More about Marion 47

Just a short post to elaborate on the previous one and to clarify it. First of all, Melissa asked to see the pattern sheet... Well, hmm, of course you can but that really was a slightly masochistic question.

I just scanned a corner of the actual pattern sheet. Yes, this is what you were supposed to trace your patterns from (and I've been told that the value of these magazines on the collector's market is largely depended on their not having tracing marks on those pattern sheets...)

And as for instructions... Any woman can sew, right? It was part of your upbringing.

This was all you got in the way of instructions: some general information (seam allowance not included, some pattern pieces may be on the pattern sheet in two parts on the pattern sheets so you have to fit them together. that sort of thing) and drawings of the clothes with their size, which line to follow for the pattern, the amount of fabric needed (which sounds more useful than it really is because the standard width apperently used to be 90 cm) and a describtion of the pattern pieces. There aren't even any fabric lay-out drawings until the mid 1960's issues. A pattern with a truly unusual feature might come with some cryptic remark about how to accomplish that, but generally, you were on your own.

In fact, I'm happy to have the drawings of pattern pieces because that will allow me to try and borrow some little style tricks without tracing an entire pattern. Which may well be what I'll end up doing most.

Also, several of you commented on the nice clothes in the pictures I posted. However, there are only a few patterns with each magazine. Those were on pages marked with a picture of a tracing weel (pointed out in red here. don't worry that's photoshop).

In this page, the maturnity and baby clothes on the right page are on the pattern sheet, the lingerie on the left page isn't.

So, the nice swagger coats and those stylish dresses didn't come with patterns (and indeed I adore the pockets of dress 2 and the neckline of 3).

Also, just for fun:

This is the Marion 1952 sizing table. Top bracket are ladies sizes, with measurements for bust, waist and hips. the middle bracket is for childrens sizes, which are determined by chest size and 'overall length' (of what? the child? Probably not because I'm pretty sure no-one is only 1.02 meters tall at 14... It might be leg length or that of some unknown sort of standard garment). The third bracket is for menswear which was sized not only by chest, waist and hip measurement but also by collar size. I know that's a standard for men's shirts so I guess it makes sense.

We tend to think that sizes back then ran way smaller, but guess what... size 38 is for a 88 cm bust. So is size 38 in today's Burda. Ok, Marion assumes a smaller waist and a larger hip but the differences there are only 2 cm each, which is half a size. And Marion sizes went up as far as 52, for a 124 cm bust. And it seems like the 'average' size was 40 or 42...

I may study this a bit more and come back to it in a later post.

The necessary evil of sizing

I promised you a post with this subject, so I'll give it a go. I really don't think I can cover all the different aspects of this sticky topic in one post, but I may have a little bit of extra insight. But, more about that later.

First of all, don't we all hate size tags? And the fact that they always

seem to be wrong? Sewing your own clothes may seem like a way out of the limbo of the changing rooms, but be honest, is it really? Every pattern you buy comes in sizes and now, you have to try and pick the right one without being able to try stuff on...

These are just two examples of sizing tables. The pink one is Burda's, the grey one comes from Knipmode (where "bovenwijdte" = "bust measurement", "taillewijdte" = "waist measurement" and "heupwijdte" = "hip measurement").

You may have wondered about those ever-wrong sizes. Why are you a size 34 in one store and a 38 in the other? Why do you often have to pick a larger size than your usual RTW one when studying the sizing tables of sewing patterns? Isn't there some kind of standard?

Well... That's the point, isn't it? There is no standard. There is no rule telling fashion brands or pattern makers that such-and-such are the measurements for each size.

The only regulated sizing I know of (and I haven't made a study of this, so there may be many more cases) was in the US in the 1950's when sizing for womenswear was done by bust size, in three different shape categories. In fact, more than the confusing sizing, I think it's a pity we lost the notion of different clothes intended for differently shaped women in today's fashion jungle. Although it seems we just have many more different shapes nowadays...

