Page 133 - Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design

Apparel size designation and labeling 129

with size number could be accompanied with a few key measuring points such as bust
and waist and that these girth measurements should be in centimeters. It also promoted
the use of a pictogram to support the size designation with specific body measure-
ments. It proposed horizontal measurements for garments such as bust girth, waist
girth, and hip girth and in addition to inseam pants.

5.2.6 Pictograms, body chart standards, and other proposed
size designation systems

In the 1970s ISO developed and proposed a new way of presenting size designations.
Again, it was based on key body measurements, but this time, it included a body pic-
togram. One of the biggest challenges of the time was which system should be used for
size designation: centimeters or inches? This question was never answered, and the
adoption of the pictogram never came to life. Years later, other developed countries
came up with their own body chart standards: Switzerland in 1972 and PC3137 and
PC3138 in the USSR (1973). Not long after, similar systems were proposed in Ger-
many (1983); measurements of 9402 subjects were taken, and they concluded that
57 sizes were needed to cover 80% of their population. Such standard body charts
would have been too cumbersome to be useful (Yu, 2004). Since then, from time
to time, surveys were updated. It was the case in the United States as the relevance
of sizing charts for market segments such as women aged 55 and over was questioned.
Six thousand American women aged 55 and older were measured, which served to
develop the ASTM D5586 in 1995.

5.2.7 Updated anthropometric data

More recently, many people working in the industry started to feel a need to update
national anthropometric data. Several major initiatives begun in the 1990s using the
new 3D body scanner technology to accomplish this task. Thousands of volunteer sub-
jects of all ages were scanned in Asia, Europe, and America. Between 1992 and 1994,
many subjects were scanned in Japan. From 1999 to 2002, many were scanned in the
United Kingdom. At the beginning of the new century, the same was done in the
United States. Some participants/sponsors who funded the project used the database
to update their own internal specific size designations. Although numerous studies
have been done and many articles have been written over the past century to under-
stand garment size designation, its satisfaction, or dissatisfaction and although many
argue that the actual size designation needs to be designed to be suitable for everyone,
the consensus is not here yet. While major corporations focus on their target market,
many of them do not desire a specific size designation. Why? Some argue it is because
manufacturers/brands use their size designation as a marketing tool, well known today
as “vanity sizing” to flatter their consumers. Some argue that vanity sizing makes
women feel good about themselves, puts them in a better mood for their shopping
experience, and increases loyalty.