a proposal for a new size label to assist consumers in finding well-fitting women’s clothing

8/12/2019 A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers in Finding Well-fitting Womens Clothing

1/14

http://trj.sagepub.com

Textile Research Journal

DOI: 10.1177/00405175080993942009; 79; 1446 originally published online Jul 1, 2009;Textile Research Journal

Marie-Eve Faust and Serge CarrierNorth American Companies

specially Pants: An Analysis of Size USA Female Data and Womens Ready-to-wear Pants foProposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers in Finding Well-fitting Womens Clothing

http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/16/1446The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Textile Research JournalAdditional services and information for

http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/79/16/1446Citations

by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009http://trj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/79/16/1446http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/79/16/1446http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/14

Textile Research Journal Article

Textile Research JournalVol 79(16): 14461458 DOI: 10.1177/0040517508099394 The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:

Figures 110, 13 appear in color online: http://trj.sagepub.com http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers in

Finding Well-fitting Womens Clothing, Especially Pants:An Analysis of Size USA Female Data and WomensReady-to-wear Pants for North American Companies

Marie-Eve Faust1and Serge CarrierThe Institute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract In the USA, Canada and Europelabels that disclose garments composition, origin,commercial brand or price at point of sale arerequired. No law governs garment size labels andunderlying measurements. Standard size chart

determination is not an easy task and has alwaysbeen challenging for national institutes of stand-ardization, manufacturers and retailers. Moreo-

ver, size standards are voluntary, therefore thosewho initiate garment orders can decide whetheror not to adhere to national standards. Since sizelabels and standards are voluntary, some of thebuyers or their intermediaries prefer to target spe-cific silhouette and shape markets by adaptingtheir measurements, while others play the vanitysizing card. Confusion occurs as companies inNorth America all use the same numerical sizelabeling systems. The research discussed in thispaper demonstrates that manufacturers in North

America size garments (pants) according to theirown, specific target markets (which differ fromone another), to cover most of the population;they then label these garments with reference to asingle numerical code size labeling system whichleads to chaos in the market place. Besides beingchallenging for the apparel industry, the size labelsystem creates an ambiguous situation for theconsumer who cannot rely on the size label toidentify a good fitting garment, and thus is spend-ing undue time trying clothes. We conclude that

the time has come to standardize the size label inorder to provide better fitting clothes for ready-to-wear.

Key words body scanning, markets, productmeaning and consumer perception: fashion, retailmanagement systems, sizing of apparel

1Corresponding author: Assistant Professor of Fashion Retail-ing, School of Business Administration, Philadelphia University,Philadelphia, PA 19144-5497, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/http://trj.sagepub.com/


3/14

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier 1447 TRJ

It has been previously demonstrated by investigators thatapparel order initiators and manufacturers do not adhereto established national size standards [1, 2]. In the litera-ture review, numerous causes have been mentioned. Thereasons why this is the case range from outdated standardsto niche marketing or even vanity sizing (defined as usinglarger underlying measurements than a given size to appealto the consumers vanity [3]).

From the findings of the research under discussion,focusing on the lower part of the body and pants, it was evi-dent that a practical choice does exist which would allowmanufacturers and their vendors to label their productsaccording to accurate measurements. However, such achoice would impose a labeling system that is based upon aset of specific measurements. This approach recognizesthat garment buyers and vendors may target and prefer tofit specific consumer segments; nonetheless, pertinentinformation can still be supplied to the consumer.

Womens shapes and silhouettes vary from one toanother and manufacturers produce their garments accord-ing to one or another specific shape and silhouette, irrespec-tive of the sizes. Therefore, the size label should include apictogram representative of the front view of a woman withletters (H,X orA)1identifying front silhouette and the keymeasurement points. Besides improving customer servicesby facilitating selectiona prioriof the right size labels couldimprove supply chain management by allowing distributorsand vendors to order garments which fitted their targetmarket.

