var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
May 11, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

More fabric=more money. Seems like it was fair.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
May 11, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: Cost is not remotely related to amount of fabric used in bras.

It actually annoys me when T-shirt makers do this, because I know that something like $15 of that $20 T-shirt is going for the licensing rights to the image, and around $1.20 or something goes to actual purchase of materials and labor and shipping. The rest is profit to the Mfr. So when they charge $23 for the XXL size, that's just assholery. It MAYBE costs them $1.23 instead of $1.20 in material. MAYBE.

(And no, I don't wear XL size and neither does my husband; this kind of pricing shenanigan just annoys me.)

I don't mind it so much with full-length, full-skirted formal dresses where adding either height or width adds a LOT of fabric and that fabric is expensive. I'm okay with that, although their size/height cutoffs for doing this frequently defy rationality.

@electrogeek77: \"Yet tall-sized versions cost the same as smaller-sized versions, despite also using extra material.\"

THIS. If it's more material, it's more material. And yes, I sew, so I know the comparison between \"more material for girth\" and \"more material for height\" and I know they're just making shit up.

Also, they never, ever, ever, EVER charge me less for being SHORT and wanting LESS material. It's lies to justify higher prices where they think they can get away with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 12, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29): It actually annoys me when T-shirt makers do this, because I know that something like $15 of that $20 T-shirt is going for the licensing rights to the image, and around $1.20 or something goes to actual purchase of materials and labor and shipping.

That's not really relevant here because the majority of bras do not involve licensing.

Then they shouldn't say it's the fabric cost when it's a set-up issue or a small-run issue.

Nobody involved with the company said it was fabric cost alone that determined the price. They said \"bigger bras needed more work to develop a greater level of support and therefore the cost was justified.\" We can't just the validity of that statement since none of us are privy to their R&D costs. But as an engineer, I can see how the level of work that goes structural design and analysis for a >DD cup might be more than \"structural design and analysis\" for an A cup.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EYESONLY
May 13, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: @nakedscience: I gotta say I'm with Michael Belisle here. The issue isn't the range of _designs_ offered for larger bras-it's the actual engineering that goes into them. (The design of a bra really is more complicated than that of a T-shirt. See this article for instance.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 12, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: \"But as an engineer, I can see how the level of work that goes structural design and analysis for a >DD cup might be more than \"structural design and analysis\" for an A cup. \"


Not really. As a gal with big breats, are options are limited to plain, and more plain.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: I may not be an engineer, but I do have breasts and wear bras, and from experience, bras for smaller cups have often been MORE intricate than bras for larger cups. Larger breasts can wear limited styles - usually just full-coverage or minimizing, and always with an underwire. Whereas, smaller breasts have a plethora of bras with various structural designs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
May 12, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: You are made of win. In short, bigger boobs need structural engineering. They are supporting more weight across a larger dimension.

It's like the difference in cost of a ziplock bag, and a grocery bag. Lets see you put a gallon of milk in the ziplock and not watch it break.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 12, 2009 1:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29):

I'm tall, and I HATE that if I want to buy pants that don't make me look like I'm waiting for a flood that I have to pay more.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 11, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29): I wouldn't be surprised if they can get away with those justifications because of the fact that us larger women don't have much of a choice when it comes to clothing. It's either buy cheap, frumpy stuff(despite my size, I actually look worse in billowy, shapeless clothes, and better in fitted, tailored items), or pay a premium for something remotely stylish that actually fits our body shapes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 11, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: It's not really enough extra material(and DEFINITELY not enough extra labor) to require such an increase in price.


I noticed this with other clothing at some stores, too. Plus-size versions cost more than smaller-sized versions of the same product because of \"more material\". Yet tall-sized versions cost the same as smaller-sized versions, despite also using extra material.


Plus, when your size is shamed by society on a daily basis, the \"size tax\" seems like rubbing salt in the wound. But that's just me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
May 11, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: I've definitely seen it the other way too. Back in the day, I ordered some t-shirts to be printed for an organization. I wanted to get smalls because there were some teeny people who never wore club shirts because they were tents. Turns out, that many screen printers (or perhaps just the one we contracted with) charge as much for smalls as they do for XXL's, because they have to change how the plates line up. So the small and XXL people were charged several dollars more than the average-sized people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FranktasticVoyage
May 12, 2009 12:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: \"that many screen printers (or perhaps just the one we contracted with) charge as much for smalls as they do for XXL's, because they have to change how the plates line up. So the small and XXL people were charged several dollars more than the average-sized people.

