How to find body measurement charts for children

This blog entry is part of a series on The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

There are a lot of children's body measurement charts floating around the Internet. But are they reliable? The answer to that question is difficult to determine. I have looked at some of the free charts out there and some are pretty good and others definitely have some anomalies. While I won't single out any particular chart, I would urge some caution on relying on whatever you can find freely on the Internet.

Some of the anomalies include inconsistent body measurements and differences between sizes. This may sound odd because you would expect that a size should measure what it measures. Having read a few measurement studies, the raw data that backs up body measurements are inconsistent between the sizes. But that raw data is difficult to work with, especially when it comes to grading. So statisticians and data analysts take the raw data and average it out. Then they take the average body measurements and adjust the numbers up or down small amounts to obtain numbers that are easy to work with as a convenience for pattern making and grading. This type of data manipulation does not result in fit anomalies as might be expected despite cries of vanity sizing and inaccuracies.

It's hard to say how these free charts available on the Internet came about. I suspect many of them are based off of cribbed data from various retailers. Some may be based on measuring some children. Some may be straight from official measurement studies. Regardless, caution is warranted.

You can use the free charts on the Internet, if you choose. It may be a place to start. It may also be a source of frustration if things aren't working quite right in your product development.

However, there are places to acquire body measurement charts. Some free, some not.

ASTM is an organization that develops standards, including body measurement standards. However, there standards are not free and contain restrictions on their use. This is the place for the most up-to-date measurement standards with sizing studies to back most of it up. Search for these standards on the Internet to find them.

D4910 - Size standard for infants, sizes preemie -24M

D6860 - Size standard for Boys, sizes 6-24, Husky

D6192 - Size standard for Girls, sizes 2-20, (Regular and Slim), plus sizes

D6829 - Size standard for Juniors, size 0-19

The U.S. government created a series of body measurement standards, which were in use into the 1980's. They were later withdrawn in favor of the ASTM standards. However, these charts are in the public domain and can still be found with some difficulty. In recent years the government has even pulled these from the Internet. They may still be found at government document repositories located within various libraries around the country or requested through standards.gov. I include complete copies of these standards in my book The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes. I created cleaned up versions of these standards that are easier to read in the appendix. I also include missing measurements from the original standard, which are the neck circumference, hand, and foot lengths and widths.

CS151-50 - Children

PS45-71 - Young Men

PS36-70 - Boys

PS54-72 - Girls

It is true that the withdrawn standards are a bit out of date. However, even the purchased, most up-to-date measurement charts from ASTM are based on this earlier standard. ASTM has added some sizes and refined some of the body measurements, but the similarities are still there. In other words, you can use the withdrawn standards as a good starting point in your product development and not be too far off. You will at least have a better foundation than using body measurement charts from unknown sources with questionable measurement data.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

Can children's clothing sizes be improved?

This blog is part of a series about The Essential Guide To Children's Clothing.

Any person that shops for children's clothing often becomes frustrated in their shopping experience. There appears to be a disconnect between what the retailer or brand are stating is one size and what the child actually fits. Why does this happen? Is there a better way?

It is true that age based size labels are sometimes inaccurate, or at least appear inaccurate. A child's body size and shape is influenced by a lot of different factors. Those factors include genetics, ethnicity, income demographic, diet, and nutrition. Children's clothing sizes vary because of this and other factors.

Manufacturers specialize on product type and a customer profile. This is true even in children's clothing. There is a size standard which exists for children's clothing, but manufacturers and designers will adapt or modify their product to fit their customer profile. This is not a bad thing. Children are individuals with their own unique characteristics. 

Many people complain that there needs to be a clear standard and by conforming to that standard we will solve sizing problems. Is it realistic to compel the industry to conform to a single size standard for children? By doing this, you will be guaranteed to never find clothing that fits all children at all times. There would always be a child that will not find clothing that fits if there is only one standard. Flexibility is needed in such a diverse marketplace. So while there is a general size standard that can be purchased, it may or may not be followed all that closely.

There are ways to make things easier for customers. Providing clear size charts and how to measure guides in the retail store and online can help customers select the right size. While it may be frustrating, customers have the ability to shop the market for alternate brands or sizes that fit their child. Variation is actually a good thing.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

How did children's clothing sizes originate?

This blog entry is part of a series on The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

If you were to shop for children's clothing in any department or big box store, you will find the clothing arranged by sizes and age. Baby/Infant, Toddler, 4-6x, and 7-16 sizes are sub-categories of children's clothing sizes that have an association with the age of a child.

In the early 1900's, children's clothing sizes were even more general. There were two simple general sizes - infant and child. At that time children's clothing was still made at home. As the industrial revolution continued to gain steam, children's clothing eventually became available in retail stores. Retailers quickly realized they needed a way to market children's clothing to parents. They also wanted to provide a wider range of sizes so they could sell more product. With the influence of George F. Earnshaw and the trade organizations that existed at that time, retailers and manufacturers adopted a size system for children's clothing with size labels based on age.

Age based sizing became the de facto standard for children's clothing in the United States. It is a system that evolved almost naturally for practical reasons. It was easy to understand by everyone including manufacturers, retailers, and customers. It was a practical way to organize and market product.

