Comparing Butterick 6030 neckline measurement

I didn't realize I had so many boys' shirts in my stash! Each shirt has a slightly different construction technique. They range from casual to dressy. Some have a convertible collar with a facing and others have a traditional 2-piece collar. This is a great resource for me to figure out more of what is wrong with the Butterick pattern.

The first thing I did was take some key measurements off of the size 24M shirts. The button bands averaged 1.125" and I adjusted my new pattern accordingly. The second measurement was the necklines. Both 24M and 2T shirts measured 12 inches, which I think is right on target. Compare these numbers:

Actual neck measurement = 10.125"
Butterick neck measurement = 15" (4.875" of ease!)
My pattern measurement (1st attempt) = 14" (3.875" of ease)
Both RTW shirts neck = 12" (2" of ease, right on!)

To draft the neckline of the pattern small enough, I need to have a basic 24M block made up. I am not going to keep guessing -- it just wastes too much time. This is enough motivation for me to work on my basic blocks again (My New Year's Resolution!). I pulled them out yesterday and made some important decisions. I can officially announce I have a basic bodice block that I like. The next step is to figure out my grade rules and grade my basic block up to a 24M.

Figuring grade rules and grading my blocks will take me some time, so the shirt project will be put off for a little while. In the mean time, I may get back to my promised grading blogs. Hopefully, you won't get too bored by it. Grading is as dry and boring as a topic can get.

Creating a grading standard pt. 3

2019 notes - The original images for this blog entry have disappeared and I haven't had time to recreate them. I do have more complete examples in my ebook, The Organized Fashion Designer.  
 
I finally made my example measurement/grading charts. It took a little dancing as I had to create them in a spreadsheet, export them as a PDF and then convert them over to a jpg. Before I get too far, it may be helpful to review my previous blogs on grading: Creating a grading standard and Creating a grading standard part 2. You should have your own measurement charts handy. BTW, the measurements in my charts are real. I found them from the Sears website. I do not necessarily endorse Sears measurements as the industry standard - they were just handy (To be fair, their measurements are pretty good). Your own measurement charts should be far more complete and detailed than these for pattern development and actual grading anyway. This is the first step I take in developing actual grade rules.

Right off, I hope you notice a few important things. First, I have clearly marked my sample sizes. In this example they are sizes 10 and 10+. Each chart is labeled clearly. You would think these things should be obvious, but you would be surprised at what I have seen. Hanging off of the left side are numbers. These numbers are points of measure and should correspond to a How to Measure diagram (a future blog) and are not relevant for the immediate discussion. Also notice that my size ranges differ. The regular sizes run 7-16 and the plus sizes run 8+ to 18+. This is a fairly typical difference between the two groups. Also notice the difference in the measurements. There should be some obvious differences between a Misses and a Plus sizes chart too.

Usually, I have my grading chart separate from my measurement chart. I combined them here so you could more easily see how I am developing my grading rules. In the column for my sample sizes, I have placed a zero. A sample size is also called a base size in grading. It is your starting point and each subsequent size will grow or shrink proportionally off your base size. Next I subtract the difference between the base size and the next largest size. In the regular size chart, you will notice there is a 1.5" difference in the chest measurement from a size 10 to a size 12. This difference is called a grade step. Next I subtract the difference between a size 14 and a size 12. I don't subtract Size 14 from a size 10 because that is not the next grade step. Continue to subtract the next larger size with the previous size.

To calculate the grade for your smaller sizes, subtract your sample size from the next smaller size. Be sure to add the negative sign, which indicates the grade is getting smaller. Repeat by subtracting each size with the next smaller size. Create a grade for each measurement on your chart.

You will notice that the measurements and grades all have beautiful numbers. The measurements increase or decrease proportionally causing the grades between sizes to be relatively the same. This is where the art of grading and measurements come into play. I can guarantee that actual body measurements are not this pretty or consistent. These numbers have been averaged and rounded and are based on a large body measurement sampling. The numbers have been intentionally made easy to work with. Your measurements should be easy to work with too and you can adjust them as necessary.

