Comments on: How to issue style numbers pt.129

By: jinjer

jinjer — Sat, 06 May 2006 05:20:49 +0000

Please, more management stuff in general. You management posts like vegetables: as a baby-DE, I think their yucky, but they’re good for me, and as I get “older,” I find they’re interesting & yummy, too.

By: Robyn

Robyn — Fri, 05 May 2006 14:08:56 +0000

I worked for a company that had different pattern #’s than style #’s and it worked very well. We made seperate patterns for petite and long, kept the base pattern # the same, but put a “P” or a “L” at the end of the pattern #. I made them in the computer, no reason to cut and redigitize, it is one of the simpliest things to do on a cad system, to add or subtract length. One of the reasons that our pattern #’s were different than the style #’s is that the style #’s changed every season because they were a combo of the season/fabric code/group, even though they were carryover styling. This saved us from having to rename the patterns each season. We filled out a line on the spec sheet with the pattern # and this carried all the way through from the marking room to the cutting room to quality, so that they could always see what pattern was to be used. We had some patterns that had been used for multiple seasons.

Another side of this issue is mens’ inseam lengths, I have always had an alteration grade table in the computer to grade for the length and rise differences between inseams, and assume that you could also do this for Petite and long, keeping the same pattern # for all 3 styles.

I totally agree that you need a different pattern for Plus and Plus petite, there is not a formula for changing to this size range from the regular range. It is a whole new shape and requires refitting.

By: Christy B.

Christy B. — Fri, 05 May 2006 04:17:27 +0000

I am VERY interested to keep reading on pattern room management! I am trying to organize my work environment to keep my sanity and need all the help I can get.

By: Esther

Esther — Thu, 04 May 2006 23:51:39 +0000

“I had to recut the styles by hand for added length and these were then digitized and graded from there. I don’t know that this is true but I’d think this was unnecessary. I don’t see why we couldn’t have designed a new grade rule that would grade and lengthen the style all at once.”

If you were doing this by hand, it would take a lot of time. But in a CAD environment it would be much simpler. Simply copy and paste the pattern, make the change in length to the base and then grade it. Most of the time your pattern will be automatically graded and all you need to do is tweak it.

The main issue is organization, the second what can you realistically grade efficiently. To keep everyone from getting confused, it would be best to create a petite block and a long block and store them in separate directories. Assign them different style/pattern numbers (or otherwise designate with a “P” or “L”). The last thing you want to have happen is your marker maker to pull up the wrong pieces in a production cut!

If a style is selected to be made long or petite, take your pattern, make the length changes and save it in a new area. Then apply any changes in grading to those pieces. In a CAD environment it really doesn’t take that much longer to re-make a pattern. I have had to do this many times for a private label program or to add plus sizes.

It really depends on how your sizing runs. If your sizes are say 2, 4, 6, 8 and you add petite sizes that run 2P, 4P, 6P, 8P, then you need to keep everything separate.

If your sizes run 2, 4, 6, 8, 8P, then you could keep it all together, treating the 8P as a separate size.

Having it all run together is just too confusing, IMO.