[Lyndsey Stanfill]

Hi there, anyone have any recommendations on which size?
High bust is 38”
Full bust is 41.5”
Waist is 35.5”
Hips are 37.5”

If this were a shirt I’d probably go with the 12 and do a fba. If it were a skirt I’d cut a 18. That feels like a lot of blending between sizes. Thoughts?

Attachments:

1. 

   D5299DED-EB50-4253-8029-33F5AD9CA533.jpeg
   

[Lightning McStitch]

Hi Lyndsey,
Have you typed your hip measurement correctly above? I notice it’s different on the image you attached.
If it’s as per the written then a 12 with any necessary bust adjustment would be fine.fwiw,I measure 38(same high/full)/30/40 currently and made a straight size 10. It’s comfortably loose in the top half but more fitted below. Hence my second one I graded out to 12 over the hips.
It will also depend on your fabric and the amount of stretch as to how the waist and skirt fit.
If your pictures measurements are correct then you’ll need the extra wriggle room in the hips.
You can start the size increase from just above the waist and blend out to hips. Going up a few sizes won’t matter as the ties bring it all together so there won’t be any obvious steps in the silhouette.

[Lyndsey Stanfill]

Ah yes! 47.5 is the hip measurements!
I’ll try grading it.

[cybele727]

similar question.

high Bust 39
Full bust 41
natural waist 39
Hips: 43

I am petite but round..

[Anne Stoye]

I want to make the Belgravia and am baffled by the sizing measurements. I need to decide which size range to buy. The garment waist measurement supplied for size 16 in the extended sizing is less than body measurement (but more than body measurement in the standard sizes). Please could you check and clarify both sets of measurements (body and garment) for standard 16 and extended 16.
Standard size 16 waist – body 34.5, garment 37
Extended size 16 waist – body 37, garment 34.5
as shown on your website.
Have some figures been transposed? Great pattern and a lot of positive reviews. I am really looking forward to making it but starting with the right size does help get a good result!

[Todd Gibson]

@acs19 the charts do look a bit odd, but they are indeed correct. The two size ranges are built from completely separate blocks, and the patterns are quite different as a result. The expanded size range is much more curvy than the straight size range. If you fall into the sizes that overlap, you can choose which you think will best fit your shape. This blog post helps explain the difference.

an expanded size range for our liesl + co. patterns

[Anne Stoye]

Thank you very much for your reply. However, I think that the issue may be the finished garment measurement at the waist. It makes no sense to me to have positive ease at the waist for the standard sizing and negative ease (with same fabric type) for the extended sizing. The helpful article you referenced effectively confirmed the body measurements and indicated that you were expecting the extended sizing customers to have comparatively larger actual (body) waist measurements (which is the case for me) than standard size customers. So why have what will be an excessively tight waist for your fatter customers (uncomfortable and unflattering) and plenty of space for your thinner ones? This is a major difference in the fit (from plus 2.5 to minus 2.5 inches of ease) between the two ranges. The diagram in the article implies that the finished waist measurements will be the same for both ranges but this may be over simplified. I am sorry to labour this point but I think either the drafting is surprising or at least one of the numbers in the table of finished garment measurements is incorrect (I am a mathematician by training so the numbers tell me a lot about the fit). I don’t want to have to buy both sets of patterns so I want to make the right choice first time. I am sorry to be a pain and I really want to make this pattern but I want to get it right. I may have misunderstood but that means that the information on your website is ambiguous or needs more explanation/clarity. I won’t be the only person who is puzzled.

[Anne Stoye]

Sorry to pester you about this issue. I am not sure if you are investigating the discrepancy I have raised or whether you consider the subject closed. I am happy to take the discussion off the website and suggest you send me a private email.

Your article about the extended sizing says:
“We’ve also increased the waist and hips in the expanded sizes to better suit those of you who are more pear- or apple-shaped.”

But in this pattern you have actually reduced the garment measurement at the waist (below the standard sizing and below actual body measurement) if the published garment measurements are correct.

I understand that you have a different basic block for the extended sizes but I would expect the patterns to have similar wearing ease throughout but based on the new block. The new block is stated to have a larger waist, ergo the patterns based on this block should have a larger waist.

I don’t know how to explain more clearly why I am worried about the numbers – perhaps it needs a pattern cutter to look at the issue.

Did you have testers for the Belgravia extended range patterns? Could you ask them how body and garment waist measurements compared?

