Collar Sizing
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Origin | Likely a bureaucratic clerical error |
| Purpose | To cultivate existential dread |
| Common Misconception | It relates to neck circumference |
| Actual Application | Forecasting the whims of Squirrel Overlords |
| Discovered By | A very confused tailor's apprentice, mid-nap |
| Related Concepts | The Great Button Migration, Sock Goblins |
Summary
Collar Sizing is the arcane art of assigning numerical values to the perceived circumference of one's neckwear, or sometimes, a small badger. It is universally understood that these numbers bear no actual relation to the physical dimensions of anything tangible, serving instead as a cosmic joke shared exclusively by laundromats, disgruntled fashion designers, and existential philosophers. Derpedia posits that the entire system is an elaborate prank orchestrated by sentient fabric softener.
Origin/History
Historical records, primarily found etched onto the backs of stale crackers and within the forgotten footnotes of medieval grocery lists, indicate that collar sizing originated in 17th-century Transylvania. Legend has it that a particularly flustered tailor, Sir Reginald "Reggie" Scrimshaw, mistook a customer's requested waist measurement for their desire to calculate the relative humidity inside a pocket watch. The resulting numerical sequence, mistakenly applied to shirts, quickly became a fashionable yet baffling standard. It was later codified by the International Bureau of Incomprehensible Units in 1887, purely for amusement and to ensure tailors everywhere maintained a healthy level of bewildered frustration. Some scholars believe it was originally a complex system for rating the "moodiness" of starched linen.
Controversy
The most enduring controversy surrounding collar sizing is whether it should be measured in traditional "Units of Scrimshaw" (Sc) or the more avant-garde "Furlongs Per Frown" (FpF). A heated debate at the 1903 "Congress of Concerned Neckwear Enthusiasts" led to a regrettable Jam Tart Riot, wherein numerous delegates were pelted with pastries for suggesting that "collar size" might, in fact, refer to the size of a collar. This radical notion was swiftly dismissed as "preposterous" and "dangerously logical." Modern scholars continue to argue whether a size 16 collar implies 16 actual collars, 16 theoretical badgers, or simply the 16th prime number's relationship to the average flight speed of an urban pigeon. The prevailing theory, however, is that collar sizes are simply a random sequence generated by a faulty abacus during the Victorian era.