Grading Pants Notes pt. 1

The following are my notes on grading infant-toddler pants. Having a copy of the Jack Handford grading manual will be helpful in understanding what these notes mean. Hopefully you have at least read the introduction and the instructions for grading a bodice. If you don't have a copy of the book, save these notes anyway - they may come in handy.

These are the first of my notes on grading pants using the Jack Handford book. Part one of these notes is an explanation about directions and movements of the pattern pieces. Later I will talk specifically about grading pants, shorts, and what I think is a mistake in the children's chapter. Handford's book is a textbook and like most design text books he starts with grading women's styles. The book progresses from woman's bodices, pants, and skirts, to men's styles, and finally to children. When design/pattern making/grading book authors finally get to the children's info, the information becomes abbreviated and incomplete (if they include it at all). Handford's book is different because he does include infant and toddler information and it is more complete than any other grading manual out there. Still, he falls into the same trap. He assumes the student has worked through all of the previous chapters before arriving at the children's chapter. He assumes you have a strong grading background and understand his method completely. But what about those who have no interest in grading woman's clothing and skip ahead to the chapters with the most relevant information? This is what I did.

Now I do have a strong grading background - computer grading. Hand and computer grading are similar and Handford's method is how it is done in the industry. The direction of the grading is done in a similar fashion. The grade rules are similar. The grade steps are the same. But physically moving a hard, paper pattern around versus selecting points and entering relative coordinates is different. Despite that, I have a general sense of how a pattern should grow or shrink between sizes - and that helped me finally understand Handford's method better.

To start out, you will need to compare the grade instructions for women's pants to children. If you turn to page 79 (grading of women's back pant), you will notice arrows with words around each pattern piece. The arrows look like this drawing. If you flip over to the toddler pant grade (page 225), you will see arrows, but no words. It is at this point that Handford assumes you will know what direction is In, Out, Up, or Down. Now study the drawings of the women's pant and the children's pant. Do you see any other differences? There is one major difference that threw me off - I'll explain later...

The next thing to understand are directions. All patterns will move IN, OUT, UP, or DOWN. Handford shows how this works on page 6 in relation to a bodice. The children's chapter doesn't have these extra helps. So I drew arrows like on the right and below to help remind me of grading direction. I added the words to body center or to body side to remind me of how to move the pattern IN or OUT. As you can see, IN or OUT can change depending on whether you are grading a left or right piece (applies to front or back too). Directions may change again when grading darts. Be sure to study styles with darts to see the changes. Infant-Toddler styles do not have darts, so movements will occur like these drawings. Movements UP move toward the body head and DOWN toward the feet. UP and DOWN movements are always the same.

I hope I haven't thoroughly confused anyone yet. I felt like this brief explanation of the notation and movements was necessary before getting into more detail.

If you have questions, please leave them in comments.

Drawstrings and Child Safety

Below is an article that I wrote about Drawstrings. It appeared at Fashion-Incubator on December 17, 2007. This edition includes a picture of a bib with bias ties that was not previously included.

In 1996 the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) created guidelines for the use of drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. The guidelines specifically target drawstrings found in the hoods and waistlines of sweatshirts. They were created after reports of several injuries and even death of children who wore such clothing that became entangled. The guideline applies to clothing sized 2T-16 and is considered voluntary.

CPSC’s drawstring guidelines do not represent a standard or mandatory requirement set by the agency. And, while CPSC does not sanction them as the only method of minimizing drawstring injuries, CPSC believes that these guidelines will help prevent children from strangling by their clothing drawstrings.

Even though the guideline is considered voluntary, it would be in a DE's best interest to follow them. In the first two weeks of December 2007, there have been 5 recalls of children's clothing with drawstrings!



The latest recalls are representative of the type of drawstring issues that keep showing up. The jacket has a drawstring at the waist (picture does not show it). The two pants are borderline with the ties at the waistline. They are not technically drawstrings, but they are knotted belts. The belt on the jeans appears to be stitched to the belt loops, but is being recalled because it is a related style to the other. The bright pink shirt with long pink ties are located near the neck. The hooded striped sweaters have knotted velvet ribbon ties. All of these products were found in major department and chain stores. The irony is all of these stores should know better because these guidelines have been in place for over ten years. The buyers should know. The quality auditors should know. The manufacturers should know. The technical designers should know. And yet, the problem continues to show up. As you can see, there is broad interpretation with the guideline and how it is applied. The original guideline applies to outerwear and the recalled jacket certainly fits. But what about the recalled t-shirt and pants?