This system continued without any confirmation from any sizing studies for many years. So in that vain, the U.S. Home Economics Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture commissioned a body measurement study of children in the 1930's. The goal of the study was to understand, improve, and formalize children's clothing sizes. This study both confirmed what the industry was already doing but also suggested an entirely different size organization and labeling system. For a more complete explanation, refer to the Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

The 1930's study was ground breaking. Nothing like it had ever been done previously, and it became the method that all future body measurement studies followed. Europe appears to have their own children's clothing sizes, but the reality is even Europe and Great Britain used the 1939 study results as the basis for their size systems. Europe and Great Britain have since switched to metric measurements and have also conducted their own body measurement studies. Regardless, there is a lot of similarity to the U.S. system.

For this and more, see The Essential Guide to Children's Clothing Sizes.

Home sewing patterns for newborns

I received this question about commercial sewing patterns:

Supposedly the XXS size on commercial patterns (McCalls, Simplicity, Butterick) is supposed to be for babies 7 lbs or less, but they swallow newborns up. If you read around the Internet, there are lots of frustrated grandmothers and mothers-to-be that want to sew for their new or expected baby, but can't find a pattern that will fit. I read that doll clothing patterns don't work because the neck is wrong for a human infant. I tried buying vintage layette patterns from Etsy and they were just as bad. I want to know how to downsize a commercial XXS dress or romper pattern so it fits a NEW 7-8 lb baby. I am sick of gowns and knit sleepers. - Pam

It has been a long time since I have sewn children's clothing from commercial sewing patterns. What I do remember is they are big. Too big. The proportions are bit off too. I don't know why either. Those companies have their own pattern blocks and I suspect they have not really updated or checked them in a long time.

Design school does not spend all that much time on children's clothing. I know there are few pattern making manuals that really get the sizing right, though sizing (exact measurements) is less of an issue than you might think. Regardless of where you start, you will have to make adjustments for fit. Only one manual even addresses infant clothing, and that book is Metric Pattern Cutting for Children's Wear and Babywear by Winifred Aldrich. I have a previous edition, but it covers most of what you might need. For Americans, the book is in metric. I didn't really have a problem drafting basic blocks using metric. You just need a metric ruler, though I did convert back and forth to see if I was on target. But even after drafting your basic blocks, you will need to make adjustments to the pattern until you get the fit you want. I have learned quite a bit by trial and error over many years.


For the home sewist, this is probably not all that practical. There is not really an easy way to size down a home sewing pattern that already has proportion issues (even Burda, which I prefer over the others). The biggest problem with some of the sewing patterns are tops are too wide, pant legs are too short just as examples. You could begin by folding out some of the width. But I can't say how much as it would probably depend on the style and desired size. In other words, no matter what, there will be a bit of back and forth. I guess my advice would be don't be afraid to experiment. Measure your baby and the sewing pattern and reduce width and length as needed. It is a bit of a challenge to measure a baby, but it really is the only way to arrive at your end goal. I wish there was some other way. Perhaps there are some indie sewing patterns for newborns? Please leave suggestions if you know of any.

Grading from body measurements pt. 3

This is part three of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here, part two here. I recommend reading the previous parts of this series before reading this one.

So what were the results of Schofield's experiment? I can't reproduce the actual results here, but it was something like this.

Imagine the square is a bodice pattern piece in one size. The star is supposed to be the same pattern piece but graded to the next size. Clearly, the two shapes have no proportional relationship to each other. The problem is further compounded by a different grade for corresponding pieces.

Imagine these are front and back bodice pattern pieces. Each corresponding pattern piece was graded separately based on the measurement data for that body location. Now imagine trying to sew the front and back together. It can't be done. Schofield freely admits the difficulty in the results. Though she also believes we need to learn how to deal with new shapes in pattern pieces in order to achieve superior fit.

Schofield's experiment left me with a lot of questions. I did not understand completely why she rejected the ASTM measurement data, nor why she went back to essentially raw data. Her grading methodology left me a bit confused. The results were clearly not suitable for industry application. Superior fit is the holy grail of fashion, but I'm not convinced that grading is the entire source of the problem. Superior fit, for each individual might only be achieved on an individual basis. In this case, 3D body scanning and customized clothing is the answer, but is it practical?

I would like to see this experiment repeated. The factors that will impact additional experiments are the measurement data and grading methodology. Why not use ASTM measurement data? Why not use traditional grading methods? I always support those who are willing to test ideas and theories. This was a worthy attempt by Schofield to ask important why and how questions.

Grading from body measurements pt. 2

This is part two of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here.

My initial reaction to the idea of grading from body measurements was, "Well, of course we should." And in fact, we do for children's clothing. It seemed rather obvious to me to look at children's clothing as a model. Children's sizing is based on the idea of growth, meaning that the measurement intervals between sizes are not always consistent.

Let's look at an example for a 4-6x size range.*

For sizes  4, 5, 6, 6x
Chest: 23, 24, 25, 25.5
Waist: 21.5, 22, 22.5, 23
Hip: 23.5, 24.5, 25.5, 26.5

The grade works out to be, choosing size 5 as the base size:
Chest: 1, 0, 1, 1.5
Waist: 0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.5
Hip: 1, 0, 1, 1

In this example, we have a 1" chest grade, except for size 6x which is 1.5". The waist is a 0.5" inch grade and the hip returns to a 1" grade for all sizes. Each body measurement area has it's own grade.

In women's clothing a 2" grade means that the interval change between the sizes will be 2" for chest, waist, and hips. Though even this isn't true across all brands, and you will find variations. (IMO, this is a good thing)

I don't know the history of women's sizing well enough to explain how this mode of practice came to be nor exactly why. It is clear that it does make grading, especially hand grading, much easier in practice. It is also unclear to me that grading is the source of our fitting woes. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to go back and look at body measurements and devise a more precise grade rule.

The question then becomes, which body measurements do we use? In my children's example above, the numbers are still nice and easy to work with. The body measurements have been intentionally manipulated to be easy to work with. Raw measurement data was averaged, sorted, and studied to arrive at some numbers. Those numbers were not easy to work with, so a group of industry professionals sat down and made them that way. They modified certain measurements by about 1/8" to achieve consistency. Their modifications were rather minor and easily fall within a statistical margin of error. If you read their reasoning, it makes sense. This manipulation of measurement data for ease of use continues today in more modern measurement studies. It seems deceitful, but at the end of the day is infinitely practical. ASTM D4910 inherits this method of data handling from the measurement studies done in the 1940s, but does provide some updated measurements.

Looking at the Misses body measurement chart, ASTM D5585, it seems to be arranged and handled in the same way as the children's body measurement chart. IOW, the chart does not show a 1, 1.5, or 2 inch grade in the body measurements. It is a lot like the children's example above. There does seem to be a disconnect between measurement data and grading, at least on the surface. Individual companies will decide how to interpret and implement measurement data, and therefore their grade rules. (IMO, I think this is a good thing). And some will use a 2 inch grade, and some will not.

So what measurement data did Schofield use? She rejected the ASTM charts and created her own version of measurements derived from body measurement studies. This presented a problem because measurement studies do not always include the measurements needed for pattern making and grading. Schofield did not normalize the data, in other words make it easy to work with. Also she had to figure out how to deal with missing measurement data. I no longer have a copy of the article and can't look back, but Schofield selected certain measurements over others. How and why she handled those measurements puzzled me.

I believe Schofield's goal was to remove the idea of maintaining an ideal proportion or predictable pattern shape. She wanted to see what the body measurements really did between sizes.

Her results were almost predictable. More on that later.

*These measurements come from the withdrawn child measurement standard CS151-50. Measurements are in inches.

Grading from body measurements pt. 1

Pattern grading is the process by which new sizes are developed from an existing pattern. There are various methods or processes used to grade a pattern. These methods include slash-and-spread, shifting, and CAD. At the end of the day, each method accomplishes the same thing, a new size.

The apparel industry has received a lot of criticism for their sizing, especially of women's clothing. At it's core, sizing goes hand-in-hand with pattern grading. You have to define your sizes in order to grade a pattern. In order to grade a pattern you have to know body measurements for each size. The common grade rules for women's apparel is the 1", 1.5" and 2" grade rules used in the United States. Similar grade rules are found in Europe and the UK. The primary criticism is that these grade rules are not based on anthropometric data, or actual body measurements. Instead these grade rules are just pulled out of a hat without regard to women or their fitting needs. These arbitrary grade rules are merely for the convenience of industry.

This is the point of view taken by N. A. Schofield in her article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. The goal of her research was to test the idea of creating grade rules based on actual body measurements rather than an arbitrary grade rule. There has been a lot of criticism of the industry over sizing and it is a worthy goal to research alternatives. Asking the why questions. Why does the apparel industry do things the way they do? Why do we grade women's clothing this way? Can we do it differently? I've asked a lot of these same questions as I've looked at children's clothing. When I started out, I didn't understand the why and sometimes the answer was not satisfying. I can totally get behind Schofield's motivation to try and find an answer.

And yet, I feel like I am setting up to be very critical of Schofield's research and I don't want to give the impression, as an industry professional, that even asking the questions were wrong. She was right to ask the question and to test an alternative. The results of her research are interesting and ironically (and indirectly) add support to current practices.

So here are some of Schofield's main arguments:

1. 1", 1.5", and 2" grade rules are not based on anthropometric data. Meaning it is not based on body measurements or the proportional relationships between body parts/areas. These grade rules were intended for the convenience and ease of hand grading.

2. Grade rules should be derived from body measurements. This means that grade breaks between bust, waist, and hips should not be consistent. Instead of a 34-36-38 chest measurement, we should be seeing a 34-35.5-38 (just as an example), chest measurement.

3. Size prediction and also body measurement prediction needs refinement. This idea is rather complex. Body measurement studies create a lot of raw data. In order to make sense of it, statisticians will test size prediction by using one or two body measurements. So can you predict the overall body size by using just the height or chest measurement? And if you do that, what influence does that have on other body measurements? If a person gets taller, do they also get wider? It is a complex question and not easily answered because there are so many variables. Statisticians bring order to raw measurement data so that we can organize the body measurements into sizes. They do this by averaging and, in some cases, normalizing the data so we can work with it easily. Schofield implies that we should just rely on the raw measurement data.

The ultimate goal of this study was to improve overall fit of women's apparel by basing grade rules on actual body measurements. I'll have to break up my review of this study into multiple blog entries because I have a lot to say about it. So stay tuned.

Production Systems, Sizing, and Quality Control

Having worked in the apparel industry for a while now, I sometimes have to take a step back to see how much goes into the design, production and selling of just one item. The goal is to work out all of the bugs before an item goes into production. Still, things can and do go wrong and those things can affect the size of an item. Where can things go wrong?

1. Pattern making and grading

A poor pattern or poor grading certainly affects the size. Inadequate seam allowances, missing notches. There are a lot of little things that can go wrong, though if you read the rest of the list, you can see there are a lot of other areas that can cause problems.

2. Marking

Marking is the process of laying pieces out in preparation for cutting. Many markers are now made by computer, some automatically. There are various setting that allow the marker maker to bump pieces closer together, tilt, or rotate pieces. Each of these options can affect the final outcome, so they must be used rarely.

