industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing ord

It seems to have started harmlessly enough, this business of retailers misleading their customers. But after several years first of stretching the truth, then nibbling hungrily away at it, it appears many retailers wouldn’t know the truth if they stepped in it.

It began a decade or so ago, I’m told, apparently because of the “plumping” of America. Ladies clothing stores began being questioned by a growing number of women – no pun intended – about why their dresses and slacks didn’t seem to fit as comfortably as they once did. To be fair, we men were asking similar questions.

“Fit” had apparently become much tighter, almost uncomfortably tight. The answer to poor fit with women’s clothing was for manufactures to put a size 6 label on a size 10 garment. Those numbers may be off a bit, but the practice worked. And the ladies were happy because they could again fit into a “size 6.” For men, one answer was to create a line of roomier “comfort fit” jeans.

I can’t swear those stories are true, but I’ve heard them repeated too many times from too many sources within the industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing orde

an a decade or so ago, I’m told, apparently because of the “plumping” of America. Ladies clothing stores began being questioned by a growing number of women – no pun intended – about why their dresses and slacks didn’t seem to fit as comfortably as they once did. To be fair, we men were asking similar questions.

“Fit” had apparently become much tighter, almost uncomfortably tight. The answer to poor fit with women’s clothing was for manufactures to put a size 6 label on a size 10 garment. Those numbers may be off a bit, but the practice worked. And the ladies were happy because they could again fit into a “size 6.” For men, one answer was to create a line of roomier “comfort fit” jeans.

I can’t swear those stories are true, but I’ve heard them repeated too many times from too many sources within the industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing ord

, we men were asking similar questions.

“Fit” had apparently become much tighter, almost uncomfortably tight. The answer to poor fit with women’s clothing was for manufactures to put a size 6 label on a size 10 garment. Those numbers may be off a bit, but the practice worked. And the ladies were happy because they could again fit into a “size 6.” For men, one answer was to create a line of roomier “comfort fit” jeans.

I can’t swear those stories are true, but I’ve heard them repeated too many times from too many sources within the industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing ord

worked. And the ladies were happy because they could again fit into a “size 6.” For men, one answer was to create a line of roomier “comfort fit” jeans.

I can’t swear those stories are true, but I’ve heard them repeated too many times from too many sources within the industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing ord

industry for them not to have some basis in truth. Anyway, satisfied with those toe-in-the-water type of experiences, some retailers began stretching the truth even further, and in different ways.

Low-end retailers – there’s no need to name them – began by placing orders with manufacturers for merchandise that was to be delivered pre-labeled with artificially high prices.

The practice at first involved only certain items such as hard goods and small electronics. Those retailers would then advertise these items at “discount savings” off their phony high label prices. Better yet, when those “sales” were over, those items often sold at those inflated label prices, creating even more profit for the retailers.

Deceptive? Perhaps, but at that point only on a relatively small scale. At least for several years. But the trend has since blossomed, and with it have grown the types of items that are pre-priced artificially high.

Blossomed, too, have the number of retailers taking part in the deception. It’s no longer just low-end retailers who do it. The practice now includes some of the largest retail chains in the country.

Try this on for size. Who in their right mind would pay $49.95 for a mid-level retail chain’s private label, man’s all-cotton sweater – made in some far off country whose name you can’t spell and can only bare