What about accuracy? Rounding does introduce inaccuracies in your measurement charts, but only a little. If you look at growth charts, you will find that certain measurements will fit 50%, 80%, 95% or 97% of girls. If you adjust your numbers up or down, you will want to make sure those numbers fall into the 95% percentile. Adult measurements and sizing are similarly developed. Because these measurements are based off of measurement studies, it means a real girl will pick the size that most closely matches her measurements. Your measurement numbers just need to fall within the highest percentage category. You can round to the nearest 0.5" or 0.125", or whatever. Adjust your measurements so that you get a relatively consistent and even grade across the sizes. In my regular sizes I have a consistent 1.5" chest grade and a 2" grade for my plus sizes. Sure, you could throw in what ever grade steps you choose as long as you have justification for it.

Finally, I hope you can see the difference between the regular and plus sizes. Not only are plus size measurements larger, they are proportionally larger (the grade step is larger). This is why you absolutely cannot grade a plus size pattern from a regular sized pattern piece. Keep both categories, pattern pieces, measurements and grades separate from each other. I promise it will save your sanity.

I know this is a lot of explanation for this first step. If anyone has a question about this, just leave them in comments and I will try to answer them. In my next article in this series, I will explain how to create grade rules based off your first grading chart.

Creating a grading standard pt. 2

In a previous blog, I wrote about the first steps in creating a grading standard, but failed to discuss the details. It would be helpful to also review my blog entry titled Too Many Sizes! In this blog, I will try to explain grading terms and the rules by which grading can occur. In the future, I will show how to develop your actual grade rules and how I grade a pattern (which is different from any other method I have seen).

There seems to be a lot of confusion about grading. Some people view grading as a magical process that can turn your beautiful pattern in one size into any other size you desire. Before anyone can grade your pattern, you should have already done some homework. You should have chosen a category, size range, and measurement chart. Your category and size standard should be fairly simple. You should only be working in one category and your size range should not have more than 6 sizes. You may want to work in men and womens plus and regular sizes all at once, but it is just not possible.

Now, I have to stop here for a moment and explain the concept of categories. I don't know if this is the appropriate term or not. I work in a children's category, but you may work in Misses, Juniors, Mens, or whatever. Within those broad categories, there are sub-categories or classifications based on your sizing system. A classification is based on a specific figure type such as Misses, Petites, Plus, or Talls. Each of these designations have a separate and distinct sizing system. You can't magically start with a Misses size and turn it into a Plus size by grading it. That is not how grading works, so don't even attempt it. There is no magic formula.

Grading is a simple, yet difficult concept for people to grasp. Grading is a process by which a base pattern is proportionally changed to create smaller or larger sizes. Grading is always based on a set of measurements specific to a size range and classification. Successful grading does not change the overall proportions of the intended design as the size changes. This is why a size range should be limited to about 6 sizes. Any more than that and the largest or smallest size will be proportionally wrong.

Successful grading is all about having a good starting point. A base pattern is a pattern created and perfected to fit a sample size. From that base pattern, you will create the other sizes in your size range. Now some of you want to offer Plus sizes in addition to your Misses Sizes. It should be as simple as grading your base Misses patterns up to the appropriate plus size, right? After all, it would save a great deal of work. You already have a perfect pattern and why would you want to go to the work of creating a whole new set of patterns.

The reality is, you will have to create a whole new set of patterns in a new base size contained in a new size range and classification. I know this sounds like a lot of work. The truth is that it is, at least initially. You will have to develop a set of base patterns for your Misses sizes and a separate set for your Plus sizes. You may sample a new style in a Misses size initially. Once a style is approved, your patternmaker will then create patterns in any other size ranges you want to offer. The process required to create the plus size patterns will be very similar, if not identical, to the process required to draft the Misses size patterns. There may be a little tweaking for fit during sampling, but the process will be faster than the original style development. Your patternmaker will already know what should be done.

For example, one company I work for will create a new style in a size 5 (in a children's size range of 4-6x). They then decide they want to offer that style in the entire range 2T-16 and plus sizes. I have already broken up the sizes into ranges of 2T-4T, 4-6x, 7-16, and 8+ to 20+. I then make patterns in the sample sizes of 3T, 5 (which is already done), 10, and 10+. The patterns for each sample size are then graded within their range. It may sound like a lot of work, especially if done entirely by hand. Since I work in a CAD environment, I can accomplish this task in less than a day. By hand, it may take 2-3 days.