3. Spreading

Spreading is the process of laying fabric on a cutting table in layers. Certain fabrics stretch during this process and need a certain amount of time to relax. If the style is cut without the fabric being allowed to relax, then the pieces will relax after being cut and the item will end up too small. Layers can also shift and move.

4. Cutting

Accurate cutting is the only way to ensure the item ends up as intended.

5. Sewing

Taking too big or too small of a seam allowance affects a size. Seam allowances should allow a cut off allowance because nearly all operators trim off a little bit.

6. Finishing

Finishing includes steaming or ironing. Too hot a temperature can shrink an item.

These problems can be minimized by implementing systems and policies during each phase of development and production. One company I worked for had a quality audit system that checked each step of production. Anything that had finally made it to production had been perfected, for the most part. There was that one style that shared patterns with another style. A problem came up in production where the obvious solution was to make a new pattern for the new fabric, but that never happened. Production just had to deal with it. But those situations are rare.

In any event, systems (procedures/policies) have to be implemented for development, production, and finishing to catch problems before the item is shipped to the customer..

This blog entry was inspired by the article Production systems, garment specifications, and sizing by S. P. Ashdown, L. M. Lyman-Clark, J. Smith, and S. Loker in the book Sizing in Clothing.

Communicating size and fit through size labels and charts

The primary way most clothing brands communicate size information is through a size label. This works in most retail settings. Online (and print catalog) clothes shopping adds the benefit of including an easy to use, sometimes interactive size chart. Additional instructions on how to measure yourself is also helpful.

A pictogram showing body
dimensions for a specific size.

None of these solutions are completely fool proof. First, the manufacturer interprets and adapts measurement data to meet the needs of their identified customer. This means they have created and implemented a size system in anticipation of what their customer wants. But a customer may want something to be closer/looser fitting, and shorter/longer lengths than the manufacturer. How does one balance size and fit for a diverse population with ever shifting expectations?

The current trend among new fashion companies is to design for a very narrow customer profile. By targeting a very specific customer, the manufacturers can optimize the fit of their brand to their customer. Larger big box brands have to fit a wide range of body shapes and sizes and their clothes will never fit as well as a more exclusive brand. In some cases a manufacturer will modify their sizes for an existing size system, so that they change what a size means for their target market. In other words, a size 8 for one brand will mean something entirely different for another. This is why there is so much variation in the marketplace between brands.

On the surface this sounds like vanity sizing run amok. If manufacturers change the underlying sizes to fit their version of a size, then surely they are deceiving us into believing we are a smaller size than we truly are. Truth in advertising and all that, right?

The problem with only one size standard across brands is that it does not allow for variation. Women in particular have a large variety of body shapes and sizes. Because manufacturers are free to adapt to meet the needs of their customers having multiple versions of a size will allow people to find the version that fits them best. Once they do, and if the styling is right, they will become loyal customers.

The problem comes back to how to communicate that to the customer. As I said at top, providing more information helps the customer to make a more informed choice. And that is the true challenge.

*This blog entry is part of my on going review of Sizing in Clothing, and is a discussion inspired by the article, Communication of sizing and fit by J. Chun. This article goes into a little more depth about how sizes have evolved and what they might mean.

Size standardization for clothing

In academic circles there is the idea that we need one measurement and sizing standard to solve all our fitting problems. A top down approach with no allowance for variation. Customers often complain that manufacturers have no idea what they are doing because nothing ever fits. Manufacturers face an enormous challenge in trying to interpret size specifications while at the same time meeting the needs of their customers. The more I read about sizing the more chaotic it seems. At the end of the day there is more than one way to look at size standardization, and I think only one battle to fight.

One standard to rule them all

Yes, the idea that one standard can be established for everyone. By forcing compliance we will have peace on earth, and yes, our clothes will fit! Considering the variety of shapes and sizes in the United States alone, the idea is really a fantasy.

• One standard guarantees that some of the population will not have any clothes that fit. One could argue this situation exists today, so why not try one standard. With no allowance to adapt to fit the wide range of shapes and sizes, then outliers will never have clothes that fit.
• Our population is constantly changing. The most recent sizing study revealed that we are taller and weigh more than we did in the past. One standard would quickly become outdated.
• Sizing studies are very expensive and labor intensive. Studies are not done frequently, so manufacturers will always be behind what is happening in the real world.

Loosely conforming to a standard while yet adapting to meet a customer's need.

Even if one standard to rule them all is unrealistic, we still need a standard. ASTM and the latest Sizing USA study have provided us with a standard that any manufacturer can use (for a price, of course). These measurement and sizing specs can act as a guide, a place to start. As a manufacturer develops their customer profile, they can adapt these standards to meet the needs of their customer.

Over the years, it's important to compare your product against these standards. I've seen patterns and sizing drift from these standards naturally through errors. These errors are not intentional, they just happen and can easily pass from one style to the next. So a careful study and comparison can bring things back. This includes measuring fit models and comparing them against the standard and analyzing customer returns due to fit issues. 

In-house size standardization

Once a sizing standard is established for a brand, it is important to adhere to that standard during product development. As an example, all new pants styles have the same finished length and waist sizes as specified. Variations in fit can come from multiple sources due to fabric variations (or problems), construction issues (taking too big/small a seam allowance, cutting errors), or variations in a pattern. You have to be careful not to draft a pattern from scratch every time. Pattern makers in the industry will use the patterns from an already proven style to develop the new style. This practice ensures consistent fit across styles. A quality control process through each step of development and production is necessary to find problems before they become big ones.

