On 22/03/06 12:52 PM, "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 18:08, Mike Millet wrote: >> This does bring up a question though. Has the US converted metric on the >> clothing and just continued to size pants in inches or do we really still >> use inches to cut the cloth and such. I know when you make your own clothes >> it's always done in yards of fabric and whatnot, but I'm not sure if we all >> buy clothes from China that it's not a metric measure :). > > I don't know about US clothing factories. I did figure out Brazilian waist > size. It appears to be half the size of the pants' waist (not the wearer's > waist) in centimeters, e.g. if my waist is 102 cm, I need at least a size 52. > Shorts and shirts are labeled P, M, G, EG (S, M, L, XL). > > EN 13402 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_13402) is a European standard for > clothing sizes based on body measurement, so if I buy a coat, it's labeled > with the same size as the shirt inside it. > > phma Dear Pierre, Mike, and All, The clothing industry has a long history of using muddled and confused measuring -- the choice of the centimetre is only the next step in their failure to come to terms with anything that even looks like a sane and rational measurement system. I don't know why this is. It may be due to the way that textile workers are selected -- I don't think that mathematics abilities rate highly here! Thanks for the reference to the Wikipedia article. It highlights the false assumptions we can be forced to make when we are looking at a garment with a view to purchase. Look at some of the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article: ## There are three approaches for size-labeling of clothes: body dimensions: The product label states for which range of body dimensions the product was designed. (Example: bike helmet labelled "head girth: 5660 cm", shoe labelled "foot length: 28 cm") product dimensions: The label states characteristic measures of the product. (Example: jeans labelled with their inner-leg length in centimeters or inches, i.e. not the several centimeters longer inner leg length of the intended wearer) ad-hoc size: The label provides a size number or code with no obvious relationship to any measurement. (Example: Size 12, XL) Traditionally, clothes have been labelled using many different ad-hoc size systems. This approach has led to a number of problems: Country-specific or even vendor-specific labels create additional costs. Ad-hoc sizes have changed with time, often due to "vanity labelling", an inflation in body dimensions associated with a size, to avoid confronting aging customers with uncomfortable anthropometric truths. Mail-order purchasing requires accurate methods for predicting the best-fitting size. Many garments need to be selected based on two or three body dimensions to fit adequately, and not a single scalar. Scalar ad-hoc sizes based on 1950s anthropometric studies are no longer adequate, as changes in nutrition and life styles have shifted the distribution of body dimensions. ## So, when you see (say) a waist description as 97 cm on men's trousers, what does this mean? a The garment is suitable for a man with a waist of 97 cm. b The garment was made with a waist measurement of 97 cm? (Note that this will now be too tight on a man with a waist of 97 cm as there has been no allowance 'for ease'.) c The 'measurement '97 cm' has no meaning at all to the garment maker -- it is simply the next size up in a range that goes 87 cm, 92 cm, 97 cm, 102, cm, 107 cm, etc. All you can say is that 97 cm is usually smaller than 102 cm as the garment maker is using these numbers in the same way as they use the letters S, M, L, XL, and XXL. What's the truth? The truth is that the garment maker's patterns were all cut in inches so when the company was forced by either regulation or by fashion to 'Go metric' they did the following calculation: 38 R means 38 inch Regular fitting; 38 inches x 2.54 cm/in = 96.52 centimetres (say) 97 cm. Sizes up from here will add 5 cm and sizes below 38 R will subtract 5 cm. Internally, the range of sizes 34 inch, 36 inch, 38, inch, 40 inch, and 42 inch are then labelled as: 87 cm, 92 cm, 97 cm, 102, cm, and 107 cm without any change in their dimensions or in the way that they are measured -- using inch tapes. By doing it this way the garment makers can still use all their old patterns; they don't have to change their mindset at all -- they still design and make inch sizes within the factory and (as they see it) they then dumb this down to centimetres for their clients. Obviously this goes with all the attendant costly errors that always accompany this type of conversion process. It will probably take the garment making industry longer than 100 years to achieve success with their metric conversion process using their current methods. Interestingly, one of the forces that will drag garment makers toward the future will come from textile makers who are beginning to see the advantages of measuring using metric units such as: fibre diameters in micrometres, thread densities in grams per kilometre, fabric length in metres, and fabric densities in grams per square metre. Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305 Belmont 3216 Geelong, Australia 61 3 5241 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metricationmatters.com
