Search this site:


January 24, 2006 12:03 AM

Broken: Resealable sock bag

P2230302P2230303Bob Sifniades points out:

Fruit Of The Loom sells socks in a resealable bag. I can't think of a good reason for this. It won't keep water out for long, because the bag intentionally has holes punched in it to let out trapped air.

Maybe it's to keep the unused socks from falling out, but I think most people would just throw all the socks in a drawer after opening the bag.

Just for fun, I tried using the resealing bag feature. No matter how or where I pulled, the plastic around the zipper tore, and the zipper never opened.


but... its resealable!

calcetas de caballeros, isn't that literally cowboy stockings?

Posted by: gmangw at January 24, 2006 12:19 AM

I just bought socks in a resealable bag....and the bag works.

But my big problem with the resealable bag thing is that I bought some frozen fishsticks in a 'resealable' pouch. About 20 fishsticks come in a bag, so I will be baking part and leaving the rest in the freezer. Well the stupid zipper was sealed shut and tore free of the bag, and never unzipped.

I had to use a regular ziplock bag. So I wasted money on the printing on the bag and the extra cost of the zipper, for a zipper that did not zip. UGH!!

Posted by: Josephc4 at January 24, 2006 12:47 AM


I suppose that because the brand is "Fruit of the Loom" that they are pretending that the socks are fruit. Lots of fruit comes in a re-sealable bag for freshness.


Posted by: Kip HT at January 24, 2006 01:06 AM

it's obviously so people who are in need of socks can just walk up, open the bag, take a pair of socks, reseal it so nobody notices, and just walk away.

Posted by: john russell at January 24, 2006 02:51 AM

I like the resealable socks especially for my kids because sometimes it's hard to tell how big they are unless you take them out and then if they're too big or small, you just reseal the bag and try another size.

Posted by: jpantis at January 24, 2006 07:36 AM

NOT BROKEN: jpantis has it exactly right -- it's there so people can take them out and actually take a look at the size without shredding the bag, which happens far to frequently with socks and underwear. No one wants to buy socks or underwear when the bag has been ripped apart, but you want to be able to look at the actual size of what you are buying.

Posted by: sween at January 24, 2006 08:24 AM

At the risk of sounding rude, this is a "tits on a bull" packaging feature. As the submitter points out, socks are the type of items where the bag is opened and the socks are dumped into a drawer.

A close look at the packaging will show that the top of the bag is still sealed and requires it to be cut off before it can be opened. In other words, you cannot take out the underwear to have a look at the size unless you do shred the bag.

This isn't necessarily broken, but it isn't particularly useful and is likely more expensive packaging than needed.

Posted by: Carlos Gomez at January 24, 2006 09:00 AM

Oh so broken!

Anyone with male children knows that if you were to associate socks and a resealable bag, eventually you would have a pair of unclean socks placed within the bag.

Upon opening, what would happen next could only be described in eulogy, as it would certainly entail casualties!

Posted by: Vito at January 24, 2006 10:08 AM

I was wondering the same thing when my boyfriend bought those. I asked if he was going to keep them in that bag and zip them up in there after he washed them, instead of keeping them on the floor...

Posted by: Brooke Browne at January 24, 2006 10:17 AM

As the previous commentors have mentioned- this is a measure to allow people to view before buying. Why this is necessary is another question since it seems to be isolated to underwear, but if you walk down the aisle, there is almost always one package that is ripped open and shabby looking because someone wanted to feel the material or check the size, or see how high up they might go etc. etc...

Most people are too lazy to put them back in the package when they are done with this- but at least it give the store the capability to "repackage" it slightly. I'm sure it still won't sell though.

Posted by: Eddie at January 24, 2006 12:46 PM

It's a 2 for 1 deal. See, you get socks in a nice bag, but when you open the bag, remove the socks (dump them in the drawer or the floor) then you still have a nice resealable bag for other stuff. Like frozen fishsticks.

Posted by: steve at January 24, 2006 03:32 PM

people - they are socks! they arent in half sizes or anything - they typically range over quite a few foot sizes. if you cant figure out if your foot fits within a size 8-12 range, then perhaps you need to have assistance when purchasing such complicated products as socks!

Posted by: youfreakinidiots at January 24, 2006 04:46 PM

I'm surprised the stores, especially Wal-Mart, allow these resalable bags. Seems like a shoplifters dream. With Wal-Mart’s self check lines, you could easily buy socks and have them stuffed with something else.

