Dress Design by Hillhouse and Mansfield

I have been looking for Dress Design by Hillhouse and Mansfield (1948) for years. It was a hot item on Ebay at one time and sold for much, much more than it was probably worth. This book has become highly collectible because it contains detailed pattern draping and drafting instructions for 1940's women's clothing design.  I found a very nice copy of this book for a mere $2 at a thrift store. I knew if I kept my eyes open at the thrift store, it would eventually show up and I checked the used books every time I was there. Yep, I was quite excited to finally find this!

This book came to my attention in design school. There was an advanced pattern making/theater class that utilized this book as a textbook. The book was, of course, long out of print and the college gained special permission to print special spiral bound copies. Word spread among the design students about this book and copies of the book would sell out before some of the students of that class could even buy their copies. I was never able to grab a copy when I was in school.

You can see from these two pages that the designs are iconic and also complex. It's these two characteristics that makes the books so highly desireable and collectible to people who wish to reproduce a 1940's vintage style. Many of these styles would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in a modern factory. The labor charges would be enormous. Regardless, this pattern drafting manual would be a great resource to study and learn from. I have not yet attempted any of the drafting instructions, so I can't comment on the difficulty. For me the book is for inspiration.

Wedding Dress Care/Content Labeling follow-up

I admit that sometimes I make mistakes. A person reading my previous blog entry on a wedding care/content label pointed out some inaccuracies in how I wrote my suggested label. The FTC has some guidelines on how to write labels, both for content and care. I've read these instructions many times, but I sometimes need a refresher. Yes, it would be a good idea for anyone who has to write labels to read the instructions themselves rather than rely on a blog entry (or an anonymous commenter).*

Care instructions follow the general form:

Washing
Bleaching
Drying
Ironing
Warnings

If a dress truly cannot be dry cleaned, then the label should include that instruction. My label suggestion would be more accurate if I had included that instruction. I had also placed the bleaching instruction in the wrong order. Perhaps a better, more accurate, and perhaps correct label (changes in bold) would read:

100% Polyester
Do not dry clean.
Hand wash or
Spot clean in cold
water with mild
soap. Do not bleach.
Hang to dry.
Do not iron.
Made in China
RN12345 (<------ Made up)
---------------------
Avoid the use of
alcohol based products
such as hairspray,
perfume, etc., as these
may damage the dress.

The commenter also pointed out that if there is a reasonable basis for care instructions, then a manufacturer does not need to destroy a dress to prove it. I guess the question that must be determined is what is reasonable? In my opinion (and just for this commenter, this IS my opinion, for what it's worth), a new wedding dress manufacturer should destroy a few dresses to prove their labels. If you think something can be dry cleaned, you should be able to prove it. Same with any other care instructions. Over time, you may be able to reduce the type and amount of testing provided you do not change your component parts. This is probably the reason behind some of the testing requirements in the CPSIA. When you change a component (sometimes even from the same source), you have introduced a variable which may result in different testing guidelines.

I know wedding dresses are expensive, even the initial samples. Is it reasonable that every dress be tested to prove the care instructions? I am not sure every manufacturer goes to that extreme. But it is reasonable that a few have been. Testing a whole complete unit is the only way to test for compatibility of components. Testing a whole complete unit will tell you what a customer will experience. Wedding dresses have a lot of sentimental value and you wouldn't want a customer to have a dress ruined by poor or incorrect cleaning instructions. But this decision is best left to the manufacturer and the responsibility they are willing to bear if something were to go wrong.

As a manufacturer develops, it is reasonable to also test components. It is common for a manufacturer to use the same polyester satin in multiple styles and all they do is change up the trimming. In this case, the satin has probably been washed tested a few times and they know how it should be cleaned. But the trimming is different. In this case, I take some yardage, stitch the trim on and wash it (or dry clean it) - multiple times.

I can recall some concern I had about some flocked glitter on a chiffon. The glitter can fall off because the dry cleaning solvents will dissolve the glue. Washing by hand or machine can cause the glitter to fall off due to abrasion. So we tested various scenarios and came up with a reasonable basis for care. The same scenario can be applied to beads. Though I must say, based on my experience testing, some beads can be dry cleaned and some cannot. Some will fall apart even when hand washing. You won't know unless you test.

It is reasonable that a manufacturer has proof for the testing they recommend. I believe this includes documentation. You won't have documentation unless you test something. These days, I am not sure that a government regulator will appreciate your good intentions or your word without some kind of proof.