As a 'rule', fashion companies (for RTW and sewing patterns) try to size their products according to their customer's expectations. That's the reason sizes run (much) smaller at youth-oriented stores like H&M. Not just the number stuck on the main size (bust circumference for dresses and tops, hip circumference for bottoms) differs, but also the ratio between measurements. Again, this is based on the target customer.

A company which only sells in the Netherlands, or northern Europe (like sewing magazine Knipmode) will make its designs for rather tall women (Dutch women are tall, on average). And a company selling mainly to 35+ women will decide on a much curvier basic block than one selling to ages 15 to 25.

In RTW, you would do well to seek out and remember the brands which best fit your body shape.

You probably knew most of that already. However, there's another nastly little secret which will sound familiar to the experienced seamstress.

Fashion companies have to start somewhere when making a new design. In theory, this starting point is an ideally shaped specimen of the body type of their target audience, in their most average size. However, many brands have to present clothes to retailers to sell them and for that reason, they may prefer to go with a smaller than average size which looks better on a hanger.

In the Netherlands, the size most brands do their fitting for is 38. Their own 38. Usually combined with a height of 1,70 meter and a B cup. That's why I said seamstresses would recognise this. This is what all the talk of full bust and small bust adjustments is all about. It's why they're needed. And why anyone with a seriously different cup size has such trouble buying clothes ready-to-wear.

Another major cause of confusion is what is known as 'size inflation'. Apperently women are more eager to buy if they are pleasantly surprised by the size on the tag. To use this effect even while people are generally getting larger, companies regurlarly adept their sizing tables. Those selling sewing patterns do this rarely. They know their customers are used to go by the sizing table and will only change it if they feel there is a real, over-all change they have to respond to. For example, about two years ago, Knipmode changed its sizing. They made each size slightly bigger but, more importantly, they changed the standard height from 1,68 to 1,72. To suit the afore mentioned tall Dutch woman. In doing so, they lost me as customer because my measurements had now pretty much dropped off the chart.

Ready-to-wear manufactures live by their ability to respond quickly to the market they're in. They employ people who constantly monitor the application of their blocks and adept the size and fit of those blocks to customer demand. So they may change quickly and often.

Size tags are evil

Who never claims sizes are evil? And I don't believe it is only when we have to go and pick a larger size than expected...

I hardly ever shop or use normal patterns, so I tend to forget about this particular issue. However, I do sometimes buy second hand/vintage clothes. I usually don't look at the size on the label. I concentrate instead on material and shape/style or refashion potential.

In my previous post I, and some of you, already mentioned how different fashion eras champion different shapes and ideas of fit. This is an issue you definately come across when shopping second hand.

I bought this silk ladies' shirt for 1 euro several weeks ago. According to it's own size tag, it's a size S and it was made in China. I think, based on the style and that rather generous size (it's on my old dummy here, which is larger in the bust than I am. I still have to find some legs for Mary) that this is an 1980's garment. I like the Chinese knot detail of the closure and thought I might try to wear it as is. But I haven't yet. Even belted, it just feels too bulky. I'm thinking of re-setting the sleeve to narrow the shoulder but it might need yet more work. It's lovely smooth, light and soft silk, so it would be worth the effort.

This shirt is also silk and I bought it today at the same market stall. This material is less finely woven, resulting in a shirt which feels smooth and has a cotton-like hand. According to it's size tag, this shirt is a size 40 and made in "W.-Germany". I'm not sure how to date it. The fact that it was made in West-Germany means it has to be pre-1990, of that I am sure. Although it's undarted, it seems too closely fitted for an 80's shirt. On the inside, both shirts are finished with the same 3-thread serging. The style of the collar doesn't look recent.

And, crucially: size 40??

German sizes are the same as Dutch size and if this shirt was in a shop today, it might make quite a few women comment on the evils of sizing. It's a bit wide on me, but fits about right at the shoulder. Usually, a size 36 will fit me at the shoulder.

I should really do a proper post about RTW sizing, size-inflation etc., some day soon. But I have to think on that a bit longer... For now, I'm just curious about your ideas about the dates on my shirts, your tales of strange sizing and, if you feel particularly helpful, any tips on what to do with shirt number 1.