The difficulty comes with understanding the difference between an industry standard, voluntary guideline, regulation, and law. For example, the lead levels in painted products began as a guideline and has now morphed into a regulation that can result in severe fines and penalties if not properly followed. The transition began with voluntary recalls by manufacturers and the CPSC. As the public became more aware of the problem and the danger explained, children's products that contain lead are now under mandatory recall. I believe the drawstring guideline is starting to go down the same path. The pattern right now is in voluntary recalls and public information. As public awareness increases, there will be public pressure to make this guideline a law or regulation. From a public or consumer point of view there is no difference between a voluntary guideline, regulation or law.What began as a voluntary guideline for drawstrings in upper outer wear for children 2T-16 has resulted in unintended consequences for related products. Any childrenswear designer has to question the use of ties for any age child in any piece of clothing. Potential sources of strangulation or entrapment are everywhere. Consider this bib:

This bib was purchased about 2 years ago from a discount retailer. Pre-guidelines, this bib would have been sold with knots on the end of the bias bindings. Now, it is sold without the knots. Yet, it becomes a strangulation issue because the ties could still become caught in a high chair. Do the guidelines cover this too? Sure there are other types of closures, but they pose potential choking hazards. Snaps, buttons, and velcro pieces can come loose if not applied properly. What to do? Feed the baby naked and hose them down afterward?

Other products that can cause concern:

• Bibs with ties made of bias binding, ribbon, or fabric.
• Girls dresses with waist ties made of fabric or trim. The ties may contribute to the design of the dress, but also provide a fitting mechanism.
• Dresses with detached sashes. Some sashes may measure 60-72 inches and are not permanently affixed to the garment.
• Dresses, tops, or pants with added trim that may be loose, especially ribbon dangles.
• Hats with ties made of ribbon or fabric.
• Hats with straps, either attached on both ends or attached on one end with some type of closure on the other.

I am sure blog readers could come up with other examples. When you take safety issues to the extreme, there are all sorts of hidden dangers in clothing. From a realistic and practical design perspective, you can not design a 100% safe product. The pressure is more extreme with children's clothing. No one wants to unintentionally injure or contribute to the injury of a child. What to do?

I have had employers and DE's ask me (I question myself) about products on the above list. I don't have an easy answer for them. The first place I turn to is the CPSC website. There are no further guidelines other than the drawstring guideline issued in 1996. The next place to look for industry standards is ASTM. ASTM has the same drawstring standards as the CPSC, but charges you $30 for a licensed copy (read ASTM licensing requirements before purchasing anything from them. You might be surprised at the kind of restrictions you will be under). Another option (not necessarily the best) is to look and see what other companies are doing. How long are their waist ties on dresses, for example? The concern is that even major retailers have trouble following their own internal guidelines (and yes, most of them do have internal guidelines regarding drawstrings). Finally, your company can come up with your own company standard.

I would prefer a voluntary industry standard for the above listed products. I think this is something that can be done. In this endeavor, I am currently working on a letter to send to the CPSC, and possibly ASTM. I will be requesting further clarification on drawstrings and ties in children's clothing, especially for infants. The drawstring conversation is just beginning. Post any comments or questions you might have about this issue.

Aldrich vs. Armstrong pattern drafting books

The two most useful (IMO) books for children's pattern making are by Winifred Aldrichand Helen Armstrong. There are others, but I rarely consider them because they lack essential information, and/or are outdated. Some of you may ask about Childrenswear Design by Hilda Jaffe and Rosa Rosa. IMO, Childrenswear Design offers a decent overview of the biz but lacks a lot of detail in the pattern making chapter. Both Aldrich and Armstrong are good references, though I have a stronger preference for one over the other. Tiki has left some interesting comments on another blog entry about her comparison of Aldrich vs. Armstrong. I thought it might be useful to reprint them in a separate blog entry. I'll follow up with my own opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of each book.

From Tiki:

I've been doing the same, pouring over measuring charts and re-working patterns. My 4 y.o. is my fit model, though, so I do have the luxury (ha!) of dressing her up when I need a fit, but it's by no means easier than having a dress form that won't want to dance around the room while I'm trying to check the fit.

