« The evils of mass production | Main | Pattern puzzle: fix this »
March 24, 2008
Grading children's clothes pt.1
This article was supposed to be about extrapolating grade rules from sizing charts but it's descended into what Eric describes as a necessary group apology from moi. Consider that done. Let me explain.
I don't do kids wear. Not grading anyway. In the interests of self improvement, I've been using a child's pattern in my OptiTex CAD training. Last week, I started the grading portion of the training (neat!!!!). Speaking of, Mike says his wife Amy learned the whole program in four hours. Oh how I envy; I wish I were half as clever... Anyway, I started the grading portion by using the grading charts for kids wear from the Handford book. Since the pattern I was using had already been graded by my friend in hard copy, I was surprised that Handford's charts differed so much from hers. His were definitely dramatically longer. The one thing I remember my friend saying was that her sizes were much different from books but that after seven years of use, she knew her patterns ran true to size (for her market).
Which is what started my quest over the weekend to find standardized sizing charts, throw them into a spread sheet and compare the grades between them. What I didn't expect, was to find such vast differences. There's also a bit of controversy to explore as well. The cut to the chase lesson for today is two fold. One, check the sources of your sources. Two, just because you have to buy a given data set, doesn't mean it's better than the available free one.
In this post (this is where the group apology comes in), I'd said where one could get sizing standards. For children's wear, I said one could use the ASTM standard D 5826. However, I was doing a comparison so I pulled measures from Mortimer-Dunn, Solinger, and Jaffe Rosa. The thing that stood out -glaringly obvious- was that the charts in Solinger, (appendix E), shows bodies larger than the published ASTM standard (D 5826). Since Solinger's book is 27 years old, I started to read the fine print. As it turns out, the data for the ASTM standard is from 1930! Wow! Aside from the obvious, 1930 wasn't exactly the best time to be measuring kids considering it was the depression and all. So, I looked up Solinger's source material which turned out to be the Commercial Standard CS151-50 (pdf) which dates from the early 1970's, a full forty years newer. As it happens, this data set is in the public domain and readily available along with a few other data sets. Caveat; this standard has been officially withdrawn because (the "because" matters; it wasn't withdrawn because it was defective or superseded by a newer standard):
The commercial standard and products standards on body measurements for the sizing of apparel ....maintained by NBS under the Voluntary Product Standards [sic] Program (VPS) were withdrawn. This was in accordance ...to withdraw these standards after sponsorship was assumed by the private industry sector.
Really? Guess by whom was the responsibility assumed in the private sector? That'd be ASTM (they are so going to kick me out). What I don't understand is why the "sponsoring organization" is selling 1930's data when responsibility for this 1970's standard languishes. I am absolutely baffled. It's crazy that you have to buy the 1930's data while the 1970's data is free (pdf). May as well go and get it. I'll be using it as source material when I explain how to calculate grade rules from measurements.
~Sigh~. Regardless of the base sizes described in ASTM D5826 vs CS151-50, the most important thing is the rules derived between them. As it turns out, there's some quirkiness there too; it almost looks like butt covering hedging one's bets. I'll explain more on that tomorrow so be sure to stay tuned to this riveting, gut wrenchingly exciting series. Heh. Now I have to get back to grading practice...
Edit:
I forgot to mention that between all of us on the forum, we have an in depth topic on cutting the differing sizes in children's clothes with side discussions of major retailer private label requirements (anybody have Penney's or Sears' specs?). See Grading kid's clothes 3, 4, 5, 6 (and I suppose, 6X, 7?) for more developments. If you have nothing to add but want to be emailed notice of updates, be sure to select "Watch this topic for replies" at the bottom left portion of the screen.
Posted by Kathleen Fasanella at March 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Email to a friend
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.fashion-incubator.com/cgi-bin/mt/3.33/mt-tb.cgi/1316
Comments
The great thing about the CIS151 is that the grading charts appear at the end of the report. There's no real need to calculate anything unless you're a glutton for punishment (like I am).