A few words on vanity sizing

Vanity sizing implies that a manufacturer wilfully chooses to ignore a size standard and relabel a size smaller than it actually is. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to do this intentionally. Instead I think manufacturers are trying to meet the needs of their customers while trying to conform to a standard.

*This blog entry was inspired from my reading in the book Sizing in Clothing and more specifically the article Sizing Standardization by K. L. LaBat. I made very few notes on this article and don't remember much of what I read. I did make a note that LaBat tried to prove the existence of vanity sizing by studying children's age-based sizing. I thought the argument was rather weak.

Creating sizing systems for clothing

This is a continuation of my review of Sizing in Clothing. The previous blog entries are History of Sizing, and the Book Review.

By Downtowngal (Own work)
[CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

What does it take to create a sizing system? We often taken for granted a size chart on a retail website or print catalog. And when something doesn't fit, it's easy to blame the size system used by the manufacturer. And we've all been there. Shopping for blue jeans or a swimsuit causes a lot of anxiety and stress as we go through more than one size to find something that fits. A. Petrova discussed all of the variables that go into making those size charts that help you select the right size in the article Creating Sizing Systems found in the Sizing in Clothing book.

So what does it take? The first big step is to measure a population and then to divide that population into various body shapes such as Misses, Petites, Tall, Plus, etc. Each category is defined by certain control dimensions such as height, weight, waist, chest, hips, or whatever is considered the key dimensions. Usually there are 3-4 key body measurements. These kind of measurement studies are expensive and are usually undertaken by government, universities, and trade organizations.

Next, each category is subdivided into sizes contained within a size range. Each category is labelled a size designation. It could be Small-Medium-Large, or numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. These size labels are meaningless until associated with a set of body measurements. (We could get into a discussion of vanity sizing here but it really doesn't matter what you call a size. It's the underlying body measurements that are key). In the US, we are accustomed to knowing what size to start with when shopping without knowing our body measurements. In the EU, there are similar difficulties though there has been some push to adopt the centilong system. This system identifies a size by height with some corresponding girth measurements. Not all European manufacturers have done this and some are as inconsistent in application as their American counterparts.

A. Petrova continues the article with some ideas on how to develop size systems or charts based on garment styles versus just body measurements. The biggest disadvantage to this idea is that the customer would need to know several size scales when shopping, making shopping a complicated experience. The advantage is that fit could be fine tuned, maybe.

So who is to blame when clothes don't fit? Is it the size chart? Maybe, maybe not. There are so many variables that it is hard to select just one reason. The fit model used in pattern development may match the size chart, but not be representative of the consumer. In other words there could be a mismatch between expectations and reality between the manufacturer and the customer. Grade rules may not match or equal actual body grades - which is a discussion for another article. Perhaps the size chart information was incomplete, lacked sufficient instruction, or had a typo. Poor construction or poor fabric quality play a factor. When analyzing sales information and returns, all of these things have to be considered.

The history of standardized sizes for clothing

Do you ever wonder how people came up with the idea of sizing clothes? The creation of sizes allowed for the mass production of ready-to-wear garments. It was not created at a meeting of industry professionals, but evolved over time. Great leaps in sizing occurred because of war - somebody had to quickly and efficiently outfit an army.

Winifred Aldrich traces the development of sizes and ready to wear in her article History of Sizing and Ready-to-Wear Garments found in the Sizing in Clothing book*. Aldrich is a British pattern maker, designer, and researcher. I own two of her pattern drafting manuals and consider them among the best drafting manuals available (link in the sidebar to the left for the children's drafting manual). She knows her stuff, and she presents it well.

The understanding of body proportions began slowly with tailors producing clothing for men. They used strips of paper to measure the body and transfer the measurements to cloth. In time tailors devised tape measures and drafting systems. A size was not the beginning of the drafting job, rather the completed garment represented the size of the customer. As the industrial revolution progressed, tailors began to teach and sell their drafting systems. This included some already drafted patterns, sometimes in more than one size.

The concept was revolutionary and men began to be able to purchase their clothing ready made. Women, on the other hand, still had most of their clothing custom made into the early 20th century. There were attempts at creating patterns for women with named sizes, but it still required customization. There was a lack of knowledge of women's body measurements most likely because of the Victorian ideals of the time.

It is important to understand that our understanding of body measurements and proportions were not formalized until the 1940's. Ruth O'Brien, an employee of the U.S. Department of Home Economics and the Department of Agriculture, was commissioned to conduct a body measurement study of the American population. The purpose was to create a set of size standards based on reliable data that the apparel industry could use. The work involved in this study was enormous and revolutionary. O'Brien and her department created a measurement procedure that is still in existence today (only to be superseded by 3D body scanning). The data from these studies have been study and analyzed around the world.

To put this in perspective, it wasn't until the 1940s that we could finally see and understand human proportions with any clarity. It's easy to pan this early work as outdated and wrong but the 1940's was not that long ago. We still have so much to learn and understand.

A fun little factoid. Grading using the shifting or slide method, a common method still used today, can be traced back to 1908.

Aldrich's article goes into much more depth about the history of sizing. She includes pictures of early patterns and sizing systems. It is well worth a read if you can get a copy of it. This article is a combination and expansion of two previously written articles found in the journal Textile History.

*As I review individual articles from the Sizing in clothing book, I will not give a detailed discussion of each article. Rather, I will summarize and highlight a few key points along with my own thoughts on the subject.

Book review : Sizing in clothing

This is one of the books I ran across while working on my own book on grading. Sizing in Clothing (Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles) is a collection of scholarly papers edited by S. P. Ashdown on the current (as of 2007) issues related to sizing ready-to-wear clothing. It is a dense read and it took me every bit of time I had with the book to get through it. I'm glad I read it.