Going back to our previous example......Once your set of Misses patterns and Plus size patterns are finished, you will then send those off to be graded. And this is where you have to create your grade rules. To create grade rules, you will need your measurement charts. So here is your homework assignment. Read your measurement chart. If you are offering more than one classification, compare the two. How does a Plus size differ from a Misses? Do your measurements make sense? Do the measurements decrease for the smaller sizes and increase for the bigger? In the next blog, I will show how to create your grade rules from your measurement charts. Once you see the grade rules, you will then understand why you can't grade a Misses size into a Plus size.

Too many sizes!

I am currently in the process of rewriting this article for another project. A lot of what I wrote in 2006 is a reflection of my thinking back then. I have since refined my thoughts which will be published later. So please consider this article a bit out-of-date.

One designer asked me two fundamental questions. At the time I wasn't sure how to answer them. The first is really a grading question and the second a sizing standard. Both are related. To keep things simple, I will start with the sizing standard question.

"Why are there so many sizes for children's clothing?"

Because children grow. Ok. That is the easy way out. The truth is that children grow and manufacturers try to have a range of sizes to choose from.

The other half of the question was, "Can we have fewer sizes?"

This is a much more complicated answer. Because children's clothing can cover such a wide range, it is possible to have a lot of sizes. One company I worked for produced clothing from Preemie to a size 16 - not including the plus sizes. When you break this down it looks like this:

Preemie, NB, 3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M, 24M, 2T, 3T, 4T, 4, 5, 6, 6x, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16.

This is a whopping 21 sizes! This complicates bookkeeping and sales information incredibly. If you create a style in one colorway, then each size will have its own SKU (stock keeping unit). If you add a colorway, then each size in this style can have two SKU's - one for each color. The company wanted to try and reduce the number of SKU's each season. This particular company produced a new line every 4 months which consisted of dozens of new styles. Thinking about it can give anyone a headache.

To reduce the number of sizes, you have to either combine some of the sizes into ranges and eliminate some duplication. The duplication is the easiest to see first. There is very little difference between a 24M and a 2T. A 24 month old child is essentially a 2 year old. The T simply means that ease is added to the pant area for a diaper.* Most 24 month old children and 2T children are still wearing diapers, so there should little to no difference in the patterns there.

*I'm not sure where the idea that the T in the size 2T implied the size included diaper ease. I repeated this idea because it was all I knew at the time. After a lot of research, I now believe this idea is a myth that has been perpetuated around the internet. I have found no size study information that supports this idea. Rather it has become a standard custom to refer to toddler sizing in this way. As a pattern maker I always included ease for a diaper in the toddler sizes because they wear diapers! The ease is not much more than what is needed for wearing pants anyway. Diapers do not add much bulk these days. Perhaps in years gone past in the age of cloth diapering, it was more of a concern.

The other likely duplication is the 4T and 4. Again these sizes overlap with only a slight difference in the pant area for a diaper. Most four year olds are potty-trained, although it is possible that some are not. In any event, if you manufacturer girl's dresses, this is another area where sizes could be combined. Some companies have started putting out a 5T, but it would be unusual to find a five year old wearing a diaper.

The next size duplication looks like the 6 and 6x. In this case, there is a fitting difference introduced. There should be little girth difference in the patterns, but there will be a length difference. A 6x is a taller size for a 6 year old. Some retailers combine the 6x with a 7. This is where it would be important to know your customers before eliminating or combining sizes.*

 *(Please note that this paragraph has been modified. I made a big assumption that was just wrong stating that the size 6x is a plus size version of the size 6. This isn't true. It is a taller version of the size 6. In any event, the paragraph above has been edited with the correct information).

So now our sizing looks like this:

Preemie, NB, 3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M, 24M/2T, 3T, 4T/4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16.

And this is where I have to interject. Retailers, and especially big box retailers, do differentiate the sizing of the patterns on the sizes we just combined. A 2T is just a little bit bigger than a 24M, even though it really shouldn't be. Consumers have become accustomed to this type of sizing system and so have the technical designers in the business. In other words, don't expect any big changes anytime soon. This proposal is a way to simplify things. You are more likely to find a simplified sizing standard in boutique or specialty stores.

