The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes and How to Grade Them

I am excited to announce my new book, The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes and How to Grade Them. This book explains children's clothing sizes in the United States, how they came about, and what sizes are used today. This book includes many things that have never been included in books on children's clothing design in the past.

• A break down and explanation of children's clothing sizes from Preemie to size 16, including boys sizes.
• A brief overview of difficulties in the industry, including obesity, and sleepwear
• An explanation of how create your own grade rules.
• Step-by-step instructions on how to grade basic styles, including grade rule charts.
• Body measurement charts for infants to size 14, including slim and plus sizes for older children.
• The infant measurement chart includes head circumference, neck circumference, hand length and width, foot length and width -- measurements that are hard to find.
• Extra grade rule charts that include Newborn and size 9 months.
• CAD grade rule charts
• Complete measurement studies with additional body measurements, grade rules and references for infants, toddlers, 4-6x, girls (7-14), boys, and young men.

I will be doing a series over the coming weeks highlighting the above list with sneak peaks at what is in the book. This book is essential for anyone that designs and manufactures children's clothing. The book is currently available for purchase on Amazon or as an ebook on Payhip.

Who manufactures a size 9 months for baby clothes?

I have been intensely working on a project that requires me to study measurement charts and grading charts for children's clothing. It is not the most exciting thing to analyze, I must admit. There has been one size that has been the most difficult to understand and that is the size 9 months for babies.

Traditionally, there never was a size 9 months. The infant size range was arranged:

3M - 6M - 12M - 18M - 24M - 36M

Over time that arrangement dropped the 36M, making the 12M the middle size for sampling and grading. At some point a NB (newborn) and 9M was added. I have not found the reasoning for the additional sizes or exactly when they were added. At least with the NB, it makes some common sense as it is clothing for newly born children. Babies very quickly move through these early infant sizes, so many times the clothes are simple t-shirts and bodysuits. Size 9M, from a measurement standpoint, appears to be a half-size. Something between the 6M and 12M. You could say the 9M should fit a 9 month old baby and perhaps that is the intent.

The problem comes with how to incorporate the size 9M into a normal infant size range offering. It throws off the middle size 12M in sampling and grading. With the addition of the 9M, the 9M becomes the middle size.

NB - 3M - 6M - 9M - 12M - 18M - 24M

No one samples in a size 9M. No one. In fact, it would make grading difficult to do so - just look at the traditional grading charts by Jack Handford.

And that left me wondering. How many brands actually produce a size 9M? While my quick survey is not scientific, it revealed some interesting points.

Manufacturers of sleepwear, t-shirts, bodysuits, or lounge wear, tend to produce only certain sizes and they tend to arrange them:

0-3M, 3-6M, 6-9M

Of course there are variations. Manufacturers of special occasion dresses tend to produce only a few sizes too.

12M - 18M - 24M

There are variations there too. When I worked for a brand that produced christening apparel, we produced all the sizes from NB - 24M. Size 9M was not one of our top selling sizes.

BabyGap does not produce size 9M for any of their styles. They stick to the traditional size range:

3M - 6M - 12M - 18M - 24M

But they arrange their sizes so it looks like they have their bases covered.

Up to 7lb (NB),  0-3M, 3-6M, 6M-12M, 12M-18M, 18M-24M

So what is the point of all this? When you are developing your children's clothing line, you do not need to produce every size. There is a great temptation to offer every style in every size. The reality is that if the big brands aren't doing it, neither do you. A lot depends on the style and your customer. Who do you hang with? Who is your competition? What sizes do they produce? Once you know the answers to those questions, you can focus your efforts.

What about the size 9M? Unless your customer requires that size, it is probably best to skip it or at least make it appear that it is included within a size label like 6M-12M. Some private label programs may require a size 9M. If that is the case, it is a simple matter to split the grade rule between a 6M and a 12M to add the size.

Home sewing patterns for newborns

I received this question about commercial sewing patterns:

Supposedly the XXS size on commercial patterns (McCalls, Simplicity, Butterick) is supposed to be for babies 7 lbs or less, but they swallow newborns up. If you read around the Internet, there are lots of frustrated grandmothers and mothers-to-be that want to sew for their new or expected baby, but can't find a pattern that will fit. I read that doll clothing patterns don't work because the neck is wrong for a human infant. I tried buying vintage layette patterns from Etsy and they were just as bad. I want to know how to downsize a commercial XXS dress or romper pattern so it fits a NEW 7-8 lb baby. I am sick of gowns and knit sleepers. - Pam

It has been a long time since I have sewn children's clothing from commercial sewing patterns. What I do remember is they are big. Too big. The proportions are bit off too. I don't know why either. Those companies have their own pattern blocks and I suspect they have not really updated or checked them in a long time.

Design school does not spend all that much time on children's clothing. I know there are few pattern making manuals that really get the sizing right, though sizing (exact measurements) is less of an issue than you might think. Regardless of where you start, you will have to make adjustments for fit. Only one manual even addresses infant clothing, and that book is Metric Pattern Cutting for Children's Wear and Babywear by Winifred Aldrich. I have a previous edition, but it covers most of what you might need. For Americans, the book is in metric. I didn't really have a problem drafting basic blocks using metric. You just need a metric ruler, though I did convert back and forth to see if I was on target. But even after drafting your basic blocks, you will need to make adjustments to the pattern until you get the fit you want. I have learned quite a bit by trial and error over many years.


