Selecting initial size

Why make life complicated when you can make it simple?

Recap

There are two ways of making a custom garment, drafting a pattern from measurements or using a commercial pattern that is adjusted for the individual.

Previous posts in this series looked at some considerations when selecting an initial size with a commercial pattern, the rationale for two widely used formulas for initial size selection, and the outcome in terms of pattern alterations.

The example used was an individual with bust/chest circumference 2 inches larger than the pattern envelope. The initial size selection was one size smaller than would have been used going by bust/chest measurement alone. The exercise adjusted the pattern either by adding equally to the front and back (P&S) or to the front only (FBA).

Reminder

We did not judge the outcome of the alterations. We did not say one is “better” or “worse” than the other, just that these are two possible options. We cannot judge the outcome because we have not made a toile yet or evaluated the fit on the body. We only know bust/chest circumference. Either alteration, a combination of the alterations or something else altogether might be needed for a great fit. This is not about fitting per se but about evaluating our assumptions to make the fitting process easier.

Pattern alteration to add extra circumference in the bust/chest area

Everyone knows there’s no such thing as a free lunch. In addition to the goal of increasing circumference at the bust and keeping the shoulder and neck the same, these flat pattern adjustments have other consequences. This table shows a summary of the changes (pattern outlines shown here)

Some of these changes are trivial but others could be quite influential on the overall fit.

Now let’s compare the outcome of these adjustments to the next size up in the multi-sized pattern, namely the size we would have selected if we had chosen by bust/chest circumference on the envelope.

Selecting by bust/chest size

The diagrams are all to scale, each pattern is outlined with a particular color as follows:

Here are the unaltered patterns (original and next size up) compared to each of the adjusted patterns separately (there is no comparison of the back with the FBA adjustment as this is unchanged). The patterns have no seam allowance and are aligned at HPS:

My takeaway is that the neck and shoulder of the unaltered pattern does not change significantly enough to warrant starting with a smaller size. As commentator Jennifer Russell wrote on a previous post “Done correctly, the shoulder fit should be changing quite slowly with the grade”.

Now let’s add back some of the seam allowance on the larger size and compare it first to the fronts¹:

And for the back:

This comparison makes it clear that both types of alterations (IF indeed these were the alterations needed), could (fairly well) be accommodated simply by choosing the initial size by bust/chest circumference and making a toile.

Choosing a smaller size and making flat pattern alterations in advance could be detrimental bearing in mind all the other consequences of the alteration (see table above). This might also depends on how easy it would be for a maker to alter the bodice toile which can be especially tricky when one is working alone.

Keep in mind

This is just a single example using a commercial sloper pattern. As we discussed in previous posts, the advice for choosing a smaller size was empirically developed with a population using the major US pattern companies (Vogue, Butterick, Simplicity, McCalls). Many makers report finding that patterns from these companies “run large” and therefore the conventional wisdom is to “size down”.²

Glass Half Full

Looking at people who have posted online, these traditional formulas of “chose by front chest width/high bust measurement” are extremely successful in helping makers. In this exercise we do not know which approach is preferable because the only information we know is that the individual has a 4 inch difference between high bust and full bust.

The front chest width measurement needed for the Sew/Fit Pivot & Slide method was developed at a period where perhaps the vast majority of makers (in N. America) were using commercial patterns from the major US pattern companies.

We have previously discussed how initial size selection was more challenging because your purchase only covered a single size. At that time, patterns were drafted for quite a few different body types, and so you would also be encouraged to evaluate your body shape to help refine your selection.

1969 Simplicity patterns were offered in 9 different categories catering to bodies with various proportions (Girls, Junior, Young Junior/Teen, Miss PetiteJunior Petite, Misses’, Chubbie, Half-size, Women’s)

My guess is that the additional layer of refinement offered by a pattern that already catered to the proportions of the maker contributed to the success of the Sew/Fit approach³. Contrast that with contemporary Vogue with only two body shape ranges; Misses and Today’s Fit⁴.

Vogue Patterns Body Measurement Size Chart

Similarly to the Sew/Fit method, with the Palmer Pletsch approach, makers are encouraged to “be aware” of their body parts or shape to help determine which pattern adjustments to make. Palmer Pletsch also has an advantage because bust/chest circumference is a standard measure provided by all pattern companies so this approach is easier to adapt to a wider range of patterns.

The emphasis is still on sizing down and making adjustments in advance, in particular the FBA (Full Bust Adjustment). The exact FBA is refined with a combination of measurement and tissue fitting but many many people report that this “works” and it has become a routine adjustment for them.

The FBA is probably the most successful single pattern adjustment, so much so that pattern companies now offer patterns where the adjustment is included in the form of bust cup options. It also is one of the few body part pattern adjustments with a name association that is psychologically positive. Although subjective, describing oneself as needing a “Full Bust” adjustment sounds way more uplifting than the “Dowager’s Hump” adjustment⁵.

Glass Half Empty

Although the FBA is very popular, not all makers have busts. For these people, the entire FBA discussion is a non-starter. The FBA adjustment is theoretically for individuals with a greater than 2 inch difference between their high and full bust. Yet there are some who have found they need an FBA even though they do not meet that criteria. Other people might have a greater than 2 inch difference between their high bust and full bust but find they do not need the FBA. Why?

While the formula of “chose by front chest width/high bust measurement” approach to initial size selection is successful for many, a significant number of makers faithfully follow the instructions but find themselves no closer to the finish line. This is where the hand waving begins. Sewists start blaming themselves—maybe I measured incorrectly? Was my adjustment too large? Too little? Maybe my shape is not what I think it is? What other adjustments do I need? If I need more than one adjustment perhaps they cancel each other out?

Online forums are full of posts “I made the FBA and the front is fine but I always have extra wrinkles on my back”. They then start consulting books and videos with titles like “If you’re having difficulty with diagonal wrinkles on your backside here are two things you can try” or they search for bodies with similar measurements which they hope will lead them to the magic pattern adjustment that will be “the one”.

It is an arduous merry-go-round, but has become an accepted part of making garments. Experienced sewists encourage newbies to expect a hazing period of struggle, before you “figure out what works for your body”. People focus on finding a pattern company they can figure out a reliable fitting formula, or start drafting from scratch, or give up garment sewing entirely.

What have we learned?

In the demonstration exercise, we learned that there is little advantage in “sizing down” compared to choosing the initial pattern piece by front chest or bust. And, given that today we are almost always purchasing multi-sized patterns, IMO a big part of the Sew Fit method is no longer as relevant as it is much easier to evenly blend between sizes.

Empirical experience shows that the adage of “sizing down to get a good neck/shoulder fit, then do an FBA” is very effective. But why does it work for indie pattern companies which are touted as using more RTW sizing and having “less ease”? There are currently no satisfactory explanations to account for these observations beyond the “patterns are designed for B cups”.

TDCO is a fitting approach that is not based on empirical observations or prior adjustment of the pattern with body measurements. If doing this provided a significant advantage to the outcome I would be all in favor of it. But it does not, plus it comes with more than a few disadvantages. Why make life complicated when you can make it simple?

With TDCO—as with any other method starting with a commercial pattern—you still have to choose an initial size from the multi-sized pattern. Next, we will discuss the rationale for how to select the initial size and how the approach enables flexibility when fitting.

1. seam allowance in this diagram was only added to the sides of the pattern, not the shoulder or neckline.

2. Understanding the issue of “too much ease” is a great topic for a future discussion.

3. Other factors are the type of designs that were popular at that time, for example bodices were often closer fitting than is common today.

4. Some styles in Big4 are also available with different bust cup sizes and larger size ranges.

5. In a binary world that is—one reason why I am not a fan of body part adjustments although very popular.