Ok, back on track now. The next step is to create a range of sizes. This is simplest in the infant sizes and another grey area. Every major manufacturer has come up with their own size range break-down, and it really is all over the place.
I really like how JcPenney has broken down their infant size range:

Newborn, 0-3M, 6-9M, 12M, 18M, 24M/2T

The nice thing about this sizing standard is that there are no overlapping of sizes.
Some companies will create a range like this:

Newborn, 0-3M, 3-6M, 6-9M, 9-12M, 12-18M, 18-24M

As you can see, there is a lot of overlapping. This could cause confusion for a customer because it is difficult to pick just the right size range. Also, this doesn't reduce the number of sizes carried.

If we eliminate the newborn and preemie sizes and use the size range from JcPenney, we would get this:

0-3M, 6-9M, 12M, 18M, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16.

If you look carefully, you will see that I eliminated the 24M size and the T's on the 2, 3, and 4. This is where you have to decide how the size will appear on the care/content tag or hang tag. It would be best not to confuse customers - keep things simple and logical here.

You will also notice that there seems to be a size missing in the infant sizes. The size 6-9M is often combined because either the 6M or the 9M is considered a half size between the 3M and the 12M. This is obvious when you study measurement charts, so just take my word on it for now.

The other thing to consider when generating a size standard is the patternmaker/grader. The size 0-3M, for example can be created in one of two ways. The measurements of the Newborn and 3M could be averaged out or the patternmaker could just make the patterns a true 3M. In order to fit the most children, it is best to make the patterns fit the high-end of the range. In our example, the patterns would be made in a 3M. The clothing will fit loose on the small end of the range, but kids grow fast. The only exception might be sleepwear which needs to fit snug to the body in all of the size ranges. This is another place where you need to know your product and customer well.

By following this example, we have gone from a whopping 21 sizes to 15! While this still creates a lot of sizes, it is so much simpler and easier to understand.

0-3M, 6-9M, 12M, 18M, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16.

The next question to address is the grading question. And that will have to wait for tomorrow.

The golden mean and pattern making for children's clothing

After studying measurement charts until my eyes about popped out of my head, I finally took the plunge and drafted my first bodice using Aldrich's method. After working for many years in the childrenswear business, I have never actually drafted my own blocks. There was never a need - I just used whatever the company had. I drafted the flat infant blocks and immediately it didn't look right. I have been a bit confused by her use of flat, jersey, and woven bodices. Later in the book, she has a classic bodice. I picked the flat bodice block because it was in the front of the book.

The problem I encountered with the flat block is it looked too long in the length, especially the scye depth. This is partly where art meets technical design. Most infant bodices are drafted intentionally above the waist. Proportionally it just looks better. Until about age 3 a child's waist falls half-way on the body. Interior designers, architects, fashion, etc., use the golden mean or 1 to 3 proportion. This is something that is almost never mentioned in any pattern drafting instructions for childrenswear. The instructions always have you draft the back neck to the true waist I am sure they neglect to mention this because every designer decides where exactly their waist line will fall. Generally speaking this waistline can fall anywhere from 1-2" above the natural waist. This practice is used on nearly all childrenswear up to age 16, especially on any infant casual clothing and girl's dresses. Casual boys wear mimics the proportions of adults as they get older. Confusing, huh!

When drafting the basic blocks it is important to decide on what kind of product you are going to make. Who knew so many decisions have to made so far ahead in product development?!

I don't really like Aldrich's flat blocks. Even with adjusting the waist line, the scye depth is too long, IMO. Instead, I flipped ahead and drafted her classic block. The classic block is drafted to fit closer to the body and is used in formal wear. To me this is a better place to start. The armhole and neck shapes look better. The flat block can later be extrapolated from the classic. If I understand Aldrich correctly, the flat block is a method used in the children's business where the front and back bodice pieces are essentially the same shape, except for the necklines. By starting with the classic block, you can then add your own additional ease and modify the neck and armhole shaping that makes sense to you.

My next project is to draft the classic block without ease and make my own children's dress form. I read about a similiar proceedure at Vintage Sewing. With the cost of dress forms, I thought this might be a more economical solution and I would have a form with my measurements. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Children's Sizing and Measurement Standards Vary by Company

After studying and comparing all of my size charts collected from various sources I have come to realize the search for a good standard may be in vain. Here is just a brief example of one meausurement and how it varies among pattern drafting manuals and retailers.

