What is considered "accurate grading"?

[regius]

I often wonder when a manufacturer offers different sizes, how can they be sure to stay "accurate" when creating the different sized patterns? Or is there such a thing as accurate grading?

Let me elaborate. Say, if a repro maker is able to get hold of a jacket in different sizes, and make exact copies of them, then all the jackets of these sizes are accurate, this is the benchmark, set.

However, it's quite hard to obtain more than one or two sizes of Aero 15142, so we'll have to grade it ourselves in a proportionate grading approach that we think should preserve the overall, or certain, key proportion of the particular contract. Granted, when grading a men's jacket, the chest and belly area fluctuates much more prominently than shoulder width or arm length. Therefore, a size 50 Aero 15142 would have just slightly wider shoulder and fatter arms, but much wider body.

So my question is, in clothes making time eternal, the principle of grading has never changed because the way our body grows or lose weight hasn't changed, men always gains weight at the gut and women gains weight at the hip etc, and your arms don't suddenly get longer or shorter. Then the sense of "accuracy" really should not be judged on the these aspects of the pattern right? In other words, say arbitrarily, a size 44 Aero 15142 is accurate, would a size 50 Aero 15142 also accurate?

I'd say the answer is, as long as certain key pattern details remains the same, it is accurate, for example the sleeve cap height and the way the sleeves tapers and the body tapers, also, the shoulder slope.

Note, I'm only taking about the "sloper" here, not the local details, since say the pocket size wouldn't have to change just because you are two size larger or smaller than the other. The pretext here obviously is that across all the sizes, all the local details remain the same (same epaulettes, same pocket shape, same zippers).

 

[Silver Surfer]

the prob has been that repro makers star out, they take verbatim the measurements of a given original , say, an a-2, without understanding that over the years these jacket, for the most part, have shrunk disproportionately. the originals were made to patterns that did no not account for tall, short, wide, slim bodies. for example, as a rule, a size 42 would have 18"-18 1/2 shoulder measurements, but the pit to pit would be 22", front length 22", and the back from the collar seam to the bottom of the back leather would be 22". sleeve length from the shoulder seam to [as a tailor would measure] to the end of the leather would be 22". aeros were wider in some cases, as against monarchs with were kinda odd by being a little longer, but narrower. over all, there was some degree of constistancy in the patterns, and among the makers. that said, adhering to original patterns is kinda difficult today unless ya have unshrunken examples, and whats more, todays phisique is different from that of a 19 year old guy in 1942. btw: look at pix of wwll a-2 worn and notice that the pockets are generally the same size for a size 38 and size 44. this is also the case in some instances for the collars. though hand made, the originals were to some degree mass produced within a contract, with the same hardware, knits [aero is the glaring exception], and patterns for the pockets, and as said, collars.

 

[regius]

Nowadays, there are all sorts of dies made to streamline and "automate" the boring parts, pocket slit is cut by a machine many many layers all at once, collar, pocket flaps etc etc. I believe in the 40s, such techniques were already invented, therefore it is very possible that the pockets and collars don't change much. The collar will change in length as the neck line changes from size to size, but perhaps the collar width remains the same.

 

[dmar836]

Since mass production of clothing started just 50 or so years before the war, grading, standardizing sizes, etc., are all relatively new and even more so in 1937 or so. Men's sizes are nowhere near as confusing as women's where the actual size numbers drifted by about times their originals of the 40s. This leads me to believe that there were "fitting" principles used by tailors(still are) and men's sizes were pretty standard BUT since the war trends and styles have screwed with most of it. Just look at a 1980s shirt pattern(I am embarrassed I wore that stuff). Then look at the McCalls 5864 or Simplicity 1952 and compare those to a "skinny" shirt pattern of today. Even the slim fit of today looks entirely different on paper than the "original" slim fit. It's really difficult to sift out a standard shape to grade around. That wouldn't sell 100 million sewing patterns a year. Pick a time period, analyze the garment, and go with it. That's why the best use actual jackets, disproportionately shrunk or not, to make patterns. Shrinkage or not, they get darned close IMO! Without that you end up with all the less than perfect patterns, drooped shoulders, "longs" and "regulars", misplaced pockets, fuller bodies. The styles, as mentioned above, cause larger arm sizes, slash pockets, etc. Even here and on FLJ, people often want the interpretation of an A-2(but with a cell pocket, bi-swing back, modified collar stand, longer arms with a shorter body.... the list is ridiculous). Many really just don't want an A-2. Also, while ranting, there are 20% of guys here that buy nice jackets and 80% who contribute ideas for how to make them "better" but will never buy one. Look at all the "...if it was only one size smaller I'd be all over that" The OP might write "oops, that was a typo and it is actually your size..." Eternal silence. That's also a way some compliment others on a nice jacket - how much they would like it "...if only...".
Just an observation but only my opinion.
Dave