The objectives were therefore to investigate whethermanufacturers produce for a specific target (silhouette),

which may be different from other manufacturers targets;to appraise up to what level they cover womens sizes andsilhouettes and to demonstrate that a new sizing label isrequired (re-introducing body silhouette classifications tothe sizing code with the concept of the H, Xand Asilhou-ettes).

To test the look and acceptance level of the proposednew label, we conducted a pilot test. Results showed that80% of the participants were in favor of a new and more

visual presentation for a size label with body measure-ments and a pictogram, showing the above-mentionedinformation.

The authors subsequently recommend that regulation

on the matter of the denomination of sizes and accordinglythe information given in the size label itself would be animportant milestone for the apparel industry.

Literature Review

In the USA, regulations are enforced to ensure that gar-ments are sold with labels which display a minimum ofinformation. Each garment must be labeled with fiber con-tent, country of origin, care instructions, and the identity of

the manufacturer or another business responsible for mar-keting or handling the item2 [4]. Similar regulations aremandatory in Canada. A garment is required to include alabel indicating fiber content and washing instructions, thecountry in which the item was produced, unless it was pro-duced in Canada, and a CA number3 [5]. Europe is noexception and according to the Comite Francais de lEtique-tage pour lEntretien des Textiles4, the composition and theprice at point of sale are mandatory information to beaffixed on garments. From a commercial perspective, brandname and fiber are required [6]. The general belief is thatgarments must be marked with information consideredimportant to the ultimate purchaser, but none of the

national aforesaid regulations indicate that a size designa-tion label is required.

In the apparel industry, measuring approach, standardsizes identification, grading method, and size labeling havebeen the subjects of conversation for a number of years, andfrequently in relation to fit [719]. National surveys based onanthropometric data were the choice solution to achievestandard sizes, thus ensuring that all women found appropri-ately fitting clothes [7]. Therefore, the Womens Measure-

ments for Garment and Pattern Construction (WMGPC)

survey was conducted between July 1939 and June 1940 andpublished by the United States Department of Agriculture in1941. The report showed for one part, no correlation

between height and weight. Consequently, the data couldbe used without doubt for sizing charts if divided into thecategories of Short, Regular, and Tall. The report alsostated that key measurement points, such as bust, waist,and hip, should be used. In 1945, theAssociation for Mail-Order Sales recommended a standard for sizes for the USgarment industry: the Commercial Standard commonlyreferred to as CS215-58, which was issued in 1958 [20]. The

Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and

Apparel reported the classifications of women as Misses,Womens, Half-sizes, and Junior as well as groupsShort, Regular, and Tall with sub-groups within eachBust-hip, Slender, Average, and Full, maintaining thesame key point measurements, such as bust, waist, andhip. Finally, the Voluntary Product Standard (PS 42-70)forpattern development and grading was published in 1971as a revision of the CS215-58[21], etc.It is important to

1H , X or A silhouettes precise measurements and ratios may

vary from one author to another. For example, ideal X silhouettecan be defined as similar in width in the shoulders and hips, withmedium bust, small waist, slightly curved abdomen, and slimthighs. In this study, we use silhouette as female visible silhouettefrom a front profile view [34], whereas shape refers to a three-dimensional female body.

2 USA madatory label: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2005050596&WO=2005050596&DISPLAY=DESC.

3 Canadian Government: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/.4 France: Comite Francais de lEtiquetage pour lEntretien des

Textiles: http://www.cofreet.com/etiquetage.htm.



4/14

1448 Textile Research Journal 79(16)RJRJ

point out that when the PS 42-70 standard was introduced,it simplified the sizes specified in CS215-58 by removingthe Bust-hip categories, the concept of body shape classi-fications from sizing code.

