RE: Statistics. They are obsolete the day they are printed. What’s important is to understand the methodology for assessing a data set then applying that methodology to your specific market’s context (i.e. data set). Cooklin’s books do us a favor (above and beyond other authors) in that he discloses the sample population and summarizes the study so you have the same context he used.

RE: different scales & relationships. I agree. The bustline circumference is too variable (e.g. depth of breast mound) to be at sufficient ratio to the hipline circumference. I prefer landmarks & bone processes when discussing relative dimensions (e.g. distance between the spines on the shoulder blades v. the length of the iliac crest).

Also note I at one point a few months ago I was able to read several of the page from Amazon.com online and found Cooklin had some interesting statistics and definitions. So though many including Kathleen say that Cooklin is apparently a great pattern maker /grader – I would still read this book with an objective eye. Also the statics maybe out of date and not applicable as he used Uk data.

For example and this only going from memory

XX% of plus women have a small bust
Small bust was defined as being 10cm smaller than the hip (~10cm = 4 inches)
Which i found extremely funny cause I am pear shape and I have large bust (bigger than DD or EE) but my bust measurement is more than four inches smaller than my hip. I would define bust size in relation to back width and shoulder width more than hip.

Fashion Design for the Plus-Size, and

Master Patterns and Grading for Women’s Outsizes: Pattern Sizing Technology

All the others look like fluff. We really need folks who are courageous enough to tackle the issue, head on – regardless how popular it is.

In the meantime, I’ve added both these books to my library list and will attempt to read them at some point in the future.

Oh, yes! I’d love to see them teach a real body’s proportions as opposed to simply sketching out the 9-heads figure. It might look nice in a sketch, but if you’re designing for petites, you can come up with some sketches that look beautiful on your runway model sketch but horribly dowdy on your 5′1″ customer. A very good example of an irrelevant (for the most part) standard.

The problem is many DE’s start out as idealists but it’s hard to stay that way when dealing with the plus size shopper as a whole.

Perhaps. But, market research and market feedback help clarify the vision and the products that will be released into the market.

In theory, anyone should be able to design, produce and compete in this market space. But, as my grandmother said: “how can you design clothes you can’t wear?” She said a lot of other things, too; but, they’re too colorful for this conversation.

perhaps the best case scenario is for a DE plus pear to start her own niche line solely focused on other pears, and for a DE Apple to start her own line, etc.

I certainly agree. I mean, who else understands the body shape better? Kathleen says that “manufacturing is an equal opportunity” enterprise, which I agree with and you seem to bite into (excuse the pun), too.

I would encourage anyone who wants to sell in this market to make bold statements. I think bowing to “focus groups” is not appropriate in this particular market space. What I mean is: if you’re specifically designing for the pear-shaped woman, please use a pear-shaped model on your collaterals and incorporate graphics and subtle imagery into the marketing material so consumers who are pear-shaped know they can seek you out.

I think it’s a common failing to put “focus group approved” models in ads that are not representative of the market being served. It leads to cross-market consumerism (i.e. untargeted consumer, etc.), dilutes the brand’s purpose and simply leads to dissatisfied customers. As most of you know, I’m not afraid to be unpopular, so take that advice with a grain of salt and manage your own comfort level.

I find a DE cannot compete with the likes of Gap, Reitmans and Addition-Elle (the Canadian Lane Bryant). Better offer something new, fun and … well made.

I’m inclined to think that a DE producing BBW should enter in the luxury end of the market, first. Develop some caché and then build down & out, so to speak. I don’t have time to research the numbers right now (I’m knee-deep in my own) but, the people who buy in this realm do make up a significant % of the total volume.

For example: 10% of men (i.e. the luxury consumers) contribute to 30% the total volume spent on apparel each year for the past 7 years. That means 90% of the men make up the remaining 70% of apparel spending! There are many niches within that 10%; but, this should give you an idea of the type of research you need to do to validate and refine your concept.

Where are the Fashion School in this?

Afraid of innovation. Okay, that was critical.

But, it’s the end result of a long-standing issue in academic circles. Students are frequently recruited into instructor roles based on their academic performance, not their real-life experience. What this creates is a situation of teaching by wrote meaning that old concepts (and, misconceptions) are replayed and repeated until they become deeply ingrained.

Personally, I would like to see illustration classes teach not only the traditional 9-and 8-heads figure concept, but also the “real figures” concept, too. I think that limiting a student to design on a 9- or 8-head croquis is an incomplete picture. It is not representative of the individual or the mass client they will serve after they leave the program.

I am a plus size woman, starting her plus size clothing line. I’ve been doing made to measure clothes exclusively for plus size women for 7 years now (20 years if I count working for MY body!). And I can tell you; ALL plus size women feel somehow left out, more so for the 14-18 missy sizes a few replies talked about. My advice for the industry?

- Where are the fashion foward stuff? I can only find 3 styles in broad distribution; classic older ladies choices, sportswear for the young/students, classic work and relaxed clothes in higher end lines. If you love to follow trends or are interested in dipping in the “designers styles”… You have next to nothing in store!

- Either extend the plus garments sizes down (doing 10+ and 12+) or pushing the missy’s size up a notch (18-20). All in an effort to offer more choices to the fastest growing (excuse the pun) market share…

Personnaly, I’m catering to the fashion foward types, with prices no higher than a Bridge line. I find a DE cannot compete with the likes of Gap, Reitmans and Addition-Elle (the Canadian Lane Bryant). Better offer something new, fun and … well made.

That is my other point. The plus size silhouettes are very hard to work with pattern wise, but not impossible to work on. You need experience and/or lots of patience. ALL DEs I know who ventured from regular size to plus abandonned within 1 year; all because of fitting problems! Might I add; Where are the Fashion School in this?

Yes I’d love to see the old Lane Bryant catalogues! Pretty please?