For the home sewist, this is probably not all that practical. There is not really an easy way to size down a home sewing pattern that already has proportion issues (even Burda, which I prefer over the others). The biggest problem with some of the sewing patterns are tops are too wide, pant legs are too short just as examples. You could begin by folding out some of the width. But I can't say how much as it would probably depend on the style and desired size. In other words, no matter what, there will be a bit of back and forth. I guess my advice would be don't be afraid to experiment. Measure your baby and the sewing pattern and reduce width and length as needed. It is a bit of a challenge to measure a baby, but it really is the only way to arrive at your end goal. I wish there was some other way. Perhaps there are some indie sewing patterns for newborns? Please leave suggestions if you know of any.

Understanding pattern grading for children's clothing

I'm catching up with some questions and comments. It's been a while since I've answered a grading question.

My brain is spinning with all the reading I've been doing on this subject. Can you please explain to me why I couldn't grade within my separate size ranges by grading, for example, 3-6 with one particular grade rule and then taking then changing my grade rule for the next section? Would this not be taking the difference growth rates and such into account? I feel like there's probably a reason that I haven't quite grasped yet. Thanks so much.

Grading women's clothing is different from grading children's clothing. Women's clothing is graded with either a 1 1/2" or 2" grade between the sizes. This grade rule refers to the change in circumference measurements between the sizes. There is a lot of criticism for this grade rule because it appears to not have a connection to actual body measurements. That assumption is not strictly true, but it is true this practice is a convenience for the industry. It is too difficult to mass produce clothing and create a custom fit for an individual woman. This grading convention has historically proven to fit the most women in the most efficient way.

Men's clothing has many more sizes. These sizes are given size names that correspond to actual body measurements such as waist, pant leg inseam, or neck and sleeve. The circumference difference is usually 1 inch but it may be 2 inches for larger sizes.

Children's clothing is different. Children grow exponentially from birth. Their growth makes it difficult to group children into size groups, but over 70 years ago a measurement study managed to give us enough measurement data to do just that. That measurement data shows that the change between children's sizes is not even. This is true regardless of how sizes are arranged or named. The circumference measurement difference may range between 1/2" to 1" or more. There are similar irregularities in length grades. Children's clothing brands interpret measurements in their own way, so you will see variation in the marketplace.

Speaking to this particular question. If you group your children's sizes so they are called 0-3M, 3-6M, 6-9M, etc., your grade rule will still vary between the sizes. But there will be no grade change between a 3M and a 6M in the size called 3-6M. When developing a grade rule for this kind of size system, I interpret the sizes like this:

0-3M = 3M
3-6M = 6M
6-9M = 9M

You can call your sizes whatever you choose, but for pattern making and grading you have to assign a meaning to that size. Interpreting sizes with a size label of 0-3M as a single size 3M is the easiest way to develop grade rules and it seems to work.

Grading from body measurements pt. 3

This is part three of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here, part two here. I recommend reading the previous parts of this series before reading this one.

So what were the results of Schofield's experiment? I can't reproduce the actual results here, but it was something like this.

Imagine the square is a bodice pattern piece in one size. The star is supposed to be the same pattern piece but graded to the next size. Clearly, the two shapes have no proportional relationship to each other. The problem is further compounded by a different grade for corresponding pieces.

Imagine these are front and back bodice pattern pieces. Each corresponding pattern piece was graded separately based on the measurement data for that body location. Now imagine trying to sew the front and back together. It can't be done. Schofield freely admits the difficulty in the results. Though she also believes we need to learn how to deal with new shapes in pattern pieces in order to achieve superior fit.

Schofield's experiment left me with a lot of questions. I did not understand completely why she rejected the ASTM measurement data, nor why she went back to essentially raw data. Her grading methodology left me a bit confused. The results were clearly not suitable for industry application. Superior fit is the holy grail of fashion, but I'm not convinced that grading is the entire source of the problem. Superior fit, for each individual might only be achieved on an individual basis. In this case, 3D body scanning and customized clothing is the answer, but is it practical?

I would like to see this experiment repeated. The factors that will impact additional experiments are the measurement data and grading methodology. Why not use ASTM measurement data? Why not use traditional grading methods? I always support those who are willing to test ideas and theories. This was a worthy attempt by Schofield to ask important why and how questions.

Grading from body measurements pt. 2

This is part two of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here.

My initial reaction to the idea of grading from body measurements was, "Well, of course we should." And in fact, we do for children's clothing. It seemed rather obvious to me to look at children's clothing as a model. Children's sizing is based on the idea of growth, meaning that the measurement intervals between sizes are not always consistent.

Let's look at an example for a 4-6x size range.*

For sizes  4, 5, 6, 6x
Chest: 23, 24, 25, 25.5
Waist: 21.5, 22, 22.5, 23
Hip: 23.5, 24.5, 25.5, 26.5

The grade works out to be, choosing size 5 as the base size:
Chest: 1, 0, 1, 1.5
Waist: 0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.5
Hip: 1, 0, 1, 1

In this example, we have a 1" chest grade, except for size 6x which is 1.5". The waist is a 0.5" inch grade and the hip returns to a 1" grade for all sizes. Each body measurement area has it's own grade.

In women's clothing a 2" grade means that the interval change between the sizes will be 2" for chest, waist, and hips. Though even this isn't true across all brands, and you will find variations. (IMO, this is a good thing)

I don't know the history of women's sizing well enough to explain how this mode of practice came to be nor exactly why. It is clear that it does make grading, especially hand grading, much easier in practice. It is also unclear to me that grading is the source of our fitting woes. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to go back and look at body measurements and devise a more precise grade rule.

The question then becomes, which body measurements do we use? In my children's example above, the numbers are still nice and easy to work with. The body measurements have been intentionally manipulated to be easy to work with. Raw measurement data was averaged, sorted, and studied to arrive at some numbers. Those numbers were not easy to work with, so a group of industry professionals sat down and made them that way. They modified certain measurements by about 1/8" to achieve consistency. Their modifications were rather minor and easily fall within a statistical margin of error. If you read their reasoning, it makes sense. This manipulation of measurement data for ease of use continues today in more modern measurement studies. It seems deceitful, but at the end of the day is infinitely practical. ASTM D4910 inherits this method of data handling from the measurement studies done in the 1940s, but does provide some updated measurements.

Looking at the Misses body measurement chart, ASTM D5585, it seems to be arranged and handled in the same way as the children's body measurement chart. IOW, the chart does not show a 1, 1.5, or 2 inch grade in the body measurements. It is a lot like the children's example above. There does seem to be a disconnect between measurement data and grading, at least on the surface. Individual companies will decide how to interpret and implement measurement data, and therefore their grade rules. (IMO, I think this is a good thing). And some will use a 2 inch grade, and some will not.

So what measurement data did Schofield use? She rejected the ASTM charts and created her own version of measurements derived from body measurement studies. This presented a problem because measurement studies do not always include the measurements needed for pattern making and grading. Schofield did not normalize the data, in other words make it easy to work with. Also she had to figure out how to deal with missing measurement data. I no longer have a copy of the article and can't look back, but Schofield selected certain measurements over others. How and why she handled those measurements puzzled me.

I believe Schofield's goal was to remove the idea of maintaining an ideal proportion or predictable pattern shape. She wanted to see what the body measurements really did between sizes.

Her results were almost predictable. More on that later.

*These measurements come from the withdrawn child measurement standard CS151-50. Measurements are in inches.

Grading from body measurements pt. 1

Pattern grading is the process by which new sizes are developed from an existing pattern. There are various methods or processes used to grade a pattern. These methods include slash-and-spread, shifting, and CAD. At the end of the day, each method accomplishes the same thing, a new size.

The apparel industry has received a lot of criticism for their sizing, especially of women's clothing. At it's core, sizing goes hand-in-hand with pattern grading. You have to define your sizes in order to grade a pattern. In order to grade a pattern you have to know body measurements for each size. The common grade rules for women's apparel is the 1", 1.5" and 2" grade rules used in the United States. Similar grade rules are found in Europe and the UK. The primary criticism is that these grade rules are not based on anthropometric data, or actual body measurements. Instead these grade rules are just pulled out of a hat without regard to women or their fitting needs. These arbitrary grade rules are merely for the convenience of industry.

This is the point of view taken by N. A. Schofield in her article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. The goal of her research was to test the idea of creating grade rules based on actual body measurements rather than an arbitrary grade rule. There has been a lot of criticism of the industry over sizing and it is a worthy goal to research alternatives. Asking the why questions. Why does the apparel industry do things the way they do? Why do we grade women's clothing this way? Can we do it differently? I've asked a lot of these same questions as I've looked at children's clothing. When I started out, I didn't understand the why and sometimes the answer was not satisfying. I can totally get behind Schofield's motivation to try and find an answer.

And yet, I feel like I am setting up to be very critical of Schofield's research and I don't want to give the impression, as an industry professional, that even asking the questions were wrong. She was right to ask the question and to test an alternative. The results of her research are interesting and ironically (and indirectly) add support to current practices.

So here are some of Schofield's main arguments:

1. 1", 1.5", and 2" grade rules are not based on anthropometric data. Meaning it is not based on body measurements or the proportional relationships between body parts/areas. These grade rules were intended for the convenience and ease of hand grading.

2. Grade rules should be derived from body measurements. This means that grade breaks between bust, waist, and hips should not be consistent. Instead of a 34-36-38 chest measurement, we should be seeing a 34-35.5-38 (just as an example), chest measurement.

3. Size prediction and also body measurement prediction needs refinement. This idea is rather complex. Body measurement studies create a lot of raw data. In order to make sense of it, statisticians will test size prediction by using one or two body measurements. So can you predict the overall body size by using just the height or chest measurement? And if you do that, what influence does that have on other body measurements? If a person gets taller, do they also get wider? It is a complex question and not easily answered because there are so many variables. Statisticians bring order to raw measurement data so that we can organize the body measurements into sizes. They do this by averaging and, in some cases, normalizing the data so we can work with it easily. Schofield implies that we should just rely on the raw measurement data.

The ultimate goal of this study was to improve overall fit of women's apparel by basing grade rules on actual body measurements. I'll have to break up my review of this study into multiple blog entries because I have a lot to say about it. So stay tuned.

Production Systems, Sizing, and Quality Control

Having worked in the apparel industry for a while now, I sometimes have to take a step back to see how much goes into the design, production and selling of just one item. The goal is to work out all of the bugs before an item goes into production. Still, things can and do go wrong and those things can affect the size of an item. Where can things go wrong?

1. Pattern making and grading

A poor pattern or poor grading certainly affects the size. Inadequate seam allowances, missing notches. There are a lot of little things that can go wrong, though if you read the rest of the list, you can see there are a lot of other areas that can cause problems.

2. Marking

Marking is the process of laying pieces out in preparation for cutting. Many markers are now made by computer, some automatically. There are various setting that allow the marker maker to bump pieces closer together, tilt, or rotate pieces. Each of these options can affect the final outcome, so they must be used rarely.

3. Spreading

Spreading is the process of laying fabric on a cutting table in layers. Certain fabrics stretch during this process and need a certain amount of time to relax. If the style is cut without the fabric being allowed to relax, then the pieces will relax after being cut and the item will end up too small. Layers can also shift and move.