Yet some authors believed that standards emanatingfrom national surveys were of limited use in their time andare now obsolete [22]. They justified their point of view bythe fact that todays women have different body measure-ments, body shapes and silhouettes than women at thetime the study was conducted [2325] or argued that body

shape (and silhouettes) could vary according to the ethnic-ity lifestyles, nutrition and genes (endomorph: rounded;

mesomorph: pyriform; ectomorph: willowy) (see Figure 1)[26].

In order to ensure the best fit, it is the manufacturersresponsibility to consider their target customer whendeveloping specifications [27]. In view of that, they oftenprefer grading their garments according to their targetbust, waist and hip measurements instead of a prescribedsize chart [28], and nowadays the garment industry is pro-

Figure 1 Endomorph: top left cor-

ner;mesomorph: top right corner,

middle left, and bottom right cor-

ner;ectomorph: bottom left corner

and middle right [26].



5/14


viding more choice forpetiteandlarge (plus)sizes [29, 30].Considering the non-applicability of standards and goal tosatisfy clientele order initiators do not adhere to nationalsize standards [1].

That manufacturers or vendors do not adhere to sizestandards is not a problem in itself. It can even be viewed

as market segmentation. The problem arises when they alluse the same numerical sizing codes (such as 4, 6, 8, 24)to label garments of varying underlying measurements[31], with subsequent chaos for the apparel industry as wellas for consumers [32].

In order to provide more information about the varioussize labels in use, a summary of sizes found frequently inNorth American brands and one well-known Europeanbrand is presented in Table 1 below.

Recently, the international apparel brands have notonly presented various numerical codes, but they have also

linked these numbers to a country, again without providingeither body measurements or garment measurements.Examples are presented below (see Figure 2).

When looking at these an obvious question would be:How is it that a 58, 150 pound woman, a 56, 135 pound

woman and a 59, 125 pound woman all claim to wear a size

8?5[34].Or again, Are size labels appreciated by consum-ers? [14]. In resume, Do size labels convey adequateinformation? or Do size labels fulfill the primary func-tion, that being to assist consumers in selecting the best fit-ting garment? [35].

Consumers must guess the actual garment sizes or trythem on to identify those that fit them best [33, 36].Research has shown that 52% of women take two or more

Table 1 Womens sizes frequently found in North America.

Sizes commonly used in the USA according to Goldsberry et al. [33] and Burns and Bryant [28]

Junior 3 5 7 9 11 12 15 17

Junior petite 3 5 7 9 11 15

Misses petite 8 10 12 14 16 18

Misses 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Women 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Misses tall 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Half-size 12.5 14.5 16.5 18.5 20.5 22.5 24.5 26.5

Missy S M L

Women large 16W 18W 20W 22W 24W 26W

Women large 1X 2X 3X 4X

Plus size 1X 2X 3X

All One size fits allCanadian sizes from the Canadian General Standard Board

Junior 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Misses 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Womens 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Womens (pants) 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

Sizes obtained from Sears catalog

Sears petite 4P 6P 8P 10P 12P 14P 16P 18P

Sears regular 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Sears tall 8T 10T 12T 14T 16T 18T

Sears plus 18W 20W 22W 24W 26W 28W 30W

Sears XS S M L XL 1XL 2XL 3XL 4XL

Sizes from one European brand

Les Trois Suisses 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

5 http://www.tc2.com/what/sizeusa/index.html, read 2004-03-18.



6/14


identical garments of different sizes to the fitting room andthat 50% of the customers who order their clothing via acatalog service return garments due to size or fit [37]. Forthe consumer, a size label can cause confusion and wastetime; for retailers it means cost to handle returns [7, 13]and time spent a posteriori in order to replace clothes onthe racks [37], whereas for manufacturers the challenge isdefining underlying measurements.

