![]() The study and later revision in the late 40s was the basis for all US clothing sizes for over 30 years. At that point, the hourglass figure only accounted for 8% of the adult female population. In addition, it was based on the assumption that adult women have the then preferred hourglass shape, popularized by the corsets of the Victorian era. The pool of participants, mostly white and from a single socio-economic class, was not diverse enough to truly represent the average female body in an increasingly diverse society. While theoretically a good idea, the study was flawed and unscientific. The study distilled 59 unique body measurements into the ones we recognize today: weight, height, chest, waist, and hip. The study measured 15,000 women across the United States with the intention of establishing a national size index. Recognizing the need for garment sizing standards, the Women’s Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction undertook the first national body data project in the USA. These basic, simple sizes were thought to be acceptable based on the assumption that someone at home could alter the store-bought clothing. Before 1939, clothing sizes were related to age for girls and bust size for women. North American sizing standards weren’t set until the US Department of Agriculture funded an initiative to define sizes in the early 1940s. This move to standardize sizing was driven by profit loss due to the need for alterations, returns, and ill-fitting mass-produced clothing. ![]() Industry leaders recognized the need to set some standards for how garments were measured and made. While vanity sizing was long from being an issue, looser fashions made it easier to make clothes for the masses. In the late 19th century, the taboo around ready-to-wear clothing gradually eased as fancy department stores offered affordable copies of coveted French fashions, making store-bought clothes more accepted. It took decades to get to the point of establishing sizing standards within local garment industries – especially for women’s apparel. Sizing Standards Before The Vanity Sizing Free for All In order to make the military uniforms in factories away from the soldiers on the battlefields, uniform makers came up with a simple sizing system based on male chest circumference. Shortly before these wars, the invention of The Roller Spinning Machine in 1738 and The Power Loom in 1784 planted the seeds for the infrastructural framework needed to meet the impending demand for mass produced clothing.īy this time in history, clothing was more fitted and tailored than styles in previous eras. The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), the Crimean War (1853–1856) and the American Civil War (1861–1865) accelerated the need for mass produced military uniforms, outpacing the ability to sew them by hand at home. But it was more than a millennium later that a need for military uniforms coincided with the Industrial Revolution to pave the way for a garment industry. There is evidence that Roman military uniforms made as ready-to-wear garments were available as early as 1400 BCE. While there have been isolated cases of clothing production at volume throughout the ages, the need for war uniforms was the first driver in the mass production of clothing. Unfortunately humans are a warring species, and many technologies we take for granted today were born out of wartime necessity. The First Mass Produced Clothing War and The Industrial Revolution ![]() While there are a few examples of garment makers thinking ahead of their time, clothes were produced in the home until the 19th century. Long before vanity sizing created a dire need for clothing size chart conversions, apparel was handmade for the wearer. This article aims to shed some light on the sizing problem by taking a quick look at the fascinating history of apparel sizing standards and what the future looks like for sizing. Unfortunately, brands can’t turn every frustrated tweet about vanity sizing and the need for clothing size chart conversion into a history lesson, though there is a reason for the size madness. “Why isn’t there a universal sizing standard,” consumers cry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |