Comments on: History of women’s sizing pt.3

By: Romy

Romy — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:04:12 +0000

I came across this particular online discussion only recently, and I’m aware of three aspects of fit/sizing not clearly addressed. While these are not about the changing shape of bodies, nor the way garments fit (or don’t), they have everything to do with what is available in stores.
(1) When I was a child in the 1960s in the USA, women and girls were typically _prohibited_ from wearing slacks/pants at school, in the workplace, etc. Consequently the growth of the separates market only began after those bans were either lifted or ignored, as the case may be. For women who actually work (physically), separates allow replacing/exchanging the parts of an “outfit” as they are worn out, damaged, outgrown, etc. The same would be true for “sportswear” and athletic clothing.
(2) Huge changes have occurred in the manufacture of fabrics, and in the commercial fiber industry. Most probably, anyone under age 50 does not remember when virtually all of our clothing was woven (except for undies and possibly cotton t-shirts). The prevalence of knits today (and spandex as a component of cotton denim, wool gab, etc.), has meant that it isn’t _really_ necessary for there to be quite so many sizing steps (in some kinds of garments). We expect our clothing to have “give” to it, and also, that it snaps back without unsightly bagginess. Twenty years of low demand for natural fibers and high demand for synthetics contributed to the “death” of commercial options.
(3) Twenty-five years ago, the American garment-making industry (and its unions) had not yet been _totally_ decimated by the moves of industry to outsourcing, off-shoring, union-busting, etc. There used to be local/regional companies that made fabrics, notions, clothing, etc. Now there are mostly huge corporations or conglomerates. There’s almost no such thing anymore as a “local” manufacturer.” By grading and cutting fewer sizes, and by making those sizes closer together, manufacturers increase profits. Remember, most clothing is cut from flat cloth yardage, and those widths have been pretty standard for fifty years. The style of “skinny-fit” clothing and XL that measures like a medium is a way of getting more pieces cut from fewer yards of fabric.

By: Thomas Bailey

Thomas Bailey — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:01:42 +0000

I think the reason for discontinuing the use of actual measurements is denial. Since a slim figure became the ideal, women generally did not like to admit having certain measurements. Single-digit sizes were at least easy to deal with. Children’s sizes were originally by age, which is easy to relate to, until the 1980’s, when childhood obesity rendered the sizing scale less applicable. Actual measurements would be better, and BS-EN13402 would be ideal. There might be an ego factor as far as acceptance.
Boys and men under age 25 might welcome the new label. Girls under age 5 might welcome it, but ages 10 and up might panic at the big numbers

By: Anir

Anir — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:12:51 +0000

This book: Gaetan Lapick's "Complete Measurement Charts for Women's Misses' Junior and Children's Garments" 1962. is for sale on eBay. link below http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=230131099260&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=013

By: Thomas Bailey

Thomas Bailey — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:09:30 +0000

Sizing by age does not make any sense due to the increase in childhood obesity. There is a great variation between a child of a given age and another of the same age. The only sensible size label is described in BS EN-13402, which calls for actual measurements. This new label will work everywhere except in the USA, which still uses inches. Perhaps an American version of this label might work until the metric system becomes generally accepted here in the USA. As for custom clothing, the new size label will work wonders, especially in areas where many languages are spoken.

By: Fashion-Incubator

Fashion-Incubator — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:23:07 +0000

Push manufacturing; subverting the fit feedback loop

“Push” manufacturing can be described as producing an entire line of products without pre-selling and taking orders for it. This means making up a bunch of stuff without knowing if anybody wants it beforehand. In my opinion, push manufacturing is…

By: Fashion-Incubator

Fashion-Incubator — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:01:50 +0000

Fit and sizing entropy

When I said I could write an entire book about why vanity sizing was a myth, I was exaggerating only slightly. What I should have said was I could write an entire book about why clothing fits so poorly and…

By: B. Durbin

B. Durbin — Fri, 12 May 2006 06:00:55 +0000

Oh, ay-yi-yi.

I was just once again ranting about the pain of finding clothes and came across this blog.

I’ve become very interested in a good fit as it has become increasingly evident that the “clothes that cover my nakedness” don’t do a very good job of it. (I am in a profession where I not only have to dress well but am photographed for test shots often, so I can see how badly I’m failing.)

I really do need to get into custom clothing, since I am finally starting to figure out what my size is. (Rather than wade through my rant above, I’ll just tell you it’s an 8 around the waist, 10 around the hip, petite hip rise with tall leg length. And that’s the pants. I haven’t quite figured out the shirt yet.)

Wish I could afford custom clothing. Or had the time and energy to do it myself.

So… this is the size chart. Mmm-hmm.

By: Alison Cummins

Alison Cummins — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:44:02 +0000

In French, you still say “14 ans” (14 years) instead of “taille 14″ (14 waist).

One of those things I still find hard to get my head around: I’m 41, dammit, not 14! Don’t insult me! But I know other women would be pleased to think they still have the figures of their early teens.

By: Julie Knox

Julie Knox — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 05:18:54 +0000

I don’t know if you’ve mentioned it yet in this thread (or series of topics), but I’ve always found it curious that we use the size indicators that we do, and where they come from.

Historically, a Missy/Misses size 6, 8, 10, 12 etc. up to 16 or 18 (I can’t remember how high they went) were intended just like children’s sizes, to be sized by age. Therefore a misses size 16 was supposed to be for a 16 year old girl. (I just recently saw an picture of an ad – can’t remember where, from the 1910’s or so that clearly said ‘misses size Age 12, 14, 16′ etc.)

Whereas Womens sizes were by measurement. Some examples from http://www.dressmakingresearch.com/:
a 1904 petticoat pattern “Cut in 7 sizes, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 34 inches waist measure.”
a Pattern from the 1920s “This dress is for ladies 32 to 44 bust.” and then it starts to get blurred between the two size ranges: a 1928 pattern “It is designed for sizes 32 to 35 (15 to 18 years)”

So before the ‘modern era’ sizes were by actual body measurements, and this whole meaningless or confusing 8, 10, 12 etc. is a relatively recent thing.

And what kind of spin does that put on the recent trends toward ’size 0′…

By: Evelyn Mitchell

Evelyn Mitchell — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:16:38 +0000

I’d be interested in hearing your comments on:
http://www.biggirlknits.com/
It’s the web page for a new book of knitting patterns for size 14 plus. One of the reviews talks about the style guide in the first half of the book as a must-read.

Thanks for your blog. I originally started reading it because of the kaizen in a non-factory environment articles. I’ve learned a lot about how even small details can improve the functioning of a business, such as your articles on standard work and why to have a standard for identifying pattern pieces.