Comparing pattern shaping and children's sizes

As many children's wear designers know, children's clothing has a lot of sizes. It can become quite the dilemma when trying to decide which sizes to offer. Some DE's offer their styles in as many as 21 sizes. Way back in 2006 I suggested a theory to reduce the number of sizes by combining or eliminating some of them. You may want to go back and review the entry Too Many Sizes and other related entries to see how I have arrived at today.

Anyway, I have tried to put the theory into practice and I have made some progress. I only offer my styles in sizes 3M to 6x. I am still working on the grades for the 4-6x styles, so I am nearly there. My sizes break down like this:

3M, 6M, 9M*, 12M, 18M

24M/2T, 3T, 4T/4

5, 6, 6x

I don't really consider the 9M as a true size. It is a half size between the 6M and 12M and is graded by splitting the grade between the 6M and 12M. The 24M and 2T are essentially the same as are the 4T and 4 - those sizes have been combined for grading purposes. My website still delineates the combined sizes as separate sizes.

This blog entry is not a discussion on the why and wherefores of children's sizing - a surprisingly complex and controversial topic. Instead, I wanted to show a possible grading/pattern problem that shows up now and then. I have been grading and comparing my basic bodice blocks. You should do this too because someone will eventually see the problem and it will be more difficult to fix.

I have drafted my basic bodice block three times, in each of my sample sizes for each of my size ranges - 12M, 3T, 5. (BTW, you can't use the same pattern piece and grade it in all the sizes. Believe me, that is one large headache). The next step is to grade each range separately. Keep in mind that each sample size will have slightly different shaping, but the general shape and proportion should be related.

Before getting too far, the outer fringes of each size range should be compared. For example, the size 18M should be smaller than the 24M/2T and the size 4T/4 should be smaller than the 5. Originally, I had graded the size 4T and 4 separately. In other words the 4T was based off the 3T sample and the 4 was based off the 5. The reason I combined the 4T and 4 was because the shape and overall size was so similar it was a duplication in effort, and I also ran into the problem where the 4T was actually larger than the 4. If you do separate out the sizes than the 4T must be smaller than the 4. If you don't check your grades, someone will bring two dresses to you and say the patterns are wrong, size labels are switched or some other problem.

In the photos below you can see the problem more clearly. In the top picture, the size 4 is laying on top of the 4T. You can see the 4 is smaller than the 4T. In the bottom picture the 4T is on top of the 4 and it is clearly longer with a larger armhole.


To solve this problem, I have been reworking my toddler patterns. I started by combining sizes 4T and 4 so I have one less size to grade. Next my toddler bodices were redrafted to have a shape similar to the 5 (less boxy, smaller armhole). Finally, I regraded the toddler patterns. This is still a work in progress, but the results are much better - each size is progressively larger.

I had the same problem with my size 18M and 24M/2T. In this case it wasn't a grading problem. Instead my infant patterns were proportionally too long compared to the toddler. I fixed this by shortening the bodice slightly.

Anyway, the point is that you should make sure and check the sizes on the outer fringes of each size range and make adjustments so that each size is progressively larger. You can adjust the grade rules (much easier in CAD, btw) or change the shape of the patterns.

(I am ignoring the idea that in the real world an 18M child could be larger than a 24M child. If that is the case, a parent would buy a larger size than 18M and just complain about the craziness of US sizing standards. When I did private label programs for the big box retailers their grade/POM charts progressively got larger with each size. Logically it makes sense even if reality is very different. Anyway, you can allow your sizes to overlap if you want, you'll just need to have an explanation as to why when a sewing contractor becomes confused.).

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