Methodology

The literature review revealed that the apparel industrydoes not adhere to size standards and that manufacturersproduce for a specific target or specific body silhouettes

which may be different from other manufacturers targets[2]. The first objective of this research was therefore toshow that women have different silhouettes and to appraiseup to what level manufacturers cover womens sizes and sil-houettes. The second objective was to show that manufac-turers all use the same numerical code. The final objective

was to demonstrate that a new sizing label is required (re-introducing body silhouette classifications to the sizing code

with the concept of the H, X and Asilhouettes), since thecurrent size label affixed to garments displays a numericalcode associated with a set of measurements that vary amongmanufacturers and retailers.

Since we measured on a small scale and on a large scalealmost 1,000 pants produced by Canadian and American

manufacturers and we demonstrated that they were pro-duced for different shapes and silhouettes [2, 38], and since

we had access to the database of Size USA, we first ana-lyzed data of the latest anthropometric survey report in theUSA, Lets Size Up America (Figure 3) [39]. This gave anoverview of womens body measurements in the US, thetargeted population for the research, which had a samplecontaining more than 6,300 women.

We then proposed three hypotheses according to thekey points of the literature review:

H1: Individual North American manufacturers ofwomens clothing produce for one market, segment,or niche of the population identifiable as a subset ofthe Size USA database;

H2: When considered overall, manufacturers orvendors garment specifications (measurements)define sizes which will cover the whole spectrum of

womens sizes and silhouettes in the population, asdefined by the Size USA database;

H3: The numerical codes on current size labelsaffixed to garments do not correspond to consistentsets of garment measurements among the variousmanufacturers and vendors.

The validation of these hypotheses would demonstrate thatsize labeling in North America is deficient and the solution

would be to provide further information to accuratelyidentify the garment size.

According to our results, we felt obliged to conduct amini survey. We used two convenient samples to validatethat women would appreciate a new size label with moredetails.

Figure 2 Size labels from Mango,

Steilman and Zara.



7/14


Results and Discussion

According to the literature review, waist and hip circumfer-ence measurements are the two most critical body meas-urements that define sizes for garments that dress the

lower part of the body such as pants [7, 22]. The followinggraph illustrates the distribution of waist and hip measure-ments drawn from the data of 6,310 women scanned usingthe [TC]2body scanner, as reported in Size USA, Lets SizeUp America(see Figure 4).

While some authors suggest no less than 57 sizes to cover80% of the female population, others are trying to satisfyconsumers with onlysmall,mediumandlargesizes, or someeven to fit them all within the categoryone size fits all.In thisresearch, we opted to use 11 groups. The reason was that thisis the most commonly seen range of sizes (sizes 4 to 24, incre-ments of 2) in North America. There is a total of 12 sizesfrom size 4 to size 24 because two size labels would typically

be supplied for one size designation (for example, 18 and18W), giving a total of 12 size boundaries or 11 groups.

Table 2 presents these sizes and the associated averagewaist and hip measurements according to Sears catalog [40].

The data cloud extracted from [TC]2Size USA was thendivided according to the 12 sizes/measurements from Searsand taking into consideration the orientation of the datacloud. The results, clustering women into 11 groups (slices),

Figure 3 Womans profile generated by means of the

[TC]23D body scanner.

Figure 4 White: White women;

black: Black women; pink: His-

panic women; yellow: Asian and

others.



8/14


are presented below (see Figure 5). This figure clearly dem-onstrates that two groups of women (more than 10%), thosebeing the very small and the very large ones, must experi-ence difficulties when trying to find clothes since the sizes

which are usually found in the market will not fit them. Theyare either smaller than a size 4 or bigger than a size 24.

We pursued with an analysis of the data cloud (repre-senting the dimensions of 6,310 women) to categorize

women using the two circumference measurements onceagain, this time using both equal amplitude and equalnumber distributions. We chose to divide the sample fur-ther into 33 classes (11 sizes x3 silhouettes) to classify thedimensions and proportions (lower body measurementsfor pants); again, these were based not only on the actualsizing system currently in use but also were divided intothree common silhouettes (A, Xand H) established fromthe waist and hip girth measurements.