 

[regius]

Thanks Dave. To distill my thoughts originally, I guess I'd say the only two ways and two ways only (??) to make historically accurate repro A2 is by copying an actual jacket or by copying the way that contract manufacturer grade their A2s. So, the ideal scenario would be to gather like ten original RW 27752, in different sizes, and just copy them verbatim. Or, figure out how RW graded to create sizes, and get one original jacket, and grade from it in the same way, and to create other sizes. Unfortunately, either approach is probably quite hard to achieve in 100%, but I'm sure a talented repro maker is adopting the second approach by sampling as many different sizes as possible to "figure out" how RW/Perry graded their patterns. Hope this makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ButteMT61]

Accurate grading would be any jacket on eBay that Andrew doesn't post up here laughing at!
Ask the experts. They know.

 

[Bombing IP]

Since mass production of clothing started just 50 or so years before the war, grading, standardizing sizes, etc., are all relatively new and even more so in 1937 or so. Men's sizes are nowhere near as confusing as women's where the actual size numbers drifted by about times their originals of the 40s. This leads me to believe that there were "fitting" principles used by tailors(still are) and men's sizes were pretty standard BUT since the war trends and styles have screwed with most of it. Just look at a 1980s shirt pattern(I am embarrassed I wore that stuff). Then look at the McCalls 5864 or Simplicity 1952 and compare those to a "skinny" shirt pattern of today. Even the slim fit of today looks entirely different on paper than the "original" slim fit. It's really difficult to sift out a standard shape to grade around. That wouldn't sell 100 million sewing patterns a year. Pick a time period, analyze the garment, and go with it. That's why the best use actual jackets, disproportionately shrunk or not, to make patterns. Shrinkage or not, they get darned close IMO! Without that you end up with all the less than perfect patterns, drooped shoulders, "longs" and "regulars", misplaced pockets, fuller bodies. The styles, as mentioned above, cause larger arm sizes, slash pockets, etc. Even here and on FLJ, people often want the interpretation of an A-2(but with a cell pocket, bi-swing back, modified collar stand, longer arms with a shorter body.... the list is ridiculous). Many really just don't want an A-2. Also, while ranting, there are 20% of guys here that buy nice jackets and 80% who contribute ideas for how to make them "better" but will never buy one. Look at all the "...if it was only one size smaller I'd be all over that" The OP might write "oops, that was a typo and it is actually your size..." Eternal silence. That's also a way some compliment others on a nice jacket - how much they would like it "...if only...".
Just an observation but only my opinion.
Dave

I must say your posting was an interesting read and I would say your right on target .

BIP

 

[Bombing IP]

