Page 129 - Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design

Apparel size designation and labeling 125

Fig. 5.1 An illustration from
the 1902 Sears Roebuck catalog.

that ladies’ skirt size designations varied from a 22-in. (55.88cm) to a 29-in.
(73.66cm) waist. The size designation reflected one or the other: (1) the critical body
measurement points and the age of the wearer (Swearingen, 1999 in Fan et al., 2004)
as was the case for young children or (2) the associated neck size. The idea was to
make sure a woman at home would measure herself and compare her measurements
with the ones shown in the catalog index (see Fig. 5.1).
In the United States, besides the Sears Roebuck and Co. Catalog, ready-to-wear
was also sold through catalogs such as Montgomery Ward and in the nascent urban
brick-and-mortar department stores. Canadian retailers followed the trend and also
distributed millions of their catalogs throughout Canada (Bernier et al., 2003, p. 77).

5.2.3 The need for size designation for ready-to-wear clothing
In the decades following World War I saw the introduction of department stores sell-
ing ready-to-wear all through North America. In cities like Philadelphia, New York, or
Montreal, department stores such as Macy’s (NYC); Wanamaker (Philadelphia); or
Dupuis Fre `res, T. Eaton, or Simpson (Montreal, Canada) started to introduce
ready-to-wear, impacting on people’s shopping habits. According to Kidwell
(2001) the modern age of apparel production and the democratization of clothing
had begun. Burns and Bryant (2002) stated that “separates for women” worn by young
girls (two-piece outfits combining a blouse and a skirt) created by Gibson became very
popular and thus had a large influence on the women’s ready-to-wear industry.
Although ready-to-wear was a cheap interpretation of the current fashion trend,
women followed this trend even if, as mentioned earlier, they knew they would need
to alter these garments to obtain an appropriate fit (Cooklin, 1990). Each manufacturer
did its best to develop its grading system, but lacking adequate scientific data made it
difficult for everyone (O’Brien and Shelton, 1941). Schofield and Labat’s (2005) stud-
ies reveal that each manufacturer reinvented the process although one point seems to