4. Cutting

Accurate cutting is the only way to ensure the item ends up as intended.

5. Sewing

Taking too big or too small of a seam allowance affects a size. Seam allowances should allow a cut off allowance because nearly all operators trim off a little bit.

6. Finishing

Finishing includes steaming or ironing. Too hot a temperature can shrink an item.

These problems can be minimized by implementing systems and policies during each phase of development and production. One company I worked for had a quality audit system that checked each step of production. Anything that had finally made it to production had been perfected, for the most part. There was that one style that shared patterns with another style. A problem came up in production where the obvious solution was to make a new pattern for the new fabric, but that never happened. Production just had to deal with it. But those situations are rare.

In any event, systems (procedures/policies) have to be implemented for development, production, and finishing to catch problems before the item is shipped to the customer..

This blog entry was inspired by the article Production systems, garment specifications, and sizing by S. P. Ashdown, L. M. Lyman-Clark, J. Smith, and S. Loker in the book Sizing in Clothing.

Communicating size and fit through size labels and charts

The primary way most clothing brands communicate size information is through a size label. This works in most retail settings. Online (and print catalog) clothes shopping adds the benefit of including an easy to use, sometimes interactive size chart. Additional instructions on how to measure yourself is also helpful.

A pictogram showing body
dimensions for a specific size.

None of these solutions are completely fool proof. First, the manufacturer interprets and adapts measurement data to meet the needs of their identified customer. This means they have created and implemented a size system in anticipation of what their customer wants. But a customer may want something to be closer/looser fitting, and shorter/longer lengths than the manufacturer. How does one balance size and fit for a diverse population with ever shifting expectations?

The current trend among new fashion companies is to design for a very narrow customer profile. By targeting a very specific customer, the manufacturers can optimize the fit of their brand to their customer. Larger big box brands have to fit a wide range of body shapes and sizes and their clothes will never fit as well as a more exclusive brand. In some cases a manufacturer will modify their sizes for an existing size system, so that they change what a size means for their target market. In other words, a size 8 for one brand will mean something entirely different for another. This is why there is so much variation in the marketplace between brands.

On the surface this sounds like vanity sizing run amok. If manufacturers change the underlying sizes to fit their version of a size, then surely they are deceiving us into believing we are a smaller size than we truly are. Truth in advertising and all that, right?

The problem with only one size standard across brands is that it does not allow for variation. Women in particular have a large variety of body shapes and sizes. Because manufacturers are free to adapt to meet the needs of their customers having multiple versions of a size will allow people to find the version that fits them best. Once they do, and if the styling is right, they will become loyal customers.

The problem comes back to how to communicate that to the customer. As I said at top, providing more information helps the customer to make a more informed choice. And that is the true challenge.

*This blog entry is part of my on going review of Sizing in Clothing, and is a discussion inspired by the article, Communication of sizing and fit by J. Chun. This article goes into a little more depth about how sizes have evolved and what they might mean.

Size standardization for clothing

In academic circles there is the idea that we need one measurement and sizing standard to solve all our fitting problems. A top down approach with no allowance for variation. Customers often complain that manufacturers have no idea what they are doing because nothing ever fits. Manufacturers face an enormous challenge in trying to interpret size specifications while at the same time meeting the needs of their customers. The more I read about sizing the more chaotic it seems. At the end of the day there is more than one way to look at size standardization, and I think only one battle to fight.

One standard to rule them all

Yes, the idea that one standard can be established for everyone. By forcing compliance we will have peace on earth, and yes, our clothes will fit! Considering the variety of shapes and sizes in the United States alone, the idea is really a fantasy.

• One standard guarantees that some of the population will not have any clothes that fit. One could argue this situation exists today, so why not try one standard. With no allowance to adapt to fit the wide range of shapes and sizes, then outliers will never have clothes that fit.
• Our population is constantly changing. The most recent sizing study revealed that we are taller and weigh more than we did in the past. One standard would quickly become outdated.
• Sizing studies are very expensive and labor intensive. Studies are not done frequently, so manufacturers will always be behind what is happening in the real world.

Loosely conforming to a standard while yet adapting to meet a customer's need.

Even if one standard to rule them all is unrealistic, we still need a standard. ASTM and the latest Sizing USA study have provided us with a standard that any manufacturer can use (for a price, of course). These measurement and sizing specs can act as a guide, a place to start. As a manufacturer develops their customer profile, they can adapt these standards to meet the needs of their customer.

Over the years, it's important to compare your product against these standards. I've seen patterns and sizing drift from these standards naturally through errors. These errors are not intentional, they just happen and can easily pass from one style to the next. So a careful study and comparison can bring things back. This includes measuring fit models and comparing them against the standard and analyzing customer returns due to fit issues. 

In-house size standardization

Once a sizing standard is established for a brand, it is important to adhere to that standard during product development. As an example, all new pants styles have the same finished length and waist sizes as specified. Variations in fit can come from multiple sources due to fabric variations (or problems), construction issues (taking too big/small a seam allowance, cutting errors), or variations in a pattern. You have to be careful not to draft a pattern from scratch every time. Pattern makers in the industry will use the patterns from an already proven style to develop the new style. This practice ensures consistent fit across styles. A quality control process through each step of development and production is necessary to find problems before they become big ones.

A few words on vanity sizing

Vanity sizing implies that a manufacturer wilfully chooses to ignore a size standard and relabel a size smaller than it actually is. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to do this intentionally. Instead I think manufacturers are trying to meet the needs of their customers while trying to conform to a standard.

*This blog entry was inspired from my reading in the book Sizing in Clothing and more specifically the article Sizing Standardization by K. L. LaBat. I made very few notes on this article and don't remember much of what I read. I did make a note that LaBat tried to prove the existence of vanity sizing by studying children's age-based sizing. I thought the argument was rather weak.

Creating sizing systems for clothing

This is a continuation of my review of Sizing in Clothing. The previous blog entries are History of Sizing, and the Book Review.

By Downtowngal (Own work)
[CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

What does it take to create a sizing system? We often taken for granted a size chart on a retail website or print catalog. And when something doesn't fit, it's easy to blame the size system used by the manufacturer. And we've all been there. Shopping for blue jeans or a swimsuit causes a lot of anxiety and stress as we go through more than one size to find something that fits. A. Petrova discussed all of the variables that go into making those size charts that help you select the right size in the article Creating Sizing Systems found in the Sizing in Clothing book.

So what does it take? The first big step is to measure a population and then to divide that population into various body shapes such as Misses, Petites, Tall, Plus, etc. Each category is defined by certain control dimensions such as height, weight, waist, chest, hips, or whatever is considered the key dimensions. Usually there are 3-4 key body measurements. These kind of measurement studies are expensive and are usually undertaken by government, universities, and trade organizations.

Next, each category is subdivided into sizes contained within a size range. Each category is labelled a size designation. It could be Small-Medium-Large, or numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. These size labels are meaningless until associated with a set of body measurements. (We could get into a discussion of vanity sizing here but it really doesn't matter what you call a size. It's the underlying body measurements that are key). In the US, we are accustomed to knowing what size to start with when shopping without knowing our body measurements. In the EU, there are similar difficulties though there has been some push to adopt the centilong system. This system identifies a size by height with some corresponding girth measurements. Not all European manufacturers have done this and some are as inconsistent in application as their American counterparts.

A. Petrova continues the article with some ideas on how to develop size systems or charts based on garment styles versus just body measurements. The biggest disadvantage to this idea is that the customer would need to know several size scales when shopping, making shopping a complicated experience. The advantage is that fit could be fine tuned, maybe.

So who is to blame when clothes don't fit? Is it the size chart? Maybe, maybe not. There are so many variables that it is hard to select just one reason. The fit model used in pattern development may match the size chart, but not be representative of the consumer. In other words there could be a mismatch between expectations and reality between the manufacturer and the customer. Grade rules may not match or equal actual body grades - which is a discussion for another article. Perhaps the size chart information was incomplete, lacked sufficient instruction, or had a typo. Poor construction or poor fabric quality play a factor. When analyzing sales information and returns, all of these things have to be considered.

Relying on old body measurements and pattern drafting instructions

There is a certain bit of nostalgia when looking back in time. We often say, "They don't build things like they used to," implying that we paid closer attention to quality and details. This same kind of thinking is also found in pattern making and sewing. There is a general assumption that the way things were done in the past are better then they are now. Some pull out old measurement charts and drafting instructions to recreate the past for a better present. We don't even have to go very far. There is the hope of a stylish outfit made of a 1950's sewing pattern and thinking that it will fit.

Before I go any further, let me say there is nothing wrong with looking backward and trying to understand how things were done. It is a fun exercise to draft a pattern using old instructions or sewing up that vintage pattern. This is about using old body measurement data and pattern drafting instructions to create modern clothing.

There are some key factors that make up a size - height, weight, girth, and shape. I suppose in the 1890s pattern makers and tailors were just beginning to understand the relationships between each of those factors. At least for men's clothing. Women's clothing was still a guessing game requiring customized fit. It wasn't until the 1940s that we began to see the connection to height, weight, and girth. Statistical analysis could finally show that when one factor changes, the others do as well. The studies done by Ruth O'Brien and her committee allowed us to see and understand body proportions and shapes and use that information to predict overall size. This information was not truly implemented until the 1950s and 1960s. Other studies have come along to add to our knowledge. A study in the early 1970s expanded our knowledge of children's body measurements. Another study, SizeUSA, was released in 2004 and greatly enhanced our knowledge of the US population using 3D body scanners.*

If you draft a pattern using older drafting instructions and body measurement charts, you will create something that is based on that time's understanding of body proportions and measurements. If that is your goal, then all is well and good. But if you find a free measurement chart dating back even 50 years, then you are placing your product in the 1950s.

We know this because not only has our understanding of anthropometry increased, but we know that the body measurements of a population change over time. If you are interested in creating your own line, it is in your best interest to obtain the most recent (and reliable) measurement data you can.



*Unfortunately the SizeUSA data is held behind a very expensive lock and key. Access is only available to those willing to pay a pretty hefty sum despite the study receiving tax dollars. Some ASTM body measurement charts have been updated to incorporate the study data. The ASTM children's body measurement chart is a mash-up of data that incorporates multiple studies dating back to Ruth O'Brien's 1941 study and some more modern data.

The history of standardized sizes for clothing

Do you ever wonder how people came up with the idea of sizing clothes? The creation of sizes allowed for the mass production of ready-to-wear garments. It was not created at a meeting of industry professionals, but evolved over time. Great leaps in sizing occurred because of war - somebody had to quickly and efficiently outfit an army.

Winifred Aldrich traces the development of sizes and ready to wear in her article History of Sizing and Ready-to-Wear Garments found in the Sizing in Clothing book*. Aldrich is a British pattern maker, designer, and researcher. I own two of her pattern drafting manuals and consider them among the best drafting manuals available (link in the sidebar to the left for the children's drafting manual). She knows her stuff, and she presents it well.

The understanding of body proportions began slowly with tailors producing clothing for men. They used strips of paper to measure the body and transfer the measurements to cloth. In time tailors devised tape measures and drafting systems. A size was not the beginning of the drafting job, rather the completed garment represented the size of the customer. As the industrial revolution progressed, tailors began to teach and sell their drafting systems. This included some already drafted patterns, sometimes in more than one size.

The concept was revolutionary and men began to be able to purchase their clothing ready made. Women, on the other hand, still had most of their clothing custom made into the early 20th century. There were attempts at creating patterns for women with named sizes, but it still required customization. There was a lack of knowledge of women's body measurements most likely because of the Victorian ideals of the time.

It is important to understand that our understanding of body measurements and proportions were not formalized until the 1940's. Ruth O'Brien, an employee of the U.S. Department of Home Economics and the Department of Agriculture, was commissioned to conduct a body measurement study of the American population. The purpose was to create a set of size standards based on reliable data that the apparel industry could use. The work involved in this study was enormous and revolutionary. O'Brien and her department created a measurement procedure that is still in existence today (only to be superseded by 3D body scanning). The data from these studies have been study and analyzed around the world.

To put this in perspective, it wasn't until the 1940s that we could finally see and understand human proportions with any clarity. It's easy to pan this early work as outdated and wrong but the 1940's was not that long ago. We still have so much to learn and understand.

A fun little factoid. Grading using the shifting or slide method, a common method still used today, can be traced back to 1908.

Aldrich's article goes into much more depth about the history of sizing. She includes pictures of early patterns and sizing systems. It is well worth a read if you can get a copy of it. This article is a combination and expansion of two previously written articles found in the journal Textile History.

*As I review individual articles from the Sizing in clothing book, I will not give a detailed discussion of each article. Rather, I will summarize and highlight a few key points along with my own thoughts on the subject.

Book review : Sizing in clothing

This is one of the books I ran across while working on my own book on grading. Sizing in Clothing (Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles) is a collection of scholarly papers edited by S. P. Ashdown on the current (as of 2007) issues related to sizing ready-to-wear clothing. It is a dense read and it took me every bit of time I had with the book to get through it. I'm glad I read it.

The audience for this book is very narrow in scope. This is not a book for someone starting their own apparel line. Do not run out and buy this book unless you have a real interest in sizing theory - it will not help you figure out the sizing for your line. If you did want to buy it, the book runs in the $200-$250 range. I obtained a copy through inter-library loan, which also proved a bit of a challenge. Only a handful of college libraries carry a copy they are willing to loan outside their library system. So I had to read this book on a deadline and handle the book with kid gloves over the holidays.

Some technical designers, pattern makers, and graders may be interested in some of the included articles. Over the next several weeks, I will post a review/discussion on some of the topics covered. My two favorite articles were on the History of sizing systems and ready-to-wear garments by Winifred Aldrich and Military Sizing. There are other really great topics about sizing and target markets, size standardization (a hot topic!), apparel production and sizing, and of course, pattern grading.

Because each chapter is written by different authors, it's hard to give a review of the book as a whole. Some articles were very well written and easy to read, such as my two favorites listed above. Others are written in a formal academic style which is very difficult to read and even more difficult to ferret out what the author is trying to say. As a collection, the articles cover nearly every angle.

Since the articles are written mostly by academics, there is a bit of a disconnect with those working on the front lines (the exception being the Military sizing article). It would be easy to characterize the writers as sitting in their academic ivory towers telling us what to do because they "know better". Embedded in many of the articles is criticism aimed at the industry for assumed sizing problems that the industry either "created" or refuse to solve. While some of the criticism is unfair in my opinion, the information they provide us is still valuable. I'll discuss some of this later in the individual reviews. Despite all of this, I'm glad there are people out there willing to think about these problems, propose solutions, and test them out.

A question on newborn sewing patterns

Pam had this question

Supposedly the XXS size on commercial patterns (McCalls, Simplicity, 
Butterick) is supposed to be for babies 7 lbs or less, but they swallow 
newborns up.  If you read around the Internet, there are lots of frustrated 
grandmothers and mothers-to-be that want to sew for their new or expected  baby, but can't find a pattern that will fit.  I read that doll clothing  patterns don't work because the neck is wrong for a human infant. I tried buying vintage layette patterns from Etsy and they were just as bad.  I  want to know how to downsize a commercial XXS dress or romper pattern so it fits a NEW 7-8 lb baby.

I had similar challenges sewing an infant shirt from a Butterick pattern. You are right that the sizing is just not right. You are also right that doll clothing patterns are not proportionally correct either.

There really is no easy way to fix the sizing issue. Perhaps the easiest would be to fold out some of the extra width and length to make the pattern smaller? Maybe try grading the pattern smaller -- though that won't solve the other problems that probably exist in your pattern. I can't really tell you how much to reduce the pattern because I don't know what pattern you are using. Even then, it would hard to advise you because I ended up redrafting the pattern I used above to even get it to work right.

One suggestion is to go to a thrift store and buy clothing in the size you want, take it apart and trace it off. Don't forget to add in proper seam allowances - as the existing seams have probably been trimmed off.

Designing and grading for a large size range

I get the following question from time to time:

I am a self taught pattern drafter, drafting patterns for myself and my 
kids for years.  I decided to turn this into a business recently and am 
creating a line of children's patterns for the home sewer.  My size range 
is 6m-10 and this is where my question is... Can you help me understand the process of redrafting the SAME style/pattern in my different base sizes?  I  get that I can't just take a size 5 and grade all the other sizes from 
there.  I own several popular pattern drafting books as well as 2 different 
grading books and I can't seem to find this information anywhere.  Any 
information you can provide me would be SO HELPFUL.  I am guessing there is some precise way to redraft my base sizes so the design doesn't change much.  Can you shed some light on how they do this in the business?  THANK YOU!

There are several things. First, it is not unusual when designing children's clothing to cover a large size range. The reality is it is much more work than you would think. I would recommend reviewing my previous blog entries on grading, especially Creating a Grading Standard (also read the other grading tutorials, they'll be helpful).

Unfortunately, there is no other precise way to redraft your sample or base sizes except good old-fashioned pattern drafting. If you have some basic pattern blocks for each size range, then it is no big deal. Just starting out, though, it is a lot of work. It will take less time and become easier over time, so no worries. One thing to pay attention to are proportions. You may need to alter the design to accommodate the size while still giving the impression of the same overall design idea.

Tutorial: Reduce or Remove Sleeve Cap Ease pt. 2

I received a really great question on my previous tutorial on how to remove or reduce sleeve cap ease. Gina's question deserves it's own blog post.

Well, what do you do if you have big arms but too much ease? If I move it over I will lose bicep room. I am working with a dress right now and everything fits but the sleeves are tight and the have too much ease. How do I widen the sleeve get rid of ease and fit it to the armhole?
Thanks

This is a really great question and may require me to consider re-writing my tutorial. My previous tutorial is based off my experience drafting patterns for children's clothing. Usually it is not a problem to reduce the bicep line because it's usually too big anyway. My overall changes are small because I am perfecting patterns that I have drafted myself.

If you are working with a commercial pattern for adults, the approach will be similar. You can't always reduce the bicep line and the overall changes may be quite significant. Patterns from the Big 4 notoriously have too much sleeve cap ease. To be fair, if you follow the drafting instructions in some pattern drafting books, you end up adding in a fair amount of ease too. One pattern making book has instructions that result in as much as 1.5 inches of ease in a set-in toddler sleeve. Way too much. Such a practice is not common in the fashion industry and the production sewers will refuse to set-in the sleeves.

I had difficulty coming up with a solution and so I had to ask my pattern making friends at the Fashion Incubator Forum. We have to assume that everything fits Gina as it should, though it's possible there is some other fit issue that is contributing to the bicep width problem to begin with.(1) There are two possible solutions and neither is quick nor easy. Both will require testing. To add bicep width, slash and spread or slash and pivot the sleeve to the desired measurement. This alteration will require fixing the sleeve cap anyway.

1. Draft a new sleeve from scratch. (My solution)

2. Reduce the sleeve cap height equal to the amount of ease to be removed. (From Nora of the Fashion Incubator Forum).

Sometimes it's just easier to start over. It may save time in the long run and you will get exactly the sleeve you want.

If you would rather fix the sleeve, you can try Nora's suggestion. Nora's suggestion leaves the bicep width alone and only adjusts the sleeve cap height.

1. Begin by walking the sleeve along the armhole in a similar manner to my previous tutorial. In this case, start at the bottom and walk the armhole toward the shoulder. You will need to walk the sleeve on both the front and back armholes matching up the front of the sleeve with the front bodice and the back bodice with the back sleeve. Your sleeve should not be symmetrical and you will need to check the entire armhole. As you work, you may want to check the entire armhole and sleeve cap.

2. Measure from the seam line of the shoulder on the bodice to the center notch of the sleeve. This will be equal to the amount of ease on one side of your sleeve. Repeat for the back armhole. Total up the ease for the front and the back of the sleeve. This will equal the total sleeve cap ease.

3. Reduce the sleeve cap height equal to the amount of ease that needs to be removed and redraw the sleeve cap. You will need to repeat these steps until you get exactly the amount of ease needed to set the sleeve and no more.






Neither Nora nor I can guarantee that this method is the answer. This method will require lots of back and forth testing and iteration. The method is similar enough to my previous tutorial that I think it will work eventually. If you have the patience for lots of testing, then go for it. Also remember that you may still need *some* ease. When we say zero ease, we don't really mean zero ease. You may need some to help set the sleeve in. The only way to know is to sew up a few samples. 1/4" to 1/2" of total ease is not unusual. This ease is required to help sew opposing curves together. The sleeve should be against the feed dogs as it moves under the foot and the action of the feed dogs may require a little bit of ease so that the sleeve cap and armscye meet up in the end.

1. The armhole could be too small or too big. It may be in the wrong location or scooped wrong under the arms.


Thanks to Nora for her suggestion.

Comparing pattern shaping and children's sizes follow-up

Kathleen suggested that I post an update on a previous grading post I did about a year ago. You can read what I wrote previously at When Patterns Collide. In that post I suggested that it would be possible to combine the 24M and 2T and the 4T and the 4. My reasoning being that the 24M and the 2T are essentially the same sizes - why differentiate them? The subject is a little complex and perhaps controversial - at least to pattern making geeks. My goal was to reduce the work load. I was drafting and grading all of my patterns by hand. I am incredibly slow grading by hand. In addition, I was trying to solve one particular sizing problem that shows up in childrenswear, that is hard to illustrate. Since I shut down my Prairie Roses line, I am not knee deep in pattern making as I was a year ago. But perhaps it may be helpful to explain what I ended up doing.

Originally, I broke up my sizes into these ranges:

3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M, 24M - sample size 12M

2T, 3T, 4T - sample size 3T

4, 5, 6, 6x - sample size 5

These ranges are rather typical of what you will find in retail stores. When developing my patterns, I have to make and grade the patterns for each size range separately. You cannot make one set of patterns in one size and grade them up and down all the way. It won't work because that many sizes will cause minute grading errors and strange fit, especially on the smallest and largest sizes. As you define your grading and size measurements, you will find that the 24M and 2T and the 4T and 4 overlap. I followed the Jack Handford grading rules, which are pretty darn good, but end up with a result like this:

In the picture above, the size 4 is laying on top of the size 4T. The size 4T is actually too long in length and too wide. I double checked all of my grading and there was no mistake. The size 4T was graded off my 3T and the size 4 off of the 5. The shaping of the sample size pattern pieces varied a little. The toddler was a little boxier because toddlers don't have any waist shaping, whereas a 5 year old does. If I were to leave my patterns this way, someone will eventually hang the two sizes next to each other and think there was some kind of manufacturing mistake. I needed to fix my patterns so that each size is incrementally bigger.

To do this, I rearranged my size ranges, combining some sizes:

3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M - sample size 12M

24M/2T, 3T, 4T/4 - sample size 3T

5, 6, 6x - sample size 5

The next thing I did was reworked the shaping of my toddler sizes to look more like the 4-6x range. I pulled the waist in some and made the armhole smaller. I made these shaping changes because I found that my toddler patterns were just a little too big. Now, I can lay all of my bodice pattern pieces in order and they get incrementally larger from the 3M to the 6x. Your patterns may look different, but it is worth comparing the sizes on the outside edges of your ranges to make sure you don't have something weird show up like I did.

Even though I combined some sizes, I kept this behind the scenes. My customers still saw all of the sizes separated out. If someone ordered a size 24M and another ordered a 2T, the dress would be exactly the same except for the size tag. I offered all of the sizes on my website so that customers would see something familiar. Perhaps it seems a little dishonest? I don't think so because in the real world a 24M child is the same size as a 2T and I was willing to take the chance. For what its worth, no one ever complained or returned those sizes for fit issues.

Now, I don't know that what I did is "the way it should be done". In the past though, I have had people question why the 24M was larger than the 2T and I had no explanation. Once I worked through grading all of my patterns by hand, it started to click in my head. The relationship of the shape of the pattern pieces, the grade, and body measurements are all connected.

Who creates grade rules?

Some one asked me a grading question the other day. She wanted to know who creates grade rules?

A pattern maker, grader, or you could make the grade rules. If you choose to make the grade rules yourself, I have some guides available in The Organized Fashion Designer and The Simple Tech Pack. It's harder with children's clothing because there isn't as much standardization. An experienced grader should have some standard charts or be able to develop rules off of your measurement charts. I would personally start developing grade rules by referencing the Jack Handford book and make modifications as needed. I would only let a pattern maker or grader do it who has experience with it.

You can buy measurement charts from ASTM as a place to start. The ASTM measurement charts for children are probably the best resource for children's body measurements. Be cautious of using free charts found on the Internet. I have seen free measurement charts on the Internet riddled with inconsistencies that could lead to serious errors.

If you have time, you may want to sew up the smallest and largest sizes just to double check the grade and sizing. It doesn't have to be in your production fabric or anything. A fitting is the only way to know if your grade is correct. You won't need to do this on every style or very often. Kind of important when starting out though.

Accounting for shrinkage and/or stretch in sewing patterns

Just a few comments I made in the Fashion Incubator forum when making patterns to accommodate stretch (knits, stretch wovens) and/or shrinkage.

Have to be careful when scaling patterns in CAD. Shrinkage/stretch is not proportionally the same in both directions. Many pattern making books advise to add the same amount of change to the length as the width. Don't do this. The only way to know is to know the fabric. Things shrink more in length than width. I am so sick of washing pants and long sleeve shirts and having them end up too short. If anything, remove width ease and add length on knits. It sounds counter-intuitive but prevents high-waters. Not sure on stretch denims, so test, test, test.

In my Etsy shop I have a simple tech pack kit that includes a wash testing form. The wash testing form includes instructions and formulas to figure out shrinkage in both the length and width of a fabric. It is well worth the investment of time and money to test your fabrics for shrinkage, particularly knit fabrics. Once you know the approximate shrinkage of a knit fabric, I recommend adding the extra width and length needed to accommodate expected shrinkage.

Adding a shrinkage allowance to a pattern piece may cause the finished garment to look proportionally wrong. If you do not pre-wash the finished item before shipping to the retailer, the item may look wrong on the hanger and the customer may decline purchasing the item because it does not appear to fit. So there is a limit to the amount of shrinkage you can include in a pattern before proportions, fit, and hanger appeal are impacted. Generally, you can include about 3-5% shrinkage in a pattern without too much of an impact. If your wash testing results return a shrinkage greater than 5%, then you either need to reject the fabric or pre-shrink the fabric before cutting and sewing.

Knits in particular add an added layer to product development because they are more likely to shrink. There are various types of knit fabrics with different types of finishing. Some knits are pre-shrunk at the factory and some are not depending on whether the fabric will be printed or dyed at a later date. When sourcing knits it is important to ask about shrinkage.

Accounting for stretch in knit fabrics is also another added layer. Stretch influences fit. Should the item fit close to the body? If so, the pattern needs to be reduced in width and length. This is another area where the amount to reduce will be different for the length and width. As an item is stretched in one direction, the other direction also changes. You may notice this when you stretch a knit t-shirt in the width direction - the length of the t-shirt will shorten. This is a complex topic and the answers depend entirely on the style and chosen fabric.