Comments on: Why larger sizes cost more or Size is nothing but a number

By: Penny

Penny — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:23:53 +0000

If fabric came in widths wider than 60″ a lot of the problems would be solved. I can’t tell you how much fabric I could save if I had just 4 more inches of width to work with. Size matters.

By: Judy Gross

Judy Gross — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:16:40 +0000

I just saw this post and find it interesting (as with this entire blog). I will soon be making a unisex hiking kilt. The size range will go from womens xs to mens xl, I don’t have a marker for it yet as the designer is still tweaking the pattern, but it will be interesting to see how it all works out. The womens medium will be a mans small, the mens medium will a womens large etc. I may be able to get a good/ even spread -

By: Poll: What is your base size?

Poll: What is your base size? — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:54:55 +0000

[...] puzzled and surprised when I mentioned that many designers these days are not using a size 8 or 10 (tsk tsk) as the basis for their pattern and style development. I told her that instead of using the [...]

By: Adrienne Myers

Adrienne Myers — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:20:41 +0000

It’s difficult to take a complicated subject and reduce it to simple terms. The subtleties of it matter. The starting point of costing should be a pretty high priority for manufacturers, but consumers concern is more with the styles available to them and their cost on their end. They are necessarily at odds for goals, and too far apart from one another in literal needs will lead to the companies dissolution. Not that I think there are a great deal of good choices for plus size as it is (I’m an 18- 20), but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

By: Russell

Russell — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:28:14 +0000

As a fashion designer and now a technical designer that has worked with factories all over the world for the last 35 years, you should also note that in time studies it takes longer to sew, press and finish larger sizes. Plus there is more thread used in these larger sizes, not to mention the extra yardage for interlinings, fusibles and additional trimmings. Every little piece in the making of every garment is added up when you sit down with the costing engineers. It is fascinating to watch them work up the price. We sometimes only think of the additional cost of fabric and not the other items and labor that go into making a garment.

It is a slow process to get companies to buy additional larger sizes. However, as more research is done in consumer studies and marketing, many companies are adding additional larger sizes to their size ratio in their buys. The average size consumer now in the USA is a 14/16 depending on the brand. But, the interesting fact is that in all of the companies I have worked for (many major main stream brands) the sampling and fitting is done on a size small. Of course today’s size small is what back in the 70′s was a size medium–but that is another topic of discussion.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:40:54 +0000

This is so interesting to read right now. . . I literally have pattern pieces lying all around and a spreadsheet with widths and grade rules to see what sizes get us into trouble. Because we’re doing made-to-order, our sizing/cost problem is slightly different. I’ll try to explain (with apologies off the bat that I don’t have Kathleen’s gift for clear articulation!): there are many pieces in our patterns that nest side-by-side quite well. However, at some size, these pieces no longer nest side-by-side and must be laid end-to-end. As some of these pieces are quite long, having to lay a piece end-to-end means adding something on the order of another yard of silk per garment (ouch).

Aside from the cost implications, we found that some pieces were so wide (those that included trains on dresses) that it would be impossible to grade up normally beyond a given size. One thing we’re considering on those is “tweaking” the grading a bit so that the pattern doesn’t increase evenly in width beyond our size 12 (this would yield a slightly shorter, less full train for each size above our 12, but would at least allow us to offer the larger sizes). Other than that the options are to not offer the larger sizes or change the pattern for all the sizes (which would then mean a less attractive product- in my opinion- and a higher cost for everyone due to the increase in sewing).

I never considered any of these factors before. . . it would be very interesting if this kind of thing were better explained to consumers (and naive DEs!).

By: Tina

Tina — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:00:54 +0000

Grace and Alison,

No – Kathleen is right. IQ follows a bell curve (or normal distribution). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient).

By: Alison Cummins

Alison Cummins — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:24:47 +0000

Grace,

Wouldn’t it be a chi-square distribution function?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_square

By: Grace

Grace — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:29:01 +0000

Great post, Kathleen. I accidentally learned the offset trick when I cut knit pants for both myself and my 10 yo out of the same fabric. It was so efficient.

BTW, IQ doesn’t fit a bell curve. You can’t get lower than 0, but you can get higher than 200. ;-)

It’s more of a power law relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

This is good news because we need all the smart people we can get, yourself included.

Thanks again for fighting the good fight.

By: Bente

Bente — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:10:49 +0000

I think I got it! Oh so slow..I am so sorry I waisted your time!
When you do your marker you fill in the ratio of sizes so it fits each layer to cut, meaning you have the pattern pieces doubled and tripled for some sizes according to the ratio.
I can see I have been spoiled rotten with full package production for more than a decade LOL.
Thanks for the lesson of today!