The audience for this book is very narrow in scope. This is not a book for someone starting their own apparel line. Do not run out and buy this book unless you have a real interest in sizing theory - it will not help you figure out the sizing for your line. If you did want to buy it, the book runs in the $200-$250 range. I obtained a copy through inter-library loan, which also proved a bit of a challenge. Only a handful of college libraries carry a copy they are willing to loan outside their library system. So I had to read this book on a deadline and handle the book with kid gloves over the holidays.

Some technical designers, pattern makers, and graders may be interested in some of the included articles. Over the next several weeks, I will post a review/discussion on some of the topics covered. My two favorite articles were on the History of sizing systems and ready-to-wear garments by Winifred Aldrich and Military Sizing. There are other really great topics about sizing and target markets, size standardization (a hot topic!), apparel production and sizing, and of course, pattern grading.

Because each chapter is written by different authors, it's hard to give a review of the book as a whole. Some articles were very well written and easy to read, such as my two favorites listed above. Others are written in a formal academic style which is very difficult to read and even more difficult to ferret out what the author is trying to say. As a collection, the articles cover nearly every angle.

Since the articles are written mostly by academics, there is a bit of a disconnect with those working on the front lines (the exception being the Military sizing article). It would be easy to characterize the writers as sitting in their academic ivory towers telling us what to do because they "know better". Embedded in many of the articles is criticism aimed at the industry for assumed sizing problems that the industry either "created" or refuse to solve. While some of the criticism is unfair in my opinion, the information they provide us is still valuable. I'll discuss some of this later in the individual reviews. Despite all of this, I'm glad there are people out there willing to think about these problems, propose solutions, and test them out.

Grading rulers and how-to drawings

I've been hard at work on my grading book. The first half of the book explains children's sizing. The second half is a how-to manual on grading. I've been stuck on the how-to section for quite a while. I could not decide on whether I should do step-by-step photos or illustrations. I fiddled around in Inkscape and managed to pull together some pretty good how-to drawings. The drawing above is a sneak peak.

Photographs would be great but I didn't think I could pull off photographs that were good enough for print. There are some practical matters too. An eBook filled with as many photographs as I need would be enormous. Too big of a file size to process for print (fingers-crossed they turn out ok) and too big to download easily. There are photos in the book, but just a few. So yes, I am planning on an eBook version, though probably not for Kindle.

So the how-to section will be step-by-step drawings. The drawing above is the set-up for hand grading. It shows the guidelines and grading ruler placement. The shaded area represents tag board. The pattern piece is cut in tag board too, but is white for clarity.

The gridded area represents the grading ruler. My grading ruler is the rectangular gridded ruler in the middle below. I was lucky enough to find it at a thrift store stuck in the book below.

This style of hinged grading ruler is no longer available. Never fear, there are options. You can grade with any clear ruler that has 1/16" gradations like the 18 inch ruler in the picture above. You can also buy a grading ruler from Connie Crawford. The price can't be beat! I've been looking at special quilting rulers and those are tremendously over-priced in comparison.

The grading how-to section will cover hand grading in depth and a general overview of grading for CAD. CAD grading depends on the CAD software, so in depth instructions would be difficult to cover for each major system.

Because things can be lost in translation - meaning my drawings and photographs may not convey the best for everyone - there will be at least one how-to video. I'm not sure what I'm setting myself up for, but I'll give it a try.

Grading vocabulary - Nest and stack point

As I have attempted to learn how to code (computer programming), I have been stymied by one simple problem. Vocabulary. Most programming manuals or tutorials assume the learner has some basic knowledge about programming and skip explaining essential skills or words. This is even true of the manuals designed for complete idiots and absolute beginners. One good example in the programming world is the word compiler. I understand it on a basic level as a set of instructions that tells the computer how to link various files to create the executable software program.* There are various ways to deal with compilers depending on the programming language and platform used.  I didn't know what compilers there were, which to use, how to write the instructions, etc. All I could find was some pretty lousy examples that I could copy and paste and they magically (or not) worked. I could present dozens of examples of this disconnect as I've stumbled my way through working on SodaCAD.

Grading manuals are similar, at least the ones I have used. They lack sufficient or clear explanations of the most basic of terms. Often times the manual writers skip sizing theory and jump to demonstrating their preferred grading method. This includes the much revered Jack Handford grading manual, the manual I still use and recommend today. Handford's book was the first that helped me understand grading but I recently reviewed the book and noticed the notations I made where I was confused.

One of my goals in writing my grading manual is to include a Grading 101 section. The above drawing is the illustration for two terms.

Nest - pattern pieces within a size range that are stacked along a common point or line. Indicated here by the horizontal line and star.

Stack point - the point at which pattern pieces are aligned, generally located in the middle of the piece but may be located elsewhere (indicated by the star). In CAD grading, the stack point may also be called the point of origin and can be easily moved as needed.

I'm still working on my vocabulary list and guide. If there is a term you have heard and would like explained, please leave a comment below

*I realize I probably just used some vocabulary that the readers of this blog might not know. In any event, it illustrates the problem.

Book Reviews : Dressmaking, Collette Sewing Handbook, and Burdastyle

Our library recently acquired three new how-to-sew books. Sewing is picking up in popularity and the numbers of books coming out about sewing reflect that. I took some time to flip through them and here are my thoughts. All of these books give the impression of being exhaustive in their subject. They are also project based meaning the how to sections are emphasized by the included projects.

