The consumer product safety commission issued another product recall for sweatshirts sized 8-12 with drawstrings in the hoods. These sweatshirts were sold in Ross and Gordman stores. Customers who have purchased them should remove the drawstrings immediately. In all, there were 12 recalls for drawstrings in 2006.
At this point, I am just plain annoyed. The drawstring guideline (links to a pdf) has been around since 1996! We have had 11 years to learn not to put drawstrings in children's clothing. The recalls are occurring in the same types of products and even in the same stores repeatedly. I blame the designers. I blame the manufacturers. I blame the buyers. Shame on them. They should all know better.
In another recall, Samara is recalling two-piece overall sets because the snaps contain lead. The CPSC is working on creating a rule about metal jewelry for children that contain lead. The proposed rule will ban "children’s metal jewelry that has more than 0.06 percent of total lead" Once adopted this rule will certainly apply to any metal components found on clothing, including snaps and zipper pulls. There were four additional recalls for lead in December alone. The CPSC is aggressively enforcing this rule now, even though it has not been officially adopted.
Macy's is recalling outfits because of snaps that detach and pose a choking hazard. See Kai Run, of Woodinville, Wash, is recalling children's boots for the same reason.
Just as an observation, much of the above recalled product was manufacted in China. Manufactured Chinese product may be more or less safe than product made in the USA. Certainly, there are some shady manufacturers (US and Chinese) who send approval samples and test results that pass, and then turn around and use different components. Manufacturing overseas is no excuse for ignoring safety guidelines.
Let's make 2007 a safer year for children's clothing products.
January 11, 2007
Sizing Studies for Children
A few weeks ago, a new mother complained about the variation in infant clothing sizes. She explained that her 12 month daughter wore clothes ranging in size from 6m to 18m. Some marked for 12 months were either too big or too small. Finding clothes that fit was a matter of trying things on a fussy baby.
She stated, "You can't trust what the size tag says."
Kathleen at Fashion-Incubator wrote an article about problems with sizing studies, especially for women. Children's sizing studies present some of the same difficulties. Children's sizing is complicated by the fact that children grow and at different rates. Ethnicity plays a part in proportions, weight, and growth rates. As a technical designer, I feel that I am only taking my best guess when drafting patterns. I have to synthesize about a dozen different size charts and methods to come up with something that works and fits! I firmly believe that even infant children deserve clothing that fits.
My concern with most measurement charts and sizing studies are that they are minimally useful for patternmaking for infants. Many measurement size charts either completely ignore or present limited info for infant sizing. The Armstrong book starts her charts at size 2/2T (some of her measurements are a bit funky too). The Gloria Mortimer-Dunn book is the same way. Childrenswear Design, has some basic information for infant patternmaking although the information is not complete. The best presentation of measurement info is from Winifred Aldrich in her book Metric Pattern Cutting for Children's Wear and Babywear: From Birth to 14 Years .
I have drafted basic blocks using Aldrich's charts and instructions. They turned out ok, but definitely needed refinement for style and fit. I thought the basic, fitted blocks need a little more ease and a lower neck. The flat blocks needed a better armhole shaping. Despite that, with some tweaking, you could have a nice set of infant blocks to work with. Part of my difficulty could be that the British are accustomed to a closer fitting block and the metric system. I had to wrap my head around metric conversions, which probably introduced some inaccuracies.
I haven't talked much about measurement charts available from ASTM. This is because I have not purchased a set of charts from them. I don't have the need at this point. Other government studies are interesting, but don't contain enough of the measurements needed to draft basic blocks. Growth charts and retail size charts (and a few in patternmaking books), list infant sizes by pounds and lengths. Those are interesting for comparison and not useful for drafting patterns.
I am not sure what new childrenswear designers are to do. Most companies develop their own measurement charts and some are better than others. Getting those first, good bodice block patterns are critical because every future design is based off of them. It may be easier to drape your first blocks off of dress forms rather than drafting from measurements. Or maybe a combination of both. This sizing study problem could explain why infant sizing is all over the place.
Over the years, I have settled with basic patterns that have proven to work. They continue to be modified for improvement and someday they will be what I hope is a great pattern.
She stated, "You can't trust what the size tag says."
Kathleen at Fashion-Incubator wrote an article about problems with sizing studies, especially for women. Children's sizing studies present some of the same difficulties. Children's sizing is complicated by the fact that children grow and at different rates. Ethnicity plays a part in proportions, weight, and growth rates. As a technical designer, I feel that I am only taking my best guess when drafting patterns. I have to synthesize about a dozen different size charts and methods to come up with something that works and fits! I firmly believe that even infant children deserve clothing that fits.
My concern with most measurement charts and sizing studies are that they are minimally useful for patternmaking for infants. Many measurement size charts either completely ignore or present limited info for infant sizing. The Armstrong book starts her charts at size 2/2T (some of her measurements are a bit funky too). The Gloria Mortimer-Dunn book is the same way. Childrenswear Design, has some basic information for infant patternmaking although the information is not complete. The best presentation of measurement info is from Winifred Aldrich in her book Metric Pattern Cutting for Children's Wear and Babywear: From Birth to 14 Years .
I have drafted basic blocks using Aldrich's charts and instructions. They turned out ok, but definitely needed refinement for style and fit. I thought the basic, fitted blocks need a little more ease and a lower neck. The flat blocks needed a better armhole shaping. Despite that, with some tweaking, you could have a nice set of infant blocks to work with. Part of my difficulty could be that the British are accustomed to a closer fitting block and the metric system. I had to wrap my head around metric conversions, which probably introduced some inaccuracies.
I haven't talked much about measurement charts available from ASTM. This is because I have not purchased a set of charts from them. I don't have the need at this point. Other government studies are interesting, but don't contain enough of the measurements needed to draft basic blocks. Growth charts and retail size charts (and a few in patternmaking books), list infant sizes by pounds and lengths. Those are interesting for comparison and not useful for drafting patterns.
I am not sure what new childrenswear designers are to do. Most companies develop their own measurement charts and some are better than others. Getting those first, good bodice block patterns are critical because every future design is based off of them. It may be easier to drape your first blocks off of dress forms rather than drafting from measurements. Or maybe a combination of both. This sizing study problem could explain why infant sizing is all over the place.
Over the years, I have settled with basic patterns that have proven to work. They continue to be modified for improvement and someday they will be what I hope is a great pattern.
Disappearing Ink Pens for the Sewing Room
In this picture, you can see how well the line shows up, even on difficult to mark fabrics like blue. This drawn line came from a pen that is nearly dead (I use them until they are dead). It works on most light to medium colored fabrics. It has difficulty with anything that is pink, red and of course black. For those colors I whip out chalk pencils or soap remnants (soap usually works better). I have used these pens on a variety of fabrics from silks, satins, laces, flannels, broacloths, to denims. I use them on personal projects and in industry settings.
The back of the package says to test on fabrics before using. I have had very few problems with the ink not disappearing. If I were to topstitch a fly, I may test it. The last pair of pants I made, the fabric had a finish on it that prevented some of the ink from disappearing. But it all came out in the wash. I wouldn't iron over the ink until it has completely disappeared - the heat/steam from the iron may set it. It would be rare for the ink to become permanent. Most of my ink lines are from tracing around pattern pieces, so they would never be seen anyway. The package states the ink disappears within 24-72 hours. I find it disappears much faster than that, especially when exposed to air. The age of the pen also determines how long the mark will last.
I have difficulty finding this exact pen in the fabric stores. They carry disappearing ink pens, but they don't work as well. For some strange reason fabric stores (the ones near me) carry Dritz marking pens, but not this one. This pen is from Dritz and I can be ordered from Amazon.
Labels:
Cutting,
Patternmaking,
Product Review,
Sewing Techniques,
Tools,
Tutorials
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)