Measurement Specifications for Manufacturers' Prototype Bodies

The objective of this study was to examine information on body measurement specifications for one prototype body used by women's apparel manufacturers-fit models. Specifically, information was examined to determine if fit model measurement specifications had changed since 1986. Measurement specifications need to be revised regularly to accommodate changes in the population's anthropometry. Advertisements for sizes 8 and 10fit models were collected from 1986 and 1997 trade publications in the apparel industry. The 1997 size 8 specifications for bust, waist and hips were larger than the 1986 size 8. In 1997, size 8 and size 10 fit model specifications did not statistically differ. The bust and waist of the 1997 size 8 were significantly larger than the 1986 size 10. The dearth of advertisements for size 10 fit models in 1997 and the fact that many advertisements either gave measurement specifications with no size designation or required a size 8 but gave no measurement specifications suggest that size 8 is the current sample size designation. While fit model measurement specifications have changed, the change appears to have been accomplished by designating as a size 8 what was previously a size 10. Technological advances have begun to revolutionize how apparel is produced. However, technology will not displace one aspect of conventional mass production-the customer's perception of fit—thus the continued need for use of a live prototype body, whether a professional fit model or a customer.

[1]  Patricia E. Horridge,et al.  Apparel Sizing As it Relates to Women Age Sixty-five Plus , 1990 .

[2]  Anita A. Stamper,et al.  Evaluating Apparel Quality , 1991 .

[3]  Soyeon Shim,et al.  Women 55 Years and Older: Part I , 1996 .

[4]  Jongsuk Chun-Yoon,et al.  Consumer Preferences for Size Description Systems of Men's and Women's Apparel , 1995 .

[5]  Jeanne Price,et al.  Grading techniques for fashion design , 1996 .

[6]  S P Ashdown,et al.  Perception testing of apparel ease variation. , 1995, Applied ergonomics.

[7]  J. L. Harrison,et al.  The Government Printing Office , 1968, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.

[8]  John T. McConville,et al.  Analysis of Body Size Measurements for U.S. Navy Women's Clothing and Pattern Design , 1979 .

[9]  Yung-Tsun T. Lee,et al.  Body Dimensions for Apparel , 1994 .

[10]  Grace I. Kunz,et al.  Apparel manufacturing: Sewn product analysis , 1990 .

[11]  Jane E. Workman,et al.  Body Measurement Specifications for Fit Models as a Factor in Clothing Size Variation , 1991 .

[12]  Claire C. Gordon Anthropometric sizing and fit testing of a single battledress uniform for U.S. Army men and women , 1986 .

[13]  T. Byers,et al.  Weight variability in a population-based sample of older women: reliability and intercorrelation of measures. , 1995, International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity.

[14]  Patricia E. Horridge,et al.  Apparel sizing solutions for an ageing problem , 1988 .

[15]  Soyeon Shim,et al.  Women 55 Years and Older: Part II. Overall Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with the Fit of Ready-to-Wear , 1996 .

[16]  K. Dickerson Inside the fashion business , 1965 .

[17]  Jongsuk Chun-Yoon,et al.  Key Dimensions of Women's Ready-to-Wear Apparel: Developing a Consumer Size-Labeling System , 1996 .