Dressmaking


Published by DK, Dressmaking has the fantastic photography one comes to expect from DK. The book is written by Allison Smith who previously penned The Sewing Book: An Encyclopedic Resource of Step-by-Step Techniques also put out by DK. The layout and organization of Dressmaking is above average. The how-to photography is clear and easy to understand.

The projects are in the back of the book with additional instructions to complete each project. This means the how to section is designed to support the projects. So, you will have to flip back and forth to get a complete how-to. It also means that the how-to section is not comprehensive. You will likely need a more comprehensive how-to sew book such as the Reader's Digest Guide to Sewing to supplement what is missing. What is missing is the info to complete some other project not included in the book. Much of the information can be applied to other styles. But you may want to do a project with some design feature that requires a different technique, which is not included in this book. Thus the need for some other sewing manual. For advanced sewists, this is not a big deal, but then again an advanced sewist probably wouldn't need the how-to section anyway.

The styles are pretty basic. The graded patterns are printed on grids at the back of the book. This means you would have to enlarge them yourself. Since I didn't make up any of the styles, I can't tell you how accurately the patterns are drafted. I also can't comment on fit. You will almost certainly have to spend time testing the pattern in muslin. The process would be time consuming.

The biggest problem with this book is the binding. It is a large book and while the binding is sewn, it is cheap. Many DK books of this size fall apart with semi-regular use. In the library, we have replaced one very popular DK book several times, which begins to fall apart after only two circulations.

The Collette Sewing Handbook

Written by Sarai Mitnick, the book was written to support Mitnick's indie sewing pattern company Collette Patterns. The book is spiral bound, so it will lay flat when open. The layout and photography is also pretty good.

Mitnick spends time explaining her five basic principles: a thoughtful plan, a precise pattern, a fantastic fit, a beautiful fabric, and a fine finish. I only spent a few minutes reviewing the sections on fit and sewing. The information presented is pretty basic and you will need supplemental resources if you do not have the fit issues described. The sewing information is also basic but will at least help you sew the projects in the book. The patterns are apparently drafted for a C-cup, which means that if that is not you, expect alterations. The patterns are printed on tissue and included in the back of the book. I didn't take the time to check the patterns or sew them up as the styles didn't appeal to me.

Burdastyle

This sewing manual is written by Nora Abousteit, a Hurbert Burda employee and Alison Kelly, a Project Runway alum. The book is designed to support the Burdastyle website and Burda sewing patterns. The book is spiral bound so that it will lay flat when open with the patterns included in the back.

I have an admitted preference for Burda patterns because I have used some of them from the magazine. They are usually drafted pretty well, though the instructions are very anemic, which is a challenge for beginners. This book explains how to use the Burda patterns from the magazine. It explains the pattern notations, how to trace off the patterns, and how to add seam allowances. Burda patterns are based off a European sizing system. It is important to measure yourself to find the appropriate size on the Burda size chart. Unfortunately, the how to measure instructions are pretty pathetic with simple, flat line drawings. The sewing instructions are pretty basic.

There is one thing that I really liked about this book. The book encourages the reader to experiment and redesign the styles. There are only four projects in the book, but the reader is shown several variations. There are instructions for a project with no alterations and then there are instructions for a variation. Additional variations are show in a photograph with no additional instructions in the hope the reader can figure them out on their own. The variation with instructions demonstrates how to alter the patterns to achieve the desired effect. I like how the authors encourage their readers to experiment and play because I feel that is the best way to learn. I think this may be a challenge for beginning or brand new sewists.

I think most of the projects are pretty achievable. I didn't sew any of them up because the styles didn't appeal to me. The jacket would be the most challenging project, especially the variation.

A few final thoughts

All of these books will help either a beginning or intermediate sewist with lots of hand holding for the included projects. Though, I expect there will be some frustration with the patterns and some of the instructions. Additional support material is definitely required for more complete coverage of the subject. The Reader's Digest book is still a gold standard due to it's comprehensive nature. Older how-to sewing books are also better. There really isn't anything new presented with the exception of the included patterns.

There is one popular book that I have not reviewed and that is Gertie's New Book for Better Sewing. The primary reason is that I don't have access to a copy and a full review would be unfair. But, I am admittedly biased against the book already. The content is just an updated version of previously available information. Gertie got her start by working her way through a Vogue sewing manual, and that is the primary source for her book. Some of her tutorials found on her blog have been lifted off of at least one other website. Also, from what I have heard, Gertie is the fit model for the included patterns, which are then graded up and down. If you aren't Gertie, then expect needing to make adjustments.

A question on newborn sewing patterns

Pam had this question

Supposedly the XXS size on commercial patterns (McCalls, Simplicity, 
Butterick) is supposed to be for babies 7 lbs or less, but they swallow 
newborns up.  If you read around the Internet, there are lots of frustrated 
grandmothers and mothers-to-be that want to sew for their new or expected  baby, but can't find a pattern that will fit.  I read that doll clothing  patterns don't work because the neck is wrong for a human infant. I tried buying vintage layette patterns from Etsy and they were just as bad.  I  want to know how to downsize a commercial XXS dress or romper pattern so it fits a NEW 7-8 lb baby.

I had similar challenges sewing an infant shirt from a Butterick pattern. You are right that the sizing is just not right. You are also right that doll clothing patterns are not proportionally correct either.

There really is no easy way to fix the sizing issue. Perhaps the easiest would be to fold out some of the extra width and length to make the pattern smaller? Maybe try grading the pattern smaller -- though that won't solve the other problems that probably exist in your pattern. I can't really tell you how much to reduce the pattern because I don't know what pattern you are using. Even then, it would hard to advise you because I ended up redrafting the pattern I used above to even get it to work right.

