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…[Read more]
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,…[Read more]
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 s…[Read more]
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…[Read more]
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…[Read more]
Unless otherwise credited, all work on this blog is © Liesl + Co., Inc, 2008-2020. You are welcome to link to this blog, but please ask permission before using any text or images.