Comments on: Nag Nag Nag (EN 13402)

By: Kate Kennedy

Kate Kennedy — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:13:09 +0000

I have been researching EN 13402 as a possible system for Australia as (you may find this hard to believe) we have the same debate going on over "size", and have no reliable public data to work with. In a recent trip to Europe I spent some time looking for brands using this standard or at least aspects of it. A prominent French sporting/leisure chain have established a measurement identification system based on measuring your body with tape measures provided. You then select your size from the color coded diagrams posted in the store and change rooms. It was easy to follow. There are diagrams that relate to product for men, women and children. Size selection for lower body garments is based on waist. Disappointingly I ended up needing two different size pants for two different styles. Both styles were not the size the tape measure identified from my waist measurement. Alas shopping fatigue. So the conclusions that I draw from this are that; product QA policy and practice must adhere to a measurement discipline that complies to the label size if this is going to work, and that hip is probably a better way to select female lower body garments than the variables of waist. I am doing more research in this area. Does anyone have more info on this? I will forward a copy of the hang tag from the French company. H&M also reference CN body dimensions on their size tags. I couldn’t find any retail assistants who could explain what it meant though. [amended by kf] Kate sent me the files. If anyone wants to see the photos of tags, they've been uploaded here and here.

By: Mina W

Mina W — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:01:34 +0000

The other thing that would be useful to the consumer is a pictorial representation of the built-in ease of the garment style, like some of the online/catalog retailers use with their sizing charts. I mean an outline on the diagram of the fit of the garment, with a name: close-fitting, shaped, loose-fitting.

Also, at the waist, below the waist, way below (?), for pants & skirts. Also length of tops: crop, waist-length, high hip, low hip, below hip – or even better, length measurements. Of course, on hang tags, the length is less important, since you can see that, and hold it up. But the fit style, and where the waistband is supposed to sit, since that is a variable now, would be really useful.

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:47:38 +0000

Some years ago, while attending pattern drafting classes, we were ‘slipped’ a copy of the new European sizings, which were supposed to bring sizes uniform across the EU. It was a big secret because our lecturer had copied a ‘secret’ document and passed it on to us for future reference (most of those people who attended the course were preparing for their Master in Dressmaking exams, the highest trade level). I don’t know where my copy is, but if I can find it I’ll send you a copy. It should be ok to do so as it shouldn’t be a secret anymore.

By: Eli

Eli — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:27:06 +0000

I cant imagine how difficult it could be for everyone to come to a concensus. I’m tired of buying things in different sizes. This is why I always try everything on before I buy it. But even then the sizes are deceiving. At the store where I work, the mannequins used to wear size 27 pants, and even those are too small for them now. And you cant argue that the mannequins have gained weight can you?

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:09:04 +0000

nagging? I prefer the term “requesting” and truth be told – you asked me to remind you :p
I agree with your comment that the value is in using the pictograph on a garment tag on your garments showing the dimensions of a body the product is designed to fit. Customers and retail service reps need this info to help them make better decisions.
Thanks for the post – (she says nicely???)