Simplicity 3295 and vintage pattern measurements

A reader asked a very interesting question

I have started sewing for my 20 month old son and some of his friends and was wondering if you have any experience with vintage patterns (1940's, 50's, 60's). Specifically I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on size variations. I'm sure you are familiar with the dramatic shifts in women's pattern sizes (the 1940's pattern size 12 is very different from the current pattern size 12)...I'm wondering if the same shifts occurred in children's sizes. Any thoughts you would be willing to pass on would be much appreciated!

This question was a little difficult for me to answer because I don't use home sewing patterns very often (not for children, anyway). They require too much work to correct. They have a lot of sloppy patternmaking. It is easier to pull out proven blocks and draft whatever style I want. I will buy a commercial pattern only when I have difficulty figuring out a more difficult design, such as a sleeper and then I only refer to it. I almost always draft my own patterns.

At one time, I thought a collection of vintage children's patterns would be pretty neat to have. I started collecting a while a go, but haven't added much to it. See, I don't actually look at the pattern pieces. Instead, I collect the patterns for design inspiration - in other words, I like the pretty pictures. I can draft patterns with the same style using my own personal blocks. This is one of the few vintage patterns I have from 1950.



I liked this pattern because it has an unusual skirt, pleated fullness in back and a gathered front waist. The bodice has a built-in cap/kimono sleeve. Besides, it is cute!

Now the question of sizing differences between then and now is also a difficult to answer. I haven't really done the research to be able to supply a truly adequate answer. I checked the measurements on the back of this envelope against my collection of measurement charts and the 1950 measurements fall within an acceptable range of contemporary measurements. In fact, the body measurements for this pattern were a little larger than today's measurements. I found this surprising considering the extensive reporting about childhood obesity. Of course, this is one style, in one size, from one company. I don't know how other vintage patterns may measure up. The best thing, of course, is to measure your own child and compare the measurements with the pattern envelope charts.

One difference that may exist between vintage and contemporary patterns is the amount of ease, design and wearing. Styles from the 1960's may fit closer to the body versus styles from the 1980's. This may cause one to think the patterns from the 60's were made to fit smaller people versus larger people in the 80's. The reality is that the prevailing styles influenced fit. It is helpful to try and look at the patterns from the correct perspective. Unless you are striving for authenticity, it is worth the time to draft your own patterns.

I haven't really seen a "vanity" sizing shift in children's clothing that is comparable to women's clothing. US Children's sizes are based on age designations. If anything, the sizing has become more specific. The 1950's may have had one infant size and then start with toddler sizing as 1, 2, 3, etc. Now, infant sizing is broken down by age too -- 0-3M, for example. Measurements are derived from the average measurements of children in each age grouping. Some consumers become frustrated by this sizing system because their children may vary from the norm (not to mention every manufacturer sizes differently). They may have a 2 year old child that actually wears a 4T. Trying on multiple sizes of one style can cause frustration in a changing room, if parents even take the time to try clothes on.

European sizing is evolving to a more intelligent sizing system. The Europeans are basing their sizing on height and weight measurements, available on hang tags and labels. Body size measurements are broken down by age grouping too, but they are not given age designations. This concept enables the consumer to buy the most appropriate size regardless of the age of the child.

Clothing for Children: Chapter 3, part 3

Essentials in the Layette

This section discusses what is needed in an infant layette. Diapers are considered one of the most important layette items to have, especially cloth diapers. Disposable diapers were available in 1949 but they were bulky and used mostly during travel. Disposable diapers have certainly improved since 1949 and many people use them. However, do we want to trade convenience for landfills brimming with diapers that don't decompose? It's past time to return to cloth diapers.

I will be the first to admit that I haven't paid much attention to cloth diapers. I have designed special occasion dresses for several years. When I think of cloth diapers, I think of diaper flannel. It's soft and absorbent. But there are many more choices today, not only in fabric but print and design. Suzanne from The Good Mama gave me a rundown of fabrics used in her diapers. Bamboo velour and organic cottons are both renewable resources, and soft, comfortable fabrics. The prints are adorable too.

In 1949 the typical diaper was a large rectangle of flannel fabric that was folded a certain way and pinned on with diaper pins. The diaper was then covered with rubber pants, wool soakers, or water-repellent batiste pants. The authors encouraged limited use of diaper covers because they did not breathe, especially the rubber pants. Wool soakers were preferred because they kept the baby dry and breathed. The wool soakers were made from a knit fabric.

The cloth diapers of today are engineered much better. They have closures like snaps and velcro - no need for diaper pins. They are absorbent and rarely leak, so no need for plastic diaper covers. They are constructed to withstand lots of washing. The fabrics are soft and more durable. The price may be a little higher, initially, than disposables but they will last a long time.

The rest of the chapter discusses all the rest of layette essentials, which is pretty common knowledge.

Clothing for Children: Chapter 3, part 2

The next section discusses safety. Imagine my surprise by the following statement:

A drawstring should not be used in the neck of a baby's garment. Such a string is dangerous, for it may get pulled too tight about the baby's neck and strangle him. Long ribbons, sometimes used as trimming on babies' clothing, are undesirable for the same reason.

This statement came from a publication published about 1949. The only difference between then and now is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued guidelines (links to a PDF) for children's outerwear (2T-16). Drawstrings are not permitted in clothing for this age group. While the agency does not include infants, it is almost a given that the same guidelines would apply. The drawstring issue is a continual battle. The CPSC issued a recall notice as recently as April 2007. So please be careful.

