One of the great canards perpetrated against us as consumers is embodied in the expression, “one size fits all.”

There are other versions of the same idea, such as “no installation required” or “assembles easily without tools.” Manufacturers who employ such catchwords should be forced to visit the home of a frenzied father on the eve of a child’s birthday, as he tries to cope with the assembly of a metal doll house where Tab A and Slot A don’t have even a nodding acquaintance with each other.

Let’s discuss clothing. I bought a golf cap the other day. These used to be called baseball caps, but since not many people of my vintage are to be found on the baseball diamond, this headgear is now associated with the less strenuous sport of golf.

The cap has one of those little straps in the back with holes in it, which is supposed to fit onto another little strap that contains a peg. Fitting the peg into the appropriate hole will presumably permit someone with the cranial proportions of a Pee Wee Herman to wear the same cap as an Oliver Hardy.

I put the peg into the last hole which, it seemed to me, should permit General Norman Schwarzkopf to wear the cap without removing his helmet.

Now I have never considered myself to be a whiner, nor is my skull of heroic dimensions, but the only way I could get the cap onto my head was to leave an embarrassing gap between the peg and the last hole.

Since friends on the golf course cannot be counted on to approach me only from the front, I had to abandon that cap for a wide-brimmed number that makes me look like Dick Tracy on safari. The hat is correctly marked XXL.

I recently saw some hats in a golf store actually marked “one size fits all.” This is utter nonsense on its face. I looked for some cleverly concealed adjusting or stretching mechanism, but there was none.

Are these people crazy? Don’t they realize there’s a difference in size between a cantaloupe and a watermelon?

The lack of sizing in headgear is bad enough, but it reaches new levels when it comes to shirts and pants.

Let me dismiss the pants situation by simply saying that anyone who buys a pair of pants marked “large” deserves what he gets. Those silly enough to buy their pants in this careless way can be easily identified as they go about among us with their cuffs covering their shoes or their belts somewhere near their armpits.

Shirts present a challenging set of problems. You don’t often see the “one size fits all” situation here, but it does exist. I’ve seen T-shirts and sweatshirts displayed without even labels, let alone size markings.

I’ve also seen men’s dress shirts marked L or XL, completely ignoring the traditional “16 X 35” type of classification, which indicates neck size and sleeve length.

Imagine a poor soul, tall and skinny with short arms. He buys an extra large shirt because of his height, but finds that the sleeves extend beyond his fingernails and the collar wraps around his neck twice.

Happily, though, I’ve seen a trend in marketing sport shirts marked, for instance, “XLT” – extra large tall. This seems to be catching on. Maybe it will cause those misguided “one size fits all” manufacturers to reflect on the error of their ways.

One clothing item that does lend itself to non-sizing is socks. Stretch fabrics have made it possible to create foot coverings that really do fit just about everyone, so manufacturers of socks are pretty much exempt from the barbs I direct toward the makers of hats, shirts, and pants. But if they ever try to extend this “one size fits all” stuff to underwear, shoes, or bathing suits, I’ll be there to take them to task.

Excuse me, but I have to go now. There’s a menswear sale going on, and I want to get there before all the XLT’s are gone.