has been a slave to fashion for quite some time, but they still offer quite a bit of true outdoors clothing. They even do camouflage. I have a pair of Columbia wet shoes that you can hike on moderate trails with, that have lasted me years. Why cannot everyone offer what they preach consistently. It is a trend that I see more and more. Good products disappear, to be replaced by good-looking products.

Well, I just tried the North Face pants on with my light hikers and my field boots. The cuff is barely off the ground at the heel. Too bad, they would have been a perfect addition to one of my go-bags or back-country trips. Back they go and the life-long search for real outdoor gear continues. blbbl