The chapter also mentions oft over-looked safety issues such as snaps and buttons. Snaps or buttons which easily pull off are considered choking hazards and the CPSC will issue recalls for items that fail. Buttons can break during laundering. If the wrong type of snap is used or the snaps are improperly applied, they can fall apart or pull out of the fabric. So test, test, test.

Finally, the chapter mentions the use of safety pins. In the past, safety pins have been used with cloth diapers. But any trimming attached with a safety pin is a big no-no. They are not only a potential choking hazard, but also a poking hazard. And yes, I have seen manufacturers try to use regular safety pins to attach trims. This is a picture of an acceptable pin back which may be used to attach removable trims such as silk flowers:


This pin back is nickel and has a safety latch. The sharp point is covered. It can either be hot-glued or stitched securely to an item.

A Word on Handford and Children's Sizes

I have previously blogged about Jack Handford's book Professional Pattern Grading (I like this grading book!). I just graded my basic infant bodices using Handford's grading charts and I just wanted to pass on a few insights.

If you read my blog on children's sizing (Too Many Sizes!), then you will know that there is a lot of variety in how manufacturer's lay out their size ranges. Handford is not really any different. His sizing breaks down like this:

3M, 6M, 12M, 18M, 24M, 36M

You will notice that the 9M size is missing. A 9M is considered a half size between 6M and 12M. Some manufacturers include it and others skip it. After studying dozens of measurement charts, I tend to favor skipping it. Children grow really fast in the first few months of life, so there is no need to include lots of possible sizes.

Another thing to consider is his 24m and 36M sizes. His toddler sizes break down like this:

1, 2, 3, 4

Except for boutique/specialty shop stores, you don't really see toddler sizes denoted like this. Normally, the toddler range is 2T, 3T, and 4T (some throw in a 5T). Anyway, there may be some overlap between the infant and toddler sizes with your patterns. This doesn't mean you can grade all of the infant and toddler sizes together. You will still need an infant block and a toddler block. You may have some shaping differences between the two.

It took me some time to wrap my brain around his grading instructions. I could look at the diagrams and see that this was the type of grading done in the industry. Even computer grading takes it's cues from this method. The actual grading process, however, varies from computerized grading.

I am accustomed to working with all of the pieces nested together. I can select a grading point and enter in the X,Y changes. It really is pretty simple. Handford has you grade one size at a time. After grading one size, you cut it out and use it to grade the next size. Precision is absolutely key because mistakes gradually increase with each size. I eventually got the hang of it and found it to be pretty easy. Once I had all of the sizes, I nested them on top of each other and I could see how well it worked. And it did work well.

So now I have two sets of infant bodice patterns using the Handford method and an adaptation of Aldrich's measurement charts. I am going to compare the two to see which I like better. So far, there doesn't seem to be too much disagreement between them. I am also trying to decide if I should add in a 9M. Right now, I am leaning toward Handford.

Clothing for Children: Chapter 3, part 1

I am going to do a series of posts on Chapter 3 of Clothing for Children because each section deserves its own emphasis. This is perhaps the best chapter in the book. It discusses standards, layettes, diapers, various pieces of clothing, etc.

The first section of the chapter is titled Standards for Infants' Clothing, pages 103-104. Most of the information is still relevant today and designers should keep these things in mind when designing. If you have an opinion or question of how these standards apply today, please leave a comment.

1. A baby's clothes should be made of material that is soft, pliable, and absorbent. Garments worn next to the skin, especially, should not be irritating.

2. The material should be durable, easily laundered, and, whenever possible, it should not require ironing.

3. The clothing should be light in weight but sufficient to keep the body at the normal uniform temperature of 98.6 degrees. The material and garment should both be constructed to allow ventilation.

4. The design of the garments should make them easy to put on and to remove. If you plan to make the garment, the design should be one easy to make.

5. The garments should be comfortable and allow freedom of movement.

6. The clothing should be well constructed with smooth flat seams and have easy simple fastenings.

7. The design, as well as any decoration, should be simple. Trimming should not add to the bulk of the garment. Baby's clothing should be attractive, but this does not depend on elaborateness.

8. The garments should be designed to allow for growth and development of muscles.

9. The garments should be safe.

Most of the standards seem pretty straight forward and practical. You can read my blog entry on Clothing for Children, Chapter 9 for my opinions about standard #7. I am not sure how to take standard #8. Most of the designs I have seen that allow for growth (such as an extra deep hem, tucks, etc), have been ugly. Plus, by the time a child has grown, the garment is worn out. I would like to see a practical solution to allowing for growth.

From a practical stand point, #2 is true for the majority of children's clothing sales. But as your price point moves up, the more likely that your customer may be willing to buy a dry clean or hand wash item. A higher price point customer expects specialty fabrics and they are willing to buy them despite special care. Still, I think higher-end designers tend to go overboard with feather boa trimmings and sparkles. There is a happy medium somewhere.

The point of #3 is that babies need to have their temperature moderated. Not too hot or too cold. It would be easy to assume that babies need to be bundled up all of the time, but it is better to remove or add layers as needed.

Finally, the authors give some sage advice. They suggest buying minimum amounts of clothing before the baby arrives. It is hard to know the size of the baby until born, plus babies grow fast. It is wiser to invest in clothing as needed. At baby showers moms are overwhelmed by lots of clothing sized 0-3M. If you do buy clothing to give, try buying clothes sized 6-12M as that size is mostly overlooked.