Size 8 child: Major US Retailer
Bicep (inches) : 7.75
Recommended Ease : 1.5-2.0
Draft Line : 9.25-9.75

Size 8 child: Armstrong
Bicep (inches): 8.125
Recommended Ease : 2.875
Draft Line: 11

Size 8 child: Mortimer-Dunn
Bicep (inches): 8.75
Recommended Ease: 1.5-2.0
Draft Line : 10.25-10.75

Size 8 child: Dressform Co.
Bicep (inches): 7.75
Recommended Ease : 1.5-2.0
Draft Line : 9.25-9.75

As you can see there is quite a range in measurements. To fit the most average child, it is best to fall in between the range. But it still begs the question of who is correct? The Armstrong measurement is especially suspect because she recommends far too much ease in her drafting measurement.

For my new blocks, I have decided to use the Aldrich charts. She has statistical data to backup her charts. The US retailer and dressform co. charts are based off of the 1977 study and have been adjusted/updated over the years. I don't know where Armstrong and Mortimer-Dunn got their measurements, but their numbers seem odd. As far as I can tell, Aldrich is fairly close to the Major US Retailer. I am currently in the process of converting her measurements over to inches, to the nearest 1/8". This introduces an error into her measurements, but I am most comfortable using those units. Once I fine tune and tweak the numbers so they look right and are easy to work with, I will then compare my charts to those above and make sure I fall somewhere in the range. And I am still toying with the idea of working in metric anyway. I am unsure how my US customers would respond...

The next step is to draft some basic blocks and sew-up a fit sample.

My sources:
Major US Retailer - Kept confidential. Their size charts were last updated in 1981.

Patternmaking for Fashion Design by Helen Joseph Armstrong (5th edition) - her third edition has an even larger measurement for a Size 8 bicep and still too much ease. I have no idea about the fourth and fifth editions.

Pattern Design for Children's Clothes by Gloria Mortimer-Dunn - the book shows basic pattern drafting skills but her size charts are a bit odd.

Dressform Co. - kept confidential, but they have one of the better charts I have seen for infants.

Metric Pattern Cutting for Children's Wear and Babywear (4th edition) - the best book by far. I have not cited her bicep measurement because I am still studying her charts.

Sizing Up Children pt. 2 : How to find size charts for children

"The problem is children’s clothing manufacturers cling to their 30+ year old size charts. They protect their sizing information like a trade secret (not uncommon in every segment of the fashion biz). And while major studies are being done on men and women, they are not being done on children. (If I am wrong, please let me know)."

After doing some more reading at fashion-incubator, I discovered I am only half right. The 30 year old study on children's measurements done in 1975/1977 is publically available here: Anthropometric Data of Children. This is the data that most manufacturers continue to use. Since it is freely available, there is not much incentive to change. I have been using size chart information based on this data for at least 10 years because this is what the companies I worked for used. To be fair, it is still fairly good information.

Another source for sizing information is available from ASTM International. Kathleen Fasanella at fashion-incubator.com lists the documents to search for at her blog: How to obtain sizing and grading info. This data set is updated about every five years or so. Even though the data information is priced fairly, you still need to buy 3 charts to cover all children infant through teenagers, a price of about $90. The other thing to consider when purchasing from ASTM is that you only license the information. Be sure to read the license agreement! You are given permission to download on one computer and print out only ONE copy of the charts. You also give permission to ASTM to come and inspect your company computer and materials at any reasonable time to ensure you are complying.

As a small company, I do not like this license agreement. What if I have two or three technical designers who need access to this chart? My costs for this information multiplies! Plus, who wants to allow some other company/organization to come in and inspect your premises at will?! I wonder if ASTM has ever tried to enforce their license?

I also don't like the propriatary nature of the data. The only way to get cooperation from businesses to standardize is to make the information available for free. I realize as an organization they need to make money to support a needed role. But they could take a hint from other opensource projects and raise money by donation or some other model.

Because of the difficulty with ASTM, I now understand why companies continue to use 30 year old data.