Posted by: J C Sprowls at March 24, 2008 3:35 PM
I wonder if standardized children's sizes will have to be redone again, what with the obesity epidemic we have here in the States. What have I heard--66% of children are obese? Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Gail at March 24, 2008 3:53 PM
Actually I do find this gut-wrenchingly exciting! I really want to know about grading kids' sizes - there's so much less information on it than adult stuff, although I'm hoping it's easier given the simpler shapes involved. And I'd particularly love to know about grading knit patterns (leotards, swimwear etc.) - hint hint!
Posted by: Barb at March 24, 2008 3:55 PM
Other than the elimination of a dart on most styles, the grading process is no different for kids than for adults. The grade rules differ, of course, and that is where the controversy comes in. Standardization is an ongoing dilemma in the children's market. The grade rules for knits versus wovens won't really differ.
Posted by: Esther at March 24, 2008 4:43 PM
We have been designing and manufacturing our kidswear line now for 3 years and believe it or not it has taken this long to get our patterns really right. We started with books and wow, some of those measurements were really really off so only now through several seasons and many fit model photos have we tweaked our measurements for everything from pant length, inseam, and tops. It is an ongoing process but finally in our summer line we should have the most correct sizing yet.
Pam
Posted by: Pam at March 24, 2008 4:43 PM
I concur with Esther. The grade rules don't change much because they are largely based on the dimensional change in body measurements (e.g. the S has a 3" smaller hip than the M).
Posted by: J C Sprowls at March 24, 2008 6:40 PM
When my 11-year-old stepdaughter was a little younger, I noticed that the size 10 (usually pants) was a lot longer than the size 8 and there needed to be a size 9 because once the 8 was way too small to be worn any more, the 10 was still too long. She's tall, though, so I don't know if that was the reason. It's not like I couldn't just roll up the pant legs or something, but I think sometimes the waistlines were too big and didn't always have belt loops.
Posted by: Lisa Bloodgood in Portland at March 24, 2008 6:49 PM
I should probably clarify my statement about knit versus woven grade rules. The grade rules all depend on your sizing. You can derive S-M-L grading from regular sizing grade rules. I have found that S-M-L sizing for children is virtually meaningless because of all of the different size ranges. I tend to discourage it unless the S-M-L sizing also has corresponding size numbers attached to it. In any event the PROCESS of grading knits and wovens is the same.
Posted by: Esther at March 24, 2008 8:14 PM
My experience is that there is no standardization among the grades and most children's wear companies develop their own fit. The grade is really dependent on the type of fit and "look" you're going for. Some companies have more of a European sizing and fit, and some are cut more generously with a looser fit. Honestly, I've never been able to completely use the grades / sizing from one children's wear company to another.
Posted by: Penny at March 24, 2008 11:53 PM
oh I'm loving this...thanks Kathleen!!!
With friendship,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY at March 25, 2008 3:13 AM
I've been waiting for someone to open this can of worms.
15 years in the kidswear business and I can honestly say we've had to develop our own grade rules based on input from Penny's, Sears, Lands End, LL Bean and many published books. Let's just say irritated vocal customers eventually make your grade rules perfect.
When it comes to designing a new line like swimwear its back to the drawing boards again. It takes about three years (not seasons)to refine size grades for kids.
Over the years we've found the best way to grade is to have three base patterns. One infant (12M), One toddler to 6X (4T) and one 7-14 (8). I can't wait for part two!
Once you get the grades right your retailers will love you.
Posted by: Alan at March 25, 2008 8:57 PM
Love this thread! Thx Kathleen.
Posted by: vicki at March 26, 2008 7:49 AM
oh my! i love this. we are in children's apparel and sizing is SUCH an issue.
Posted by: sharon at April 3, 2008 2:20 PM
In Response to: anybody have Penney's or Sears' specs?
I have a copy of jcpenney grade rule for Childrens 3-6x (4 pages). Not sure how to share it.... help?
Posted by: Lisa at April 4, 2008 3:57 PM
I am a little concerned about the standards website with the 1970's / withdrawn standards. I am currently trying to develop/locate avg childrens body measurements for my new job. My background is missy womens clothing.... so, I checked the misses withdrawn standard first and found that the sizing wasn't accurate to todays (moderate) industry standard. The sizing is better associated with home sewer pattern measurements. So, getting back to my concern.... I don't know how accurate the childrens standard are to todays moderate childrens industry standard. Any thoughts?
Posted by: lisa at April 4, 2008 4:56 PM