Thank you so much for your explanation below about the flat patterns. I meant to respond earlier, but then got caught up in the holiday madness. Anyway, after much pondering conceptually over the "right" pattern method, I was encouraged by your explanation, especially that it's the fit that matters, not so much the method for getting there. I know that probably sounds simple and obvious, but since I have no formal patternmaking training, everything is a learning experience and I sometimes get stymied because I want to do everything "right." So I finally put pencil to paper to draft Aldrich's and Armstrong's patterns and compare them to mine. My patterns are a more like Aldrich's classic, although my armhole shape isn't quite as cut out (so my armhole is somewhat in between her flat and classic). I think the shoulder width on her flat block is too wide, but I guess that's part of what creates a boxier fit versus the slimmer fit of her classic block.

I did notice that Aldrich seems to modify the front armhole and lowers the front shoulder slope even in her "flat" blocks for wovens (on the infant woven on p. 25 and on the body/shirt block on p. 39), although it's not as pronounced as in her classic block (on p. 89). And when I cut out my front and back patterns for the classic block and woven flat block, the shape and contrast between the front and back of each are not that different. In other words, the difference in the armhole shape between the front of the classic and the back of the classic is very similar to the difference in the armhole shape between the front woven flat block and the back woven flat block (I laid the fronts over the backs and compared). Of course, the armhole shaping between the front classic block and the front woven flat block are significantly different, as are the back classic and back woven flat. I'm not sure exactly what that means, really, except that she seems to apply the "true" flat (meaning identical front and back except for the neckline) as you suggested to casual knit boxy styles like t-shirts (which she drafts also for older children on p. 45).

One more thing about Aldrich's book that I find confusing. I do prefer her drafting method to Armstrong's (for children, I haven't done anything with either of their adult patterns)--it seems simpler because it uses fewer complicated measurements (I suppose because she makes certain educated assumptions about the slope of the shoulder, etc rather than using actual measurements).

However, her book seems a bit schizophrenic, like several people drafted different patterns and she compiled them into one book. For example, the points (0,1,2,3, etc) are not in the same places in her various patterns--sometimes point 0 is center front and sometimes it is a point just above center front that lines up with the inner shoulder. Then her patternmaking steps are not consistent throughout. Sometimes she measures the width from this point 0 and then squares down and sometimes she measures the width from the center chest and then squares from there. Her patterns all end up with the same basic shape and I found following her drafting instructions for each pattern very straightforward. But I think comparing one pattern to another is difficult because in one pattern point 3 is at center chest and on another pattern point 7 is at center chest and point 3 is somewhere else. Maybe it's just my inexperience, but I found it more difficult when trying to compare, say, the chest width ease from one pattern to another, than if she followed the same drafting steps for each bodice.

I do love both books as they are great at explaining how/where to modify patterns for different styles. And I like having two resources to compare--they are both a wealth of knowledge.

If you draft your own versions from each method, I would be interested in hearing your comments. I agree with a lot of what Tiki has said about the ease of drafting Aldrich over Armstrong. Though I prefer Armstrong for some things. I am fairly certain that Aldrich created all of the drafts in her book. I think the points of reference are unique to each draft and can't be used for comparison between drafts. It may make things simpler if they were consistent. Also some of the differences may come down to European vs. American fit and expectations. Europeans tend to fit closer to the body - Americans have a boxier fit.

Anyway, here is a brief run down of the highlights (positive & negative) of each book:

Aldrich (third edition)

• Backs up measurement charts with her own measurement studies
• Simpler drafting, though some instructions may be difficult to follow
• Includes Infant sizing and basic infant drafts
• Draft instructions for flat and classic blocks
• The only book that comes close to how things are done in the industry
• The only nitpick I had was the shaping of some of her basic blocks. I agree with Tiki on the shoulder slope, shoulder width and the neckline circumference. These are easy things to adjust once you have a draft to work with. I also did not like her cap sleeve shaping - another thing that was easy to fix.

Armstrong (second edition)

• Design variations are laid out on separate pages and not squished together like Aldrich.
• Step by step draft instructions
• Easy to read measurement chart, though her chart starts at size 3
• Chapter on knitwear
• Ignores infants
• Sleeve drafts have too much ease

Lead Test Kits

I had a light bulb moment. Why not use this kit to test trims like buttons, zippers, and metal trims. When I buy buttons, I have no idea where they come from because I buy them from a jobber. All I receive is a bag of buttons. Lead testing at a certified lab can be expensive, not to mention the extreme backlog that is occurring right now. Lead tests start at $35 and can vary by lab. (BTW, getting pricing information is extremely difficult and requires lots of phone calling). Why not use one of these kits?

Consumer Reports states that the kits are only useful for detecting high concentrations of surface lead. False positives/negatives are a real possibility. The CPSC says there are no reliable home lead test kits. The CPSC is in conflict with Consumer Reports and it is difficult to know who to believe. CR actually used the test kits to check toys in actual use by children. Any toys that indicated high lead levels were sent for further testing. The results were surprising as they found some toys not on any recall list with extremely high levels.