Doesn't this make TOTAL sense?
It's not the fabric cost that is the issue, it's the set up cost of producing a few items in a particular size and the labor and time that that costs (as opposed to running off 100s of the same exact item)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
May 12, 2009 1:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FranktasticVoyage: If that's the case -- and that's a fair extra-cost reason, depending on how it's applied -- then they shouldn't say it's the fabric cost when it's a set-up issue or a small-run issue. (And somehow I don't think ANY size for M&S is a \"small run.\")

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cinq
May 12, 2009 12:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FranktasticVoyage: Yes, this has nothing to do with the amount of fabric at all. I work at a printing company and it's the additional setup you're paying for, not the size of the shirts ordered. If you ordered all one size, of course it would be cheaper - only one run is needed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 11, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: Wow, smalls too? Total crap(on their part, not yours!).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bennilynn
May 11, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: Well, if you look at modern fashion, it seems less fabric = more money. I'm not sure how much of a correlation there is between amount of fabric used and the inherent and/or perceived value.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
merely_a_muse
May 11, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: Then wouldn't every bra's price go up with bust & band size? They were charging more because they figured people would pay it, not because it cost more.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 11, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like communism.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
B
May 12, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Michael Belisle: Oh come on. It's not communism, it's not socialism, it's a company cutting the price of one of their products because they weren't selling at the higher price. The price of any goods aren't determined by the manufacturing costs, it's determined by how much the market will pay for them. And that is a free market economic decision. Let's not belittle communism by throwing it around all the time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 12, 2009 2:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@B: The price of any goods aren't determined by the manufacturing costs, it's determined by how much the market will pay for them.

Oh yeah. Clearly the market disagreed with the prescribed pricing here. +1 for successfully identifying the logic flaw in my argument.

However, I do intend continue to belittle communism by throwing it around. You see, when you disagree with something in America, it's always fair to call it communism. NPR? USPS? Those sound like code words for... communism.*

* Note: The statements in this comment are not meant in any way, shape, or form to suggest that I actually disagree with NPR, USPS, flat-rate garment pricing, or communism.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
May 11, 2009 11:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: If it's the kind of communism that results in me being able to check out some bodacious boobs, feel free to put in my hands that hammer and sickle. Oh, and, put in them some boobs, too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 12:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: So breasts are public property? And here I am, thinking that they're made for feeding babies! Boy, was I wrong!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
May 12, 2009 1:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: Sounds like communism, as in using pricing as a way to compensate for biologically-determined (or sometimes personal choice) inequality by distributing the cost of DD-or-greater-size manufacturing equally over the entire bra-purchasing public as a whole.

Maybe socialism is a better analogy, but debating which economic model is a more appropriate analogy is taking my snarky comment too far.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
thatblackgirl
May 11, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My girls and I thank Marks & Spencer.

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
May 11, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know what pisses me off re: undergarments? I worked at VS for several summers in college. In the \"Body by Victoria\" line, they sold an unlined full-coverage as well as a lined (think 1/8th-ish of an inch) demi-cut bra. In the D and DD sizes (before they discontinued DD's altogether) the demi bras didn't come lined, just as floppy as the unlined ones, but they charged the more expensive lined price. They eventually corrected this bit of craziness (\"women with DD's don't want any more padding\") but it never made sense to me.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Rain
May 11, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please don't discriminate against my lower back problems.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
tcolberg
May 12, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raindrip: Thank goodness this dilemma was resolved -- I feel as if a great weight has been lifted off our chests and properly supported.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
May 12, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raindrip: Turning Big boobs into a ADA case?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
rockasocky
May 11, 2009 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe the Constitution gives our boobs the right to be free from tyranny.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
FranktasticVoyage
May 11, 2009 11:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Come on, people.
Sizes beyond the most common ranges are more expensive to make. Companies can either eat the cost (which most do) or they can make the same amount per bra (which is probably more intuitive and common sense based)

It's not just for the material costs (which probably are negligible), but for the fact that you're producing much less of them.

As with anything else, the more you produce, the less it costs. Assuming that the majority of women fit in a range below DD (and larger than some lower bound), they can make millions of bras in these sizes and reduce costs. There is a cost for variety, especially at the ends of the spectrum.

Paying a little more for your specific product is probably better than them not making them at all, isn't it?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
May 12, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FranktasticVoyage:


When I read about this I was thinking essentially the same thing - and regardless of any similarities to CPU manufacturing (the larger the die size, the fewer you can get from a single silcon wafer), I just simply don't see how it doesn't make sense to people that a product of a larger size requires more material to make, and therefore cost the manufacturer more to product. Hence, the MSRP is higher.


Granted, you don't necessarily see it a whole lot in apparel - for example, a pair of 36x30 jeans is probably the same price as 30x30 jeans. But, you do see more frequiently that a XXL jacket might be more expensive than the XL, which was sort of where the manufacturer \"drew the line.\"


No one is discriminating against large bewbs. Except maybe gravity, but that's a law. If a manufacturer wants to try to keep it's margin the same on it's products from small to large, I say it just plain makes sense. And if you're complaining about it - you're not making sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
May 12, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FranktasticVoyage: Yeah, few enough women wear A cups that they can be impossible to find ... and they didn't charge more for those. So that's obviously not the reason.

@b.k.: Heh. As an A/B girl most of my life, I was always DYING to buy some CUTE bras like the C cups got to wear! (Pregnant boobs FTW!) I have noticed the Ds are back to pretty boring, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 12:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

But if we go by your logic, then A cups, which not as many women wear as B's and C's(the average bra size is 36C), should be more expensive, too. BUT THEY'RE NOT.


The issue is, when there's a price discrepency amongst clothing, it's always the buyers of larger sizes that get punished. There's enough shaming towards those people that it's much easier to get away with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blufyor
May 12, 2009 4:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: This is purely a guess on my part, but maybe they aren't priced the same as extra large sizes because most pubescent girls being an A cup at some point, whereas only a small section of the female population will need the extra large sizes? I'm currently a B, but wore regular A cup bras for awhile after I got past the initial training bra stage.

Plus, as several other commenters noted, the larger bra sizes will often have tweaks and unique parts that aren't shared by smaller sizes (and thus add to the manufacturing cost): more cup reinforcement, an extra row of fasteners, wider non-stretch straps and the corresponding hardware, etc. Catalogues and online stores often note this in the product description.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mina_da_mad_child
May 12, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blufyor: Um, I'm currently a DD and went flying past the A cup when I finally went bra shopping. I think I wore my mother's aold bras before going shopping. By that time I was well in the C division

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
May 12, 2009 11:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blufyor: Again, if As were that common, stores would freaking STOCK them and it wouldn't be like looking for Waldo to find an A cup with the right band size.

(Although your theory might explain the prevalence of 32As to the exclusion of all other A-cup sizes.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 4:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blufyor: The details of a bra for larger breasts are fairly minor, and overall they are very plain. Whereas bras from smaller breasts will often have crazy contraptions(padding, water bras) or fancier materials.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
b.k.
May 12, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: Well, not to mention that A & B cups get all the cute designs. It seems like once you get in to C & D territory it becomes all matronly serious stuff. No frilly lacey cutesy things to be seen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 1:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@b.k.:@Eyebrows McGee (popping ~May 29): There are some cute designs for C's and D's.


But DD's onward...hellooooooo, grandma bras!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Definer-not-defined
May 12, 2009 2:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@electrogeek77: Unless you go to VS or Fredericks... and then they sit in your face all day. :\\

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ratty
May 12, 2009 12:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FranktasticVoyage: There's a different between charging for an unusual and rare size that's not made often (e.g. a 34G, or a 52B) VS charging JUST because of a larger cup even if it's a common size.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
May 12, 2009 2:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I pay extra for having to buy XXL shirts. How is this fair? Or is it that big boobs aren't your fault?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
nakedscience
May 12, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: It's not fair. But not, my boobs are a size D/DD even if I'm skinny or fat. No, it's not my fault. That's just now I was born. And it sucks that a woman with a size B breast gets to pay less for her bra. And have more of a choice of bras, for that matter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ogremustcrush
May 12, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: I would gladly pay extra for XLT or even LT depending on the cut if I could find them in anything than limited styles. About half my shirts are 2X just because they are slightly longer than XL. Being tall isn't all that great...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
May 12, 2009 3:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: No, it's not my fault. I didn't buy em - they came like that. You can thank my mama's side of the family and puberty. Thanks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
electrogeek77
May 12, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: It's not fair. See my earlier comments.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 12, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why did the picture associated with this piece on the front page not make it to this page?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
May 12, 2009 3:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: This is a mini-news post, not a full post.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 12, 2009 12:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: I think they could have made an exception in this case.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
May 12, 2009 3:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is like comparing the price of a two lane, 50 yard bridge to a 4 lane mile long bridge. It's not just material costs. It's also engineering.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
May 12, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt:

Ummm, I wear a size 10.5-11 women's shoe, and I have never been charged more for my shoes than a friend who wears a size 5. Same thing with a garment in size small vs. one in size XL.