Personally I suspect that the garment measurements shown on the website are more likely to be wrong than the pattern drafting but I cannot believe that they can both be correct.

I note that at least one other pattern with extended sizing shows a larger finished waist measurement than the equivalent standard size.

[Liesl Gibson]

Hi Anne,

Thanks for your patience. The numbers on the charts are correct, so let me see if I can explain the difference between the two size ranges for you. Each size range is developed and fitted independently, so the numbers in terms of ease, etc., aren’t directly related. In other words, we developed the misses size and fitted it to how we felt it looked and fitted best. We graded the various sizes from there. Then we did the same for the expanded size range. The pattern pieces are shaped slightly differently for the plus sizes because we felt that gave the best fit and look for that size range. Then we graded the various sizes from there. So mathematically the two are not directly related–they’re developed independently to give you the best look and fit regardless of the other size range. The amount of ease between the sizes is different because we aren’t simply enlarging one size range to get the other size range–we’re developing them separately to give you the best results within each range. As a result, if you’re finding yourself in the fortunate position that you can choose between the two ranges, it’s best to make your selection based on your body type, referencing the blog post that Todd linked to above. I hope that helps to clarify!

[Anne Stoye]

Thank you for getting back to me.

My measurements are almost exactly the extended size 16 (do you need a tester?) and the change to the shoulder and bust dart are likely to be just what I need. But the garment waist on the extended size 16 Belgravia will be too small at 34.5 inches (whereas the waist on the normal size 16 will be fine but snug, though the rest of the dress wouldn’t fit as well).

What you seem to be saying is that you are really happy with the extended sixing Belgravia having negative ease at the waist despite the normal sizing having positive ease. (This is the crux of the matter.) You specify jersey but not how much stretch – some ponte knits (one of your recommended fabrics for this pattern) have minimal stretch so you can’t rely on the waist stretching enough to fit. You have positive ease at bust and hip for all sizes and at the waist for normal sizing. I still don’t understand why the waist on extended sizing is the exception to this pattern.

I understand that the starting block on which the patterns are based is different (more of the bust measurement is at the front and it has a thicker waist) and the resulting patterns differ (I make some of my own patterns so I am familiar with the concepts of making a pattern). However, it is reasonable to expect that the resulting garments should look like the same dress, albeit subtly altered to fit a different body type. It should not look MUCH tighter (and possibly too tight to wear) at the waist.

I still come back to the question of why fatter people get a dress pattern with a smaller waist measurement (both absolutely and comparatively) than a person of generally similar size but a slimmer waist.

And why is this phenomenon only seen on the Belgravia extended sizing? The measurements given for your other extended size patterns look just fine.

The post on the new sizing did say that you are less familiar with this body type (oh to be tall and slim like you!). Could this be a teething problem? I hope you will understand that I raised this issue as a genuine enquiry and my subsequent feedback was intended to be constructive, and that I have no intention of being difficult.

Your customers need consistency of sizing (and to understand how it works for them) and then they will become regular customers making your patterns with confidence when they have worked out the best size. I may have a go at one of the other patterns but now probably not the Belgravia as it appears to have a major fitting problem for me – it is a shame as I love the pattern but think none of your sizes will fit me in practice.

[Liesl Gibson]

When we fitted this style we made a design decision that the waist looked better with negative ease. Patternmaking isn’t simply math–the aesthetics and fit and action of the fabric also come into play–and with knits this pattern simply looked and fitted better with a smaller waistline. Keep in mind, too, that with the waist ties the waist measurement is naturally somewhat imprecise since the waist includes ties. Of course the wonderful thing about sewing is that you can fit the style to suit your personal preferences, so you can blend the waist to a more generous fit if that’s what you prefer.

[Anne Stoye]

Thank you very much for clarifying the negative ease. But why not negative ease on the standard sizing too? (same design, same fabric choices but less “fluff” at/near wearer’s waist). If both size ranges had negative ease I would have understood this as a design choice (though might still have worried about room at the waist) but the numbers given were so unintuitive that I could not believe them. I will give further thought to trying out this pattern.

If the waist measurement is imprecise on this design, I suggest that potential customers would find it more helpful to be given an explanation of the fit and a range (eg it is adjustable between x and y inches according to how tightly the ties are wrapped). As I don’t yet know, for this style, how the pattern is cut/pattern pieces are shaped it is hard to gauge how difficult it will be to alter the pattern at the waist without altering the hip too.