GANT

What the product page says

On 30 July 2026 we read the white poplin dress shirt, item 3260080-110, €100 down from €200. The page is thorough: fit, collar shape, hem, care instructions, and in the structured data block a field reading “100% cotton”.

A country of manufacture appears nowhere. We searched the full source, 1.39 megabytes, for countryOfOrigin, countryOfAssembly, “Made in”, “Hergestellt in”, “Ursprungsland” and “Herstellungsland”. Not a single hit. The product data block carries brand, colour, material, fit and care — origin is not among the fields.

The cloth is named, the sewing is not

There is one production statement, and it sits plainly in the description:

This shirt uses a premium cotton poplin that’s been made at British mill, Thomas Mason.

So the weaving mill is named, with company and country. Where that cloth became a shirt is not stated.

This is the same mechanism we described at Suitsupply: the production step that flatters becomes a selling point; the one that does not simply never appears. Both brands do it with a mill — Italian in one case, British in the other — and both stay silent on assembly.

One click further: sixty-plus factories with addresses

The sustainability page on gant.de has an accordion labelled “Factory lists”. It contains exactly one entry: “Gant tier 1 factory list PDF (296KB)”.

That document is worth considerably more than the silence on the product page. It is headed “TIER 1 FACTORY LIST” with three columns: supplier, factory name, factory address. More than sixty rows, and the addresses are complete — street, industrial estate, town, province, and for several sites a telephone number.

The countries readable from those addresses run from Italy and Portugal through Turkey, Romania, Ukraine and Lithuania to Tunisia, Morocco, India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, China and the United States. Close to a dozen, spread right across the cost range of garment sourcing.

A screenshot of a spreadsheet

And here it gets interesting, because this PDF is not a document in the usual sense.

It contains a single raster image, 1121 by 984 pixels, and three text operations. The entire content — every company, every address, every phone number — is picture. You cannot search it. You cannot copy anything out of it. You cannot load the list into a spreadsheet, sort it by country, or set it against another house’s list.

Reading it also shows where it came from: in one row the leftover text of another visibly overlaps its neighbour, exactly as happens when you photograph a section of a spreadsheet. We extracted the image from the PDF and read it enlarged. There was no other way to work with the list.

We impute no intent. But the difference between “published” and “usable” is precisely the subject of this site, and here it lies in the open: the data exists, more completely than at most houses. The form strips it of its usefulness.

Where the disclosure ends

There is only Tier 1.

The accordion is called “Factory lists”, plural, but holds a single link. Weavers, spinners and dye houses — the very stage the one visible production statement comes from — appear on no list at all.

And the list cannot be tied to a shirt.

It names no products, no product groups, no brands within the house. Which of the sixty-plus factories sewed the poplin shirt we checked cannot be answered from the published material.

A date is missing.

The document itself carries none. The year 2026 appears only in the file name.

An American name, a Swedish company, a Swiss group

GANT describes its own origin as beginning in 1949 at Yale University — a campus store, shirts, a piece of American fashion history.

The company behind the brand today is the Swedish GANT AB; that is what the legal notice and the product page’s structured data both say. And gant.de carries a note that Maus Frères is required to file country-by-country tax reporting under EU Directive 2013/34/EU — the Swiss group whose fashion arm now trades as MF Brands Group.

Three countries in one brand, and none of them says anything about where the sewing happens. Anyone inferring American manufacturing from the Ivy League origin is as wide of the mark as anyone inferring Swedish manufacturing from “GANT AB”.