Posted by: Zekester91 at January 24, 2006 05:07 PM

Some posters here seem to be under the impression that these resealable bags can be opened in the store without any visible artifacts. That isn't the case. You need to cut off the top of the plastic bag in order to get access to the contents.

Posted by: Carlos Gomez at January 24, 2006 05:32 PM

The whole discussion about whether the resealable zipper's function is broken is moot. The poster says the zipper doesn't even work, whatever its intentions are. Broken!

Posted by: Sockman at January 24, 2006 07:20 PM

Hanes does the same to its briefs and boxer briefs.

Posted by: DaveZ at January 24, 2006 08:22 PM

Maybe it's a bonus. The socks have to come in a bag. If it's regular bag, you'll just throw it away. If it's a resealable bag, maybe you put some grapes in it and take it to work the next day. Your boss notices how thrifty you are and gives you a raise. Your work mates see the bag and lunch and realize that they need new socks. Everybody wins.

Posted by: thommango at January 24, 2006 09:42 PM

There are certain people whose socks I would appreciate being resealed during the period between wearing and laundering. In fact, I'd recommend that the launderer employ tongs and a clothespin when preparing the wash.

Posted by: Lomedhi at January 24, 2006 10:08 PM

Why the hell do socks need to be in a bag anyway? Is this an American thing? I've never seen socks here (UK) sold any sort of packaging - just a carboard or plastic label and one of those little plastic taggy things holding it all together.

Posted by: Vicky at January 25, 2006 07:36 AM

Why the hell do socks need to be in a bag anyway? Is this an American thing? I've never seen socks here (UK) sold in any sort of bag, resealable or otherwise - just a carboard or plastic label and one of those little plastic taggy things holding it all together.

Posted by: Vicky at January 25, 2006 07:37 AM

This is the Seinfeld of threads... lots o messages about nothing.

Posted by: Pat at January 25, 2006 11:32 AM


Socks come in bags because like everything else - the larger quantity you buy the less expensive each pair of socks become.

Also : We have socks that come with those little plastic hangers too, but sometimes I need more than one pair of socks. Doesn't anyone in the UK need to buy more than one or two pair of socks at a time?

Posted by: Chaos at January 25, 2006 12:03 PM

No argueing that the zipper is useless and the increased package costs would be better spent on something practical like reinforced toes. But since they are going to wear out, with a six-pack you still have eleven good socks. Til the washer eats one. Then ten til you lose one under the bed. Or at the gym. That's why we don't buy one at a time. Plus the time we save not having to match them after doing laundry- just a matching pile in the drawer.

Posted by: Miki at January 25, 2006 01:58 PM

Let me repeat what others have posted: You have to tear off or cut off the top of the bag before you can open it for the first time.

On to my topic: the whole 'sold-in-a-resealable-bag' concept is broken because the 'reasealing' part usually doesn't work right. Either you end up tearing off the resealable part when you open the bag the first time, or the resealing part is difficult to reseal, or worse, it *seems* like it's resealed, but it really isn't.

Posted by: Alex B at January 25, 2006 02:13 PM

At the Walmart in Pittsburgh they where just folded over. I don't remember if they where fruit of the loom or just the walmart knock off, but the only seal on them was the resealable zipper. I even asked a Walmart employee about it and they said they are suppose to keep an eye out when checking out. When I asked about the self check out lines, he couldn't give me a solid answer.

Posted by: Zekester91 at January 25, 2006 02:54 PM

The reason they aren't concerned about the automated checkout lines is that the bag holders are scales.

If what you put in the bag doesn't weigh the same as the computer thinks it should the computer freezes the transaction until the weight matches your purchases so far.

Selling socks in a Ziploc bag serves no purpose I can think of.

On the topic of opening re-sealable bags: The plastic used is usually too thin to hold up to being used to open the bag.

The best method I have found is to hold the zipper between the index finger and the thumb and snap your fingers. Unless the bag is particularly slippery this usually works. However sometimes the zipper breaks at the ends.

Posted by: Sean P at January 25, 2006 05:05 PM

Chaos: Yes, but if we buy packages of five or ten pairs of socks then they're still sold in the same way - folded over with a little hanger/hook and a plastic taggy thing holding the whole lot together.