Figure 6 shows a graph of each of the 33 classes in bothequal amplitude and equal numbers from the [TC]2survey

data (with upper and lower boundaries), while Tables 3 and4 provide the values of the boundaries for each system.

Even with such a high number of classes, we found that afairly high percentage (12.3%) of women was left out (out-side classes limitations which were: waist between 27.5 and45.5 inches and hip between 36.5 and 53.5 inches). Moreo-

ver, the fringes of our population data cloud in someretained classes would be so wide that they would be of littleuse in terms of adequately fitting a garment. It is importantto point out that, as stated in the literature review, sizes forthe smaller and larger women in the population (who are

not covered in the most common size range illustrated here)are more likely to be accommodated now with the increaseinPetiteandPlus sizecategory manufacturers.

Current Offer Analysis

To validate our first and second hypotheses (H1Individ-ual North American Manufacturers of womens clothingproduce for one market, segment, or niche of the popu-lation identifiable as a subset of the Size USA databaseand H2When considered overall, manufacturers or ven-dors garment specifications (measurements) define size

which will cover the whole spectrum of womens sizes

and silhouettes in the population, as defined by the SizeUSA database), we compared three sets of pants speci-fications to the [TC]2 Size USA, Lets Size Up Americasurvey data cloud. First, we compared these specifica-tions with our two classifications (equal amplitude andequal number).

Figure 7 below shows the data cloud waist and hipmeasurements plotted with one retailers (Sears) specifica-tion and two manufacturers specifications. One can seethat each of them is targeting different silhouettes. Searstargets an Xwoman silhouette (close to the edge of an A),manufacturer #1 targets an A silhouette, while manufac-turer #2 targets an Hsilhouette.

This validated our first and second hypotheses (H1andH2): garment manufacturers use different measurementsand silhouettes, and overall they cover the entire femalepopulation while using the same size labeling system toidentify their pants.

The third hypothesis to validate (H3) was that the cur-rent size labels affixed to garments provide only numericalcodes which vary among manufacturers and retailers.

Part of this hypothesis was validated in previous studiesof apparel sold in Canada [2, 38]. Validation was done onceon a small scale showing that manufacturers do not adhere

Table 2 Waist and hip limit measurements of Sears, Canada.

Size 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 18w 20w 22w 24w

Waist circumference 27 28 29 30 31.5 33 35 37 38 40 42 44

Hip circumference 37 38 39 40 41.5 43 45 47 48 50 52 54

Figure 5 Commonly found sizes of the population dividedinto 11 classes.



9/14


Table 3 Boundaries for each of the 33 classes with equal

amplitude.

Circumference measurement limitations forH

silhouette

Waist Hip

Class no. Min. Max. Min. Max.1 28.16 31.07 35.92 36.06

2 29.68 32.13 37.05 37.34

3 30.75 33.00 37.85 38.33

4 31.61 33.89 38.68 39.14

5 32.51 34.76 39.49 39.97

6 33.38 35.83 40.49 40.78

7 34.45 36.94 41.52 41.77

8 35.56 38.18 42.67 42.81

9 36.80 39.85 43.96 44.23

10 38.47 42.30 45.51 46.50

11 40.91 47.18 47.79 51.04

Circumference measurement limitations forX

silhouette

Waist Hip

Class no. Min. Max. Min. Max.

12 26.78 29.68 37.21 37.34

13 28.30 30.75 38.33 38.63

14 29.37 31.61 39.14 39.62

15 30.23 32.51 39.97 40.42

16 31.12 33.38 40.78 41.25

17 32.00 34.45 41.77 42.06

18 33.06 35.56 42.81 43.06

19 34.18 36.80 43.96 44.09

20 35.42 38.47 45.25 45.51

21 37.09 40.91 46.80 47.79

22 39.53 45.80 49.08 52.33

Circumference measurement limitations forA

silhouette

Waist Hip


23 25.39 28.30 38.49 38.63

24 26.92 29.37 39.62 39.91

25 27.98 30.23 40.42 40.9026 28.85 31.12 41.25 41.71

27 29.74 32.00 42.06 42.54

28 30.61 33.06 43.06 43.35

29 31.68 34.18 44.09 44.34

30 32.79 35.42 45.25 45.38

31 34.03 37.09 46.53 46.80

32 35.71 39.53 48.09 49.08

33 38.15 44.41 50.36 53.62

Table 4 Boundaries for each of the 33 classes with equal

numbers.

Circumference measurement limitations forH

silhouette

Waist Hip

Class no. Min. Max. Min. Max.1 27.85 31.07 36.06 36.21

2 29.43 32.13 37.05 37.58

3 30.53 33.00 37.85 38.54

4 31.31 33.89 38.68 39.42

5 32.25 34.76 39.49 40.21

6 33.05 35.83 40.49 41.08

7 34.10 36.94 41.52 42.10

8 35.17 38.18 42.67 43.17

9 36.33 39.85 44.23 44.39

10 38.11 42.30 45.85 46.50

11 40.57 47.18 48.11 51.04

Circumference measurement limitations forX

silhouette

Waist Hip


12 27.08 29.37 36.93 37.63

13 28.57 30.49 38.38 38.57

14 29.54 31.40 39.34 39.46

15 30.46 32.20 40.21 40.25

16 31.33 33.12 41.02 41.06

17 32.11 34.12 41.96 42.07

18 33.11 35.21 43.02 43.13

19 34.19 36.41 44.08 44.32

20 35.39 38.01 45.26 45.95

21 36.96 40.56 46.92 48.12

22 39.39 45.45 49.20 52.65

Circumference measurement limitations forA

silhouette

Waist Hip


23 25.10 28.60 38.35 38.77

24 26.62 29.64 39.37 40.19

25 27.69 30.40 40.27 41.1826 28.55 31.35 41.04 41.98

27 29.45 32.20 41.87 42.81

28 30.32 33.18 42.96 43.62

29 31.39 34.22 44.05 44.62

30 32.50 35.43 45.24 45.65

31 33.74 37.07 46.81 46.82

32 35.41 39.40 48.36 49.19

33 37.85 44.27 50.64 53.75



10/14


to national standards as well as on a larger scale, wheremore than 800 pants provided in different sizes and differ-ent styles were measured. The results were similar and areshown in the graphs presented below (see Figure 8).

We therefore rejected the third hypothesis (H3) the cur-rent size label affixed to garments provides a numerical code

and varies among manufacturers and vendors, as identicallysized labeled pants clearly do not have the same measure-ments, in some cases even overlapping next size(s).

Although these studies were completed in Canada, sim-ilar sizing practices are used throughout North America.

According to our understanding, we developed a graphicshowing the size labeling process in order to show the com-binations of factors that affect and create confusion in thesize label system (Figure 9).

In order to gauge consumers opinions about a newdesign for a size label, we used two convenient samples(one of 36 women and one of 103 women: colleagues,friends and university students, in situand at distance, from18 to 75 years of age,) and we presented different labels,some showing a womans silhouette pictogram (H, Xor A),and some identifying where the measurements for a pair of

Figure 6 Presentation of equal amplitude and equal number of classes: three silhouettes and 11 sizes.

Figure 7 Data cloud of waist and

hip measurements with Sears

specifications for sizes 4 to 24 with

18 and 18w (targeting an X silhou-

ette, close to the edge of an A sil-

houette), and two manufacturers

targeting (1) an A silhouette and (2)

an H silhouette.



11/14


Figure 8 Left: five order givers specifications and average measurements plus Canadian General Standard Board identifi-

cation of waist measurements all for size 6 pants, n=25. Right: dispersion graphic of extrapolated measurements at 5

inches for all regular pants sizes from 4 to 18, n=679.

