Page 134 - Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design

130 Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design

5.2.8 Retrospective

In retrospect, it appears that few manufacturers used the numerous anthropometric
surveys and size charts issued from 3D national campaign. Some set their own size
designation to serve their own target customers (Burns and Bryant, 2002); since adhe-
sion to standards is voluntary—recall Workman and Lentz (2000)—some continu-
ously reinvent their own. Finally, notwithstanding the methods used to define size
designations, manufacturers use the same key body measurements to size their gar-
ments (e.g., waist girth, hip girth, and crotch height) (Beazley, 1997), and most of
them use the same numerical size designation system (6, 8, 10, …, 24 or even
0 and 00) yet making it problematic today since they all refer to their own size charts.
It is clear that size designation should help the consumer identify a well-fitting gar-
ment, but because of the tremendous variations currently existing in database analysis
and actual population measurements, the actual size designation is questionable.
Moreover, because of the dissatisfaction it creates, some steps need to be taken to pro-
vide a comprehensive size designation that would satisfy manufacturers/brands and be
suitable for consumers. On this point of view, we believe that the size designation, as it
was initially proposed, combining size number, letter, and symbols such as shown
above 14T , added to the idea presented by CGSB and ISO, for example, showing
a pictogram specifying to which body measurements it should suit best, would prob-
ably be the best combination. Manufacturers, brands, or retailers could continue to
serve one specific target market’s shape and size. They would just need to add more
details on their size designation label, making it more universal.

5.3 The key elements for an international size designation

As shown before the initial idea of size designation was based on different clusters
defined by similar underlying measurements taken at different points on the body:
bust, waist, and hip, for example. As also presented earlier, it appears that manufac-
turers didn’t adhere to these standards and did their size designations preferring to
define their own for their target market. Yet, Ashdown (1998) argued that manufac-
turers and retailers try to fit as much as possible into a small number of sizes. Keeping
this in mind, in a previous study, Faust and Carrier (2009) validated and defined body
key points for size designations. Their results, although providing information mostly
for the lower body of the female population, were based on a 3D body scanner and
anthropometric data from a national survey conducted in the United States. Their anal-
ysis was done clustering a multitude of measurements (over 200 body measurements)
extracted from 3D body scans of >6000 women. Results of their analysis first showed
correlations between weight and girth circumferences of the individuals of the sample.
Weight was highly correlated with waist girth, hip girth, and thigh girth, each of them
with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of, respectively, 0.91, 0.95, and 0.87. Total
height of women was highly correlated with high hip height (Pearson’s correlation
coefficient of 0.81) and high hip height highly correlated with waist height
(Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.98). Girth circumferences were also highly