And finally, it is true that the CPSIA does not specifically mention wash testing (as I stated in my previous blog entry). It does imply that any testing be done by a certified 3rd party lab. When I worked various private label programs for Big Box stores, they required wash testing by an approved 3rd party testing lab. At that time we were able to negotiate creating an in-house wash testing program to save money. We were required to submit a copy of our test results with the 3rd party testing reports to the technical designers of the big box stores. In the days of CPSIA, I imagine this is no longer possible (I haven't worked on any private label programs in a while, so someone else who has will have to clarify this point). So while the law may not specifically mention wash testing by a certified lab, Big Box retailers might require it anyway. This is thus my reasoning for why I said what I said.

*When I wrote my original blog entry, the FTC site was down and had been down for a few weeks. My intention was to verify and correct my article and I didn't do that because I couldn't. It was one of those things that fell off my radar and I didn't get back to it. My apologies to anyone if I misled. I appreciate comments that politely correct me when I have misstated something. However, I won't print comments that are insulting and offensive.

Warning: Tagless labels in baby clothes and the CPSIA

My sister sent me an update on the problem. It appears that the re-formulated paints may include latex tainted paint, similar to silk screen paint. My niece had another reaction even worse than previous because her entire back flared up red. The pediatrician suggested my niece now has a latex allergy and possible nickel allergy. Latex allergies can develop over time with multiple exposures.

Well over two years ago, Carter's and the CPSC issued an advisory to parents about tagless or heat transfer labels located in the back neck of their clothing. They had received reports that the labels were causing allergic reactions and irritation. The advisory stated that the reported incidents were rare and a small percentage of the thousands of units produced. The affected product was primarily the Fall 2007 line. This means the product was manufactured early 2007 or late 2006.

It is difficult to know what ingredient in the labels is causing the reaction. Some have suggested formaldehyde. Others suggest it is the pthalates, which exist at a far higher concentration than other products. It is puzzling that with documented problems that neither Carter's or the CPSC have done a more thorough investigation. Instead the CPSC is bogged down with debates over the amount of lead in the brass ball of an ink pen or whether a bicycle manufacture can use lead in a tire valve. Surely the CPSIA, that ultimate guardian of children's safety would not have allowed this kind of problem to persist. One has to wonder where the consumer protection groups are on this? Why aren't they making a big stink?

You would think that a product that proved to be a problem would have been resolved by now. No. Carter's released their Spring 2009 line with a reformulated ink and label style - two years later. Because there was no product recall there is an untold amount of product still floating around. (Even with a recall, there would still be a lot of product out there because recalls rarely recover 100% of sold merchandise).

You can accuse me of hysteria or panic if you choose. I'm most guilty of cynicism about federal regulations that don't seem to actually accomplish intended goals. But the reason I am writing this is because my youngest niece suffered a reaction to a tagless label. I was even more incensed when I saw this picture.

You see this label does not even belong to Carter's. It's an Arizona Jean Co. bodysuit, a private label product for JCPenny. The brown around the label is actually my niece's blood! You can see the rash on her back below.

My sister purchased the bodysuit in Fall of 2008 in anticipation of need later in 2009. It wasn't after her baby had worn the bodysuit a few times that she realized the source of the problem. My sister reported the problem to JCPenny and was told she would be refunded her money and receive new product. She was also advised to report the problem to the CPSC herself (which she is doing). Huh? Since I have worked on private label programs for JCPenny, I know how meticulous and thorough they are with safety. This is surprising to say the least.

This is all rather troubling. Doesn't the CPSC require companies to report safety problems immediately? Of course the CPSC may receive a report but how long will it take for them to react, especially now? This problem illustrates how upside down the whole system has become*. We focus all of our energy in silly debates about ink pens, ban rhinestones with no bio-available lead and spend all of our time recalling toys with minuscule amounts of lead - all with no reported injuries. Compare that with the many reports of injuries related to these labels, and we get, well, nothing.


Spring 2009 is two years after the initial reports. Why so long? Why not switch to traditional labeling in the interim? Carter's claims they went tagless to improve the comfort factor - no scratchy label. Well, a scratchy label can be cut out and the problem removed. A tagless label on a baby's bodysuit is not easily removed and must be thrown out. After all this, I think I prefer traditional labels.

*In fairness, the CPSC is working on a consumer database to report incidents as required by law. They are in the process of comment gathering and workshops. Problems can be reported now, but the information required by the CPSIA is not publicly available. If anything, the CPSC should look at a complete overhaul of their entire website which is a disorganized mess. But that is an argument for another day.