Thanks Dave. To distill my thoughts originally, I guess I'd say the only two ways and two ways only (??) to make historically accurate repro A2 is by copying an actual jacket or by copying the way that contract manufacturer grade their A2s. So, the ideal scenario would be to gather like ten original RW 27752, in different sizes, and just copy them verbatim. Or, figure out how RW graded to create sizes, and get one original jacket, and grade from it in the same way, and to create other sizes. Unfortunately, either approach is probably quite hard to achieve in 100%, but I'm sure a talented repro maker is adopting the second approach by sampling as many different sizes as possible to "figure out" how RW/Perry graded their patterns. Hope this makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure a program similar to facial recognition could be created by someone or adapted CMM prog to computer measure the jacket , scan in panels with many data measurement points (ie borders of the panels) . Then print cut sheets for the size of the jacket . Then using the + -% sizing feature going up and down the % to create different sizes of jackets . A data base could be created and 1 : 1 print outs for the outlines of the panels of the jacket made in different sizes . This could be then sent to a maker for the comparison of his patterns or templates he uses . Then once you verified that all % shifts size 38" to size 48" create a true jacket cut pattern faith full to the original . You then go on to the other makers do the same ,once all the data is in the hard drive .You could lay over one makers pattern over another on the computer screen . Then you would be the closest to getting the jacket correct for every maker in every size and have printable templates made as you need them. As it is now we have makers claiming correct patterns for this or that one without any real data to back it up .I am of course excluding Good Wear because they have dis-mantled a number of jackets and made templates from the panel .But there still could be errors from one size to the other because the scaling interpretation ,using one jacket a the master reference and sizing up from this to create different sizes .

BIP

 

[dmar836]

It's also interesting to look at some of the old patterns - commercial ones. Just like vintage model airplane plans, often two mirror sides of something were drafted apparently without consideration of the other side. One can overlay, or fold in half in the case of a collar, etc., a pattern of a part and see that they are not identical. I noticed it first with the old model plans. Just an observation.
I watched a couple Youtube videos the other day about the Quartermaster supply during the war and was shocked at the complexity. Worth a look. One part showed contractors, or potential ones, looking around an almost showroom type of place of government items. At one point it said, or implied, that if a contract was granted a sample item would be supplied. I can only assume that since Werber, etc. were already sporting goods mfgs they had pattern makers on the payroll - likely with a classically trained tailor background. Wouldn't they just have an all-hands meeting, with the sample jacket in this case, discuss concerns, and then leave it to the pattern maker to make the actual patterns? Company interpretions is I suspect how you get the Perry curved collar tips, different shoulder seam locations, varied pocket flap shapes, etc. I would also assume the sizes were graded according to how the employed pattern makers graded any other sporting jacket. I guess that's the OP's question. Really wouldn't it have likely been drafted up and approved by some pretty common workers at each mfg as the Q.M.D., company CEOs, etc., likely couldn't tell a thing by looking at a pile of oak card patterns. They likely drafted and replicated the sample the way they normally did things, and in the standard size and presented it for inspection. Grading up or down from the standard size was common I think. The government obtained and supplied the raw materials.
Of no real insight but just my extrapolations based on what I've thought about lately. It would explain the variations in contracts and yet shows how they could still all be so similar(of course no different than trousers or M1943s and on and on - all look identical to most). That "provided sample" thing rather than just a drawing with typed list of specs. or a provided pattern kinda cleared some things up for me.
Dave

 

[Roughwear]

This all makes sense Dave and helps to explain the "house" features specific to different A-2 makers. It was much the same with Irvins. The contractors were supplied with a sample jacket and trousers, a detailed spec documents which also included the measurements for the different sizes. However there was considerable variation between manufacturers in terms of size and fine details such as the width of the belt loops, arrangement of the underarm vents etc...

 

[Bombing IP]

Not being a manufacturer or a tailor the word grading did not mean anything to me .So off to the internet and I was educated to understand . Seeing the complexity of grading in action made me think is there a rule of thumb as a guide line .Below I cut and pasted this from a ladies site .

You'll notice that the grade rules change as you get into sizes 12 - 16, and again for size 18.

e
Pattern grading is fairly complex. It's best to avoid it unless it's necessary. Even if you are making a group of garments in a variety of sizes, unless the group of people wearing them are of very similar proportions, it may be easier to fit and pattern each one separately.

The vertical does not change as much as the circumference but there is a pattern ,whether all makers use this today I doubt it .I find one makers cut and size to be so much different . I suspect during WWII it was more uniform ,I am of course referring to civilian clothes . Military clothes I would bet they have not changed much for all the branches .

BIP