Figure 9 Description of actual size

labeling system (based on illustra-

tions used in Faust [38]).



12/14


pants were taken relative to a human body. We asked themto identify the three they preferred (10 out of the 139 wererejected since they improperly answered). This informa-tion is pertinent since it could be used for the proposedsize label.

Potential Label Survey

The literature review undertaken in the course of thisresearch showed that women find it difficult to identify agarment which will fit them with a label using a singlenumber system as their only guide. We presented several

existing and potential labels. We showed women from thetwo convenient samples totaling more than 100 women,three existing size labels from major international ready-to-wear apparel companies (Figure 10), one commonlyseen label from Orage an international outerwear apparelbrand (Figure 11), a pictogram recommended by theCGSB (Figure 12), and three labels designed for the pur-pose of the exercise. These three showed a range of choicesof numbers and representations of body silhouette picto-grams, i.e. womens silhouette pictograms with or withoutmeasurements (Figure 13). Women were asked to choose

the three labels they felt conveyed the most pertinentinformation. As expected, a majority of subjects (104 out of129; 80%) chose the labels shown in Figure 13. Most womenappreciated the pictogram, although they questioned the

Figure 10 Three existing size

labels from: Mango, Steilman and

Zara, international ready-to-wear

companies.

Figure 11 Size label from Orage

Canadian outerwear.

Figure 12 Pictogram from the CGSB similar to that

shown in the relevant ISO standard.



13/14


14/14


8. Diffrient, N., Tilley, A. R., and Bardagjy, J. C., Human Scale1/2/3, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA(1974).

9. ISO, http://www.standardsglossary.com, The ISO StandardGlossary (1976).

10. Workman, J. E., Body Measurement Specifications for Fit

Models as a Factor in Clothing Size Variation, Clothing TextilesRes. J.10(1), 3136 (1991).11. Beazley, A., Size and Fit: Procedures in Undertaking a Survey

of Body Measurements Part I, and Formulation of BodyMeasurement Tables and Sizing Systems Part 2, J. Fashion

Mark. Manage.2(1), 5585 (1997), and 2(3), 260284 (1998).12. Ashdown, S. P., An Investigation of the Structure of Sizing

Systems: a Comparison of Three Multidimensional OptimizedSizing Systems Generated from Anthropometric Data withthe ASTM Standard D5585-94, Int. J. Clothing Sci. Technol.10(5), 324341 (1998).

13. Winks, J. M., Clothing Sizes International Standardization,The Textile Institute, Redwood Books, Manchester, UK(1997).

14. McCulloch, C. E., Paal, B., and Ashdown, S. P., An Optimiza-tion Approach to Apparel Sizing, J. Oper. Res. Soc.19, 492499 (1998).

15. Gould-Decauville, P., Bruere, C., Uhalde-Roux, C., andKhatar, L., Guide Pratique des Tailles dans 36 Pays. Tome II,Etudes Bimestrielles La Vigie Internationale du vtir-textile,(2ndEdn.), Fdration de la Maille, Clichy, France (1999).

16. Turner, J. P., and Bond, T., Made-to-measure Garments forLadies Catering for Wide Ranging Stature and LengthMeasurements for Standard and Outsize Ladies,Int. J. Cloth-ing Sci. Technol.11(4), 216225 (1999).

17. Workman, J. E., and Lentz, E. S., Measurement Specificationsfor Manufacturers Prototype Bodies, Clothing Textiles Res. J.18(4), 251259 (2000).

18. Yertutan, C., Problems of Young People Related to Anthro-pometric Measures of Ready-to-wear Clothes,J. Qafqaz Univ.#8 (2001).

19. Istook, C. L., and Hwang, S.-J., 3D Body Scanning Systemswith Application to the Apparel Industry, J. Fashion Mark.Manage.5(2), 120132 (2001).

20. United States Department of Commerce National Bureau ofStandards (USDCOTS), Commercial Standard CS215-58Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and

Apparel, A Recorded Voluntary Standard of the Trade,United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,USA (1958).

21. United States Department of Commerce National Bureau ofStandards (USDCOTS), Voluntary Product Standard PS4270, Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patternsand Apparel, United States Government Printing Office,Washington, DC, USA (1971).

22. Schofield, N. A., and LaBat, K. L., Exploring the Relation-ships of Grading, Sizing, and Anthropometric Data, ClothingTextiles Res. J.23(1), 1327 (2005).

23. Hamel, C., and Salvas, G., Cest Moi, ma Personnalit, monStyle, ditions Communiplex, Qubec, Canada (1992).

24. Rasband, J., Fabulous Fit, Fairchild Publications, New York,USA (1994).

25. Yu, W., Fan, J., Ng, S.-P., and Gu, H.-B., Female Torso Manne-quins with Skeleton and Soft Tissue for Clothing PressureEvaluation, In Thermal Manikins and Modeling, Sixth Inter-national Thermal Manikin and Modeling Meeting (613M),

(Fan, J., Ed.), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HongKong, pp. 194201 (2006).26. Stoppard, M., and Younger-Lewis, C., tre Femme un Guide

de Vie, Slection Readers Digest, Westmount, Canada(1995).

27. Glock, R. E., and Kunz, G. I., Apparel Manufacturing: SewnProduct Analysis, (3rdEdn.), Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA(2000).

28. Burns, L. D., and Bryant, N. O., The Business of FashionDesigning, Manufacturing and Marketing, Fairchild Publica-tions, New York, USA (2002).

29. LaBat, K. L., and Delong, M. R., Body Cathexis and Satisfac-tion with Fit Apparel, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 8(2), 4348(1990).

30. Faust, M.-E., LUtilisation des Technologies de lInformationet de la Communication (TIC) lors de la Fonction EssayageVestimentaire, MScA, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal,Quebec, Canada (2003).

31. Workman, J. E., Body Measurement Specifications for FitModels as a Factor in Clothing Size Variation, Clothing Textiles

Res. J.10(1), 3136 (1991).32. Kunick, P., Sizing Pattern Construction, and Grading for

Womens and Childrens Garments, Philip Kunick Ltd., Lon-don, UK (1967).

33. Goldsberry, E., Shim, S., and Reich, N., Women 55 Years andOlder: Part I, Current Body Measurements as Contrasted tothe PS 42-70 Data, and Part II, Overall Satisfaction and Dis-satisfaction with the Fit of Ready-to-wear, Clothing Textiles

Res. J.14(2), 108120 and 121132 (1996).34. [TC]2, Size USA, Lets Size Up America The National Sizing

Survey: Body Measurement and Data Analysis Reports on theU.S. Population Report, Cary, North Carolina, USA (2004).

35. Chun-Yoon, J., and Jasper, C. R., Key Dimensions ofWomens Ready-to-wear Apparel: Developing a ConsumerSize-labeling System, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 14(1), 8995(1996).

36. Otieno, R., The Role of Garment Sizing in Creation of Cus-tomer Satisfaction: Indications from Focus Group Responses,

J. Fashion Mark. Manage.4(4), 325335 (2000).37. Faust, M. E., Carrier, S., and Baptiste, P., Introducing a New

Labeling System for Womens Ready-to-wear, POMS, Boston,USA (2006).

38. Faust, M. E., Proposition dun Modle dEtiquetage Fondesur lEstimation des Formes par Analogie des Tailles, EcolePolytechnique de Montral, Qubec, Canada (2007).

39. [TC]2, Size USA,Lets Size Up America The National SizingSurvey Final Report CD (20032004).

40. Sears Catalogue, Sears Catalogue Automne-Hiver, Canada(2004).
http://trj.sagepub.com/

a proposal for a new size label to assist consumers in finding well-fitting women’s clothing

Documents