One suggestion is to go to a thrift store and buy clothing in the size you want, take it apart and trace it off. Don't forget to add in proper seam allowances - as the existing seams have probably been trimmed off.

Some more grading questions

I received some more grading questions.

Grading by Pattern Shifting

I am wondering what you think of the section in Aldrich's book about grading?  It seems like a simplified method in some ways and so I am wondering if for someone simply making the patterns (instead of the clothes) might this method do just fine?

 There are different approaches to grading. Aldrich's "method" is similar to Handford, just presented in a different way. The movements of the pattern pieces is done in basically the same way as Handford. I have not graded a pattern using Aldrich's method, but I don't see that it would be a problem. Just keep in mind that her grade rules are based off her own sizing study of a British demographic. It may or may not work for your customer profile.

DIY or hire a pattern grader

Its not that I am adverse to putting in the extra time, but sometimes I wonder to myself if I am doing way more work than necessary in order to avoid "cutting corners" and making a product that in the end is below par.

I've been grading patterns for over 15 years. I'm still learning. If you want a superior product, you will have to spend the time learning how it's done and gain necessary experience. People in business either hire someone to fill a knowledge or time gap or they spend a lot of time learning in the school of hard knocks. Grading is not especially difficult, but it does take time and effort to learn it. The best way to learn is by trying and doing. I don't mean to sound harsh, but there is no magic book or trick that will help you get what you want faster.

Can I grade patterns with Adobe Illustrator?

I am not drafting/grading using a cad program but am doing all my work by hand and in Adobe Illustrator if that helps you answer my question better.

A lot of people ask me if they can use Adobe Illustrator for pattern making and grading. I suppose you could but to be honest, it's not for the faint of heart. I know there are indie pattern makers using Illustrator to do what you describe. But as a professional pattern maker and grader, Illustrator does not provide the level of accuracy and control that is needed for superior results. If given a choice, I would do all of my pattern making and grading by hand, or in other words with a pencil and paper.

Now there are pattern companies that draft their patterns either in CAD or scan in hand drafted patterns and add all the extra notations in Illustrator. The Big 4 do it that way. No problems there.

Comparing pattern shaping and children's sizes follow-up

Kathleen suggested that I post an update on a previous grading post I did about a year ago. You can read what I wrote previously at When Patterns Collide. In that post I suggested that it would be possible to combine the 24M and 2T and the 4T and the 4. My reasoning being that the 24M and the 2T are essentially the same sizes - why differentiate them? The subject is a little complex and perhaps controversial - at least to pattern making geeks. My goal was to reduce the work load. I was drafting and grading all of my patterns by hand. I am incredibly slow grading by hand. In addition, I was trying to solve one particular sizing problem that shows up in childrenswear, that is hard to illustrate. Since I shut down my Prairie Roses line, I am not knee deep in pattern making as I was a year ago. But perhaps it may be helpful to explain what I ended up doing.

Originally, I broke up my sizes into these ranges:

3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M, 24M - sample size 12M

2T, 3T, 4T - sample size 3T

4, 5, 6, 6x - sample size 5

These ranges are rather typical of what you will find in retail stores. When developing my patterns, I have to make and grade the patterns for each size range separately. You cannot make one set of patterns in one size and grade them up and down all the way. It won't work because that many sizes will cause minute grading errors and strange fit, especially on the smallest and largest sizes. As you define your grading and size measurements, you will find that the 24M and 2T and the 4T and 4 overlap. I followed the Jack Handford grading rules, which are pretty darn good, but end up with a result like this:

In the picture above, the size 4 is laying on top of the size 4T. The size 4T is actually too long in length and too wide. I double checked all of my grading and there was no mistake. The size 4T was graded off my 3T and the size 4 off of the 5. The shaping of the sample size pattern pieces varied a little. The toddler was a little boxier because toddlers don't have any waist shaping, whereas a 5 year old does. If I were to leave my patterns this way, someone will eventually hang the two sizes next to each other and think there was some kind of manufacturing mistake. I needed to fix my patterns so that each size is incrementally bigger.

To do this, I rearranged my size ranges, combining some sizes:

3M, 6M, 9M, 12M, 18M - sample size 12M

24M/2T, 3T, 4T/4 - sample size 3T

5, 6, 6x - sample size 5

The next thing I did was reworked the shaping of my toddler sizes to look more like the 4-6x range. I pulled the waist in some and made the armhole smaller. I made these shaping changes because I found that my toddler patterns were just a little too big. Now, I can lay all of my bodice pattern pieces in order and they get incrementally larger from the 3M to the 6x. Your patterns may look different, but it is worth comparing the sizes on the outside edges of your ranges to make sure you don't have something weird show up like I did.

Even though I combined some sizes, I kept this behind the scenes. My customers still saw all of the sizes separated out. If someone ordered a size 24M and another ordered a 2T, the dress would be exactly the same except for the size tag. I offered all of the sizes on my website so that customers would see something familiar. Perhaps it seems a little dishonest? I don't think so because in the real world a 24M child is the same size as a 2T and I was willing to take the chance. For what its worth, no one ever complained or returned those sizes for fit issues.

Now, I don't know that what I did is "the way it should be done". In the past though, I have had people question why the 24M was larger than the 2T and I had no explanation. Once I worked through grading all of my patterns by hand, it started to click in my head. The relationship of the shape of the pattern pieces, the grade, and body measurements are all connected.

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.