While no one should rely solely on the home test lead kits for definitive information, I think it could at least give an indication of a problem. I may buy a kit despite what the CPSC says.

Here are some links to testing labs that require further research. At this point, I can't recommend one over the other. These labs can test for lead as well as most textile testing.

Intertek
STR - lab highlighted by an ABC news article, also does textile testing
Bureau Veritas - formerly Acts Testing

Standard Pattern Blocks- Flat vs. Classic

Tiki left some questions in comments and I thought I would address them in a separate blog entry.

I am reworking some of my patterns and have both Aldrich's and Armstrong's books as well. As you mentioned, I have noticed that my own kids' clothes from various manufacturers are drafted "flat" as Aldrich describes it, with the front and back patterns basically identical except for the neckline, but was wondering if you could explain more why that is the standard.

Here is a picture of what Tiki is talking about. Aldrich is the only other person I know of that addresses this topic. It is true that most childrenswear manufacturers work off of flat blocks, especially for infants. Aldrich only presents it for infant casual clothing. But I have seen variations of the idea spanning all children's sizes.


My basic blocks are a variation of the flat method. The armholes and shoulders of the front and backs pieces are identical. The body widths match (the long vertical line indicates the center back/front). The flat fit is a little more boxy and loose. My fit is not too boxy, but it does allow for some growth. You can see the fit of this bodice on one of my dresses. The patterns are not too boxy because the side seams do taper inward and my front waist has some curve. Aldrich's patterns have a straight side seam and waistline. BTW, I am not done refining the shape of this pattern - I am considering narrowing the shoulders and reducing the armhole. You have to start somewhere with your patterns, and they will evolve as you refine your fit.

I have read the discussion of armhole and sleeve shaping from Kathleen's blog and book and was wondering if the standard in the children's wear industry is due to simplicity in drafting, etc (perhaps because there is more ease built into the design of the garment itself) or if there is a specific anatomical/physical reason that makes drafting the asymmetrical sleeve/armhole unnecessary in children's wear. I guess, in other words, is that only the standard in loose children's garments or would drafting a more fitted children's garment with the same symmetrical sleeve still be correct/standard?

I can't say for sure why this is the standard. It is definitely not something I learned in school, but rather on the job. Tiki's instincts are probably right. There is a simplicity in the drafting of flat pattern blocks, and it does save some time. There is a physical limitation too. The smaller the size, the less practical it becomes to draft a classic block. A flat block gives some wearing ease and allows for growth. Children, after all, grow and a little extra ease allows the clothing to be worn longer. And yes, you can draft a more fitted bodice block with symmetrical armholes/sleeves. That is what I did with my patterns because it is what looked right to me. Here are some pictures of a classic, fitted block with asymmetric armholes (click on images for a better view).

This is a set of classic bodices sized three month. You can see the small armhole - there is little room to draw a nice curve. The back armhole is nearly a straight line. These drafts are based off of Aldrich's book. A classic block would be more appropriate for larger sizes.





This is a corresponding sleeve with an asymmetric sleeve cap. The sleeve cap seems really high and the curves are abrupt, IMO. These blocks could certainly work, but they require more refining. I opted to modify my blocks so they were semi-fitted and flat. The curves are easier and sewing is easier.

There is a relationship with children's body shapes and the flat method. Young children are simple round cylindrical shapes until about the age of 5 and it makes sense to keep the patterns simple.

I'm having difficulty understanding from Aldrich's book what makes the "flat" block or "classic" block more appropriate for a particular style, so I wondered what was standard practice here in the industry. I hope this makes sense.

I look at it this way. Flat blocks are good for casual styles, like t-shirts. Classic blocks are good for more formal looks. Flat blocks are good for infant sizes, classic for older. Your fit and look defines your design and you can opt for either method. Usually I see a modified classic block for fit, but with symmetrical armholes and shoulders (perhaps more of a convention rather than a standard). I have seen some designers use only classic blocks and others only flat. Really, the decision is up to you.

This is a topic I am still researching and trying to understand. I hate to label flat blocks as a standard because there are several possible methods that may be considered "right" or the "standard". Pattern making is considered a technical, rigid system, but don't be afraid to do things your way. I learn things from those who do not have formal training and are not afraid to do things a little different. Sure there are certain accepted standards for labeling patterns or placing notches. Acceptable shaping and fit is open to interpretation.