Here are a couple of examples I've just found in online UK stores:

Posted by: Vicky at January 26, 2006 06:25 AM

I use to travel and would see these at truckstops. I found them very handy when traveling as the resealable bag kept my CLEAN socks seperate from my dirty ones. I would wager others who travel alot and live in cramped quarters, out of a suitcase, etc find them useful. not that I did not throw away the bag but for the week it was handy.

and I know some truckers who did just buy new socks instead of washing!


Posted by: Raven at January 26, 2006 01:03 PM

Why pick on this poor bag? What's more BROKEN is all the hard plastic sealed hang tag packaging that 's on EVERYTHING ELSE. I understand the need for sealed paks to resist theft but c'mon. I recently purchased a snorkel, mask and fins in a plastic hang tag packaging that took a power tool to open. Are they really afraid that thieves will walk out of the shop with flippers and mask on and not be noticed?

Posted by: koz at January 26, 2006 02:15 PM

Tits on a bull! Hahaha!

I'm easily amused, I guess.

And josephC4, you will be amazed how the quality of your life will improve once you give up fish sticks. Pay the extra .15 for frozen cod fillets!

Posted by: beckett at January 26, 2006 09:42 PM

There is a skip baging option on the automated checkouts at Walmart. You don't have to put your item on the scale, just hit the button.

Posted by: zekester91 at January 27, 2006 02:36 PM

I agree with Vito. Having 7 male children in my home, even the 8 month old can't keep his socks on. Socks around here must be disposable cuz once they wear them they don't want to put them on again no matter how much bleach I use. I say it's a waste of packaging expense and I'm also in the group that is sick of packaging that have zippers that come completely apart from the bag rendering them useless. I use the "semi-disposable" dishes alot. Keep them out of the microwave and dishwasher and you can reseal those every time, no matter what brand.

Posted by: Poindexter T Quakenfuss at January 27, 2006 03:33 PM

So, the RESEALING works, you just can't possibly UNSEAL them. Clever -_-

Posted by: Øystein of Norway at January 27, 2006 07:52 PM

Why say "male children" instead of "boys" or "sons"?

Posted by: Simon Trew at January 28, 2006 10:20 AM

Why say "male children" instead of "boys" or "sons"?

Posted by: Simon Trew at January 28, 2006 10:22 AM

The label says they are WORK gear. A resealable bag would be very handy in a locker for a job where you have to WORK.

I always had a ton of extra socks in my locker when I did baggage handling at the airport. Dirty or wet ones would end up at the bottom of the locker. And sometimes the clean ones too. It woulda been smart of me to have brought them in a ziplock.

Posted by: Shannon at February 10, 2006 12:00 AM

Can any body see how dumb the translation is? I mean "calcetas" it's not the right word for SOCKS! Medias, calcetines, pero calcetas no! A "calceta" is like a biiiiiiig panti, a passion killer, a parachute, whatever you want to call those big things fat ladies use to wrap all their pussines.

Stupid bag!

Posted by: Spanish Guy at February 21, 2006 06:44 PM

The resealable bags are not for the consumer they are for the retail store. I used to work in a dept store. I can tell you that at least half the sock packages on any given rack were always torn open and sometimes the socks spilled out. It seems that the average consumer is sock impaired, since the shoe size is clearly listed on the package. With the zippy bags we could take the socks out re-fold them and put them back and reseal the bag. Yes, you can use the zipper to get the bag open. Does it always work? No. But if you are careful it works. This is a case of manufactures trying to make life easier for the poor store clerks who always have to clean up after messy shoppers. Socks are nothing though. Once a customer pulled a armful of panties off a rack and threw them at one of my co-workers while cursing at her!!

Posted by: at April 1, 2006 01:34 AM

NOT BROKEN: jpantis has it exactly right -- it's there so people can take them out and actually take a look at the size without shredding the bag, which happens far to frequently with socks and underwear. No one wants to buy socks or underwear when the bag has been ripped apart, but you want to be able to look at the actual size of what you are buying.

Posted by: sween at Jan 24, 2006 8:24:13 AM

This is not true where i work...

Even with the resealable bags people still rip open the bag. I guess they are stupid for not using the ziplock.

Posted by: Xeyla at April 3, 2006 11:52 AM

I think it might have to do with the fact that people tend to unwrap stuff to look at it (like undies and such.. especially in discount type stores LOL) and then mess up the packaging, with a ziplock instead of a sticklock for example the salespeople can sort of put things back as though it was never touched.

Posted by: ian at July 10, 2006 04:19 AM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: