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.

The problem with Exemptions and the CPSIA

I think I have been a part of a very minor group of protesters who want a repeal of the CPSIA 2008. The idea has generally been quashed because it doesn't give the appearance "of playing along" or "of being cooperative". See, everyone wants the safest products for children so they are willing to play along with stricter regulations. Perhaps some new safety rules are needed, but the CPSIA is a bureaucratic, chaotic mess.

A repeal may be near impossible to get. It would require vote hungry lawmakers to admit they made a mistake. Who wants to admit they didn't read the darn thing before voting on it? We know most of them didn't because they by and large act with shock when their constituents tell them the truth. What lawmakers want to face angry constituents who insist on stronger regulation to protect children? No, they all patted themselves on the back because they did something to protect a vulnerable population. It was feel good legislation built on a foundation of emotionalism and fear mongering.

So anyway, every industry touched by this wants an exemption. Bicycle makers can't make strong welds without lead. Clothing has little to no lead, which washes out). Book makers use soy ink, so few books would have lead. Electronic devices have internal lead which is inaccessible, micro cottages want permission because they do one-of-a-kind or sell to a very small customer base (small exposure). Resale shops could never test all of their random product. All of these are legitimate reason to exempt a particular industry. If the exemptions we need are granted, we will kind of be back where we started pre-CPSIA.

The CPSC has issued a couple of exemptions. Though the exemptions are largely lip service without any real meat behind them. For example the natural materials exemption. Natural materials such as wood and cotton are exempt as long as they are left in their natural state. Well such an exemption doesn't really help the textile industry because nearly all textiles are processed in some way. White cottons have been bleached and/or dyed white. Such actions mean that the exemption no longer applies. Have you seen unbleached and unprocessed cotton? It's not all that attractive. But if you can build a clothing company around unbleached cotton muslin with unfinished wood buttons, be my guest.

Let's face another fact. Lead is a natural element of our planet. So according to the exemption (if we were to take the extreme interpretation), we could sell unprocessed lead because it is a natural material. But that wouldn't make sense, now would it.

The next exemption on resale stores is another problem. Perhaps the CPSC was begining to feel the pressure. But if you read the actual press release, resale stores are not really off the hook. They can continue their business, but if they do happen to sell product that does not conform they still face criminal prosecution. Floating around twitter is this statement:

Thrift exempt is like telling your kid they don't need to brush teeth, but spanking them if they have bad breath!

Resale shops could still have the CPSC police show up at their door. (I guess we could trust the CPSC when they say they won't target thrift stores, but the language of the law and the exemption hasn't changed. IOW, the door is still open that they could inspect your business if and when they have enough money and CPSC police). All it would take is a guerilla group or investigative reporter to go into any shop with an XRF gun and turn you in. Really, there are regular retail shops dealing with this scenario now.

So Resale shops exercise their business at their own risk. And really, most retailers will be operating like this on February 10, 2009. The hammer won't necessarily fall on that day, but it will when a CPSC policeman or bureaucrat wants to look like they accomplished something.

We never needed this new legislation. I know it sounds unbelievable that Congress really didn't need to act. The CPSC already had sufficient power to enact new safety rules. They had this power when the agency was created in the 1970's to develop safety standards, issue recalls, and ban certain products. If new lead regulation was needed, the agency could have acted on its own. It had that power. The idea that it required an "act of congress" to create new regulations was false. Perhaps Congress could have passed something that said, "We are increasing the fines and we expect new regulations that address concerns with lead in toys to be enacted within the next year." Maybe Nancy Nord didn't want to stick her neck out and actually accomplish something other than lobbyist paid trips.

Anyway, the CPSC has passed various regulations over the years. Flammability and sleepwear, painted metal, drawstrings, and children's jewelry. They even repealed one (Tris in pajamas). All this happened without much intervention from Congress. Does this agency not have a backbone? Let's repeal this act and let's allow industry and science be involved in the crafting the few rules that are needed.

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.