Why should bras be the exception? I call discrimination. Bra manufacturers should average out their materials costs over the entire population and charge us all the same price.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
May 14, 2009 5:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Really? Because I see a difference in price for a size 12/13 male boot than a size 9 boot. And a difference in price for a medium and large shirt than for a XL or XXL shirt. Even more, Ever see a price difference in a 17\" monitor and a 19\" monitor? A 200gb harddrive and a 300gb harddrive?

Is being charged more for a 64 ounce fountain soda than for a 52 ounce fountain soda discrimination?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jeff Lyall
May 12, 2009 8:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

i thought it was very fair - more material, and different \"engineering\". it's not usually the case here in the uk though - so they apologised \"WE MADE A BOOB\" was a great article.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 12, 2009 12:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

M&S came under fire from The Busts 4 Justice campaign group for applying the £2 surcharge.
Awesomesauce

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most larger sized items cost more in general or is that just in the US?

Was it the fact that they called it a surcharge that got people pissed?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Alkon
May 12, 2009 12:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wear, um, bigger bras, and there's much more engineering that goes into a larger size (in a good bra) than a small one. I wear the French brand Empreinte, the single best bra I've ever found for well-endowed women, and gladly pay around $80, on sale, in France for them. They do last years -- like, I have ones I bought 10 years ago that are still holding up -- unlike Victoria's Secret bras. My joke about Victoria's Secret for big-boobed women -- is that the secret is, they don't really hold up your breasts.

Back to my bras; typically, I'll find an Empreinte style and in my size, about a 30 or 32 E (impossible to find in America, where big cup size usually comes with a back size made for a longshoreman), and it'll typically have three hooks where the regular size has two or one, and it'll have MUCH more reinforcement. In fact, sometimes it's almost a different style.

I had to laugh at the ridiculous Boobs 4 Justice or whatever they called themselves. Apparently, 10,000 women went wild protesting on Facebook. Protesting what, genocide in Darfur? No, paying $3 more per bra for a reinforced version of the smaller ones. Boo frigging hoo. I'll gladly pay more for my bras, and do.

Because they bullied M&S into this doesn't mean they won. This reminds me of this old bumper sticker: \"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 12, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I once went shopping for bras and spent $80 and got two bras, on sale (I'm a busty one). My then boyfriend was floored. He looked at me and said, \"If I spent $80 on underwear, I'd be set for life.\"

Forget fashion, I can't FIND a bra that fits me (and actually gives me any support) for under $40 - and $40 is if I am lucky.

If women ruled the world, bras and tampons would be significantly cheaper.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 12, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog:
/that being tongue in cheek, in case anyone's sarcasm meter is off this morning....

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
CorrieCJ
May 12, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are many manufacturers who make beautiful bras in bigger sizes (Fantasie of England and Prima Donna are two I can think of). Unfortunately they are mostly only available in specialty stores (or online) and can cost $50, $60, $100 or more! As an odd size though (32 band and very large cup), I know I need to pay more for the details and engineering to support me. I have never looked better (or slimmer!) than when I am wearing a well-engineered, well-fitting bra. Now that I've found a style + size that works for me, I can sometimes find deals on new ones on ebay or sites like biggerbras.com. I can't and won't shop in department stores or VS anymore, they just don't work for me.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amy Alkon
May 12, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Prima Donna makes lovely bras. Chantal is another brand, but neither has the amazing engineering of Empreinte. @CorrieCJ:

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_Red_Monkey
May 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They do it for larger shirts so why not? I have to pay $2-$3 more for shirts in my size so why all the hubub?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
J. Gov
May 12, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm seeing a prime opportunity for Lingerie Shrink Ray here: Why let the larger-breasted women pay less when they can simply claim that they need to subsidize the material and research cost of the larger bras and get some more profit out of the small and average breasted women?


I know, I know, I've been reading this site too long.

Reply
","","");