Pattern Grading Explained: From Sample Size to Full Range
- thecottonkraftco
- 3 days ago
- 15 min read
Why Pattern Grading Is the Most Underestimated Technical Skill in Fashion
Every fashion designer dreams of their creations fitting diverse customers beautifully—but most focus exclusively on the sample size, treating grading as an afterthought or simple mathematical scaling. This fundamental misunderstanding explains why so many brands struggle with size-related complaints: size small too tight, size large proportions wrong, plus sizes fitting terribly. The problem isn't the original design—it's improper grading transforming a perfect sample into poorly-fitting larger and smaller sizes.
Pattern grading is the technical process of proportionally adjusting patterns to create a
complete size range while maintaining the original design's fit, balance, and aesthetic intent. Proper grading requires understanding human body proportions, how measurements change across sizes, which pattern points to adjust and by how much, and ensuring each size fits its target body as beautifully as the sample. Poor grading is catastrophically expensive—unsellable inventory, customer dissatisfaction, returns and complaints, and brand reputation damage from fit inconsistency.
Yet grading remains the most misunderstood aspect of pattern making. Brands attempt DIY grading without expertise, use automatic grading tools without understanding principles, hire cheap services that simply scale patterns mathematically, or skip proper fit testing across sizes assuming grading "just works." The results are predictable: smaller sizes look juvenile, larger sizes look matronly, proportions distort, and customers complain nothing fits despite measurements being technically correct.
At COKAA by JR Corporation, professional pattern grading represents core expertise developed over 20+ years creating size ranges for hundreds of brands. We understand that grading isn't mathematical formula—it's proportional problem-solving ensuring each size fits its intended body type while preserving design intent. Our grading creates size ranges where XS fits as beautifully as XXL, standard sizes transition smoothly into plus sizes, and customers trust your brand's sizing consistency.
This comprehensive guide explains everything about professional pattern grading: what grading actually involves, different grading methods, how to establish grade rules, measuring increments for various garment types, plus size grading considerations, common mistakes destroying fit across sizes, and why expert grading services deliver results DIY attempts cannot match.
Part 1: Understanding Pattern Grading Fundamentals
What Is Pattern Grading?
Pattern grading systematically increases or decreases pattern piece dimensions to create multiple sizes from a single sample size pattern while maintaining the garment's fit intent, proportions, and style characteristics across the entire size range.
The Core Challenge:
Human bodies don't simply scale uniformly. A size large person isn't just a mathematically enlarged small person—body proportions change across sizes:
Larger bodies often have proportionally wider shoulders
Hip-to-waist ratios differ between sizes
Torso lengths don't increase proportionally with girth
Arm and leg lengths change differently than circumferences
Plus size bodies have distinctly different proportions
What Grading Must Achieve:
Maintain Design Intent: The silhouette, fit, and styling that work beautifully in the sample size must translate appropriately to all other sizes. A fitted design should remain fitted across sizes; an oversized aesthetic should feel oversized in size XS and size XXL.
Preserve Pattern Balance: Front and back pieces must continue aligning correctly. Sleeve caps must fit armholes. Collar neck edges must match bodice necklines. Seam lengths must correspond. As patterns change size, these relationships must maintain.
Ensure Proper Fit: Each size must fit bodies of that size appropriately—not just measurements matching, but actual wearable comfort and aesthetic working for that body type.
Consistent Quality: Customer in size small and customer in size XL should experience identical quality, fit, and design aesthetic—no degradation of style in smaller or larger sizes.
Grading vs. Scaling: Critical Difference
Scaling (Wrong Approach): Mathematical enlargement or reduction of entire pattern by percentage. If sample is 100% size, small might be 90%, large 110%. Every dimension changes proportionally.
Why Scaling Fails:
Assumes uniform body proportion changes (false)
Creates distorted fit in non-sample sizes
Smaller sizes become childish proportions
Larger sizes have wrong curves and shaping
Design intent lost outside sample size
Grading (Correct Approach): Intelligent, non-uniform adjustments where different pattern areas change by different amounts based on how bodies actually change across sizes. Width might increase 1" per size while length increases only 0.5", shoulder increases 0.25" while bust increases 1".
Why Grading Works:
Respects actual body proportion changes
Maintains fit quality across sizes
Preserves design aesthetic in all sizes
Each size engineered for its target body
Visual Example: Imagine a fitted dress with 12" difference between bust and waist in sample size medium:
Scaling approach: Size large = 13.2" difference (10% larger = everything scaled)
Grading approach: Size large = 12" difference maintained (waist and bust increase but relationship preserved)
Result: Scaled version loses the fitted quality; graded version maintains it.
The Sample Size Foundation
All grading begins with the sample size—the single size pattern developed and perfected first, serving as the foundation for all other sizes.
Choosing Sample Size:
Most Common Sample Sizes:
Women's: Medium (size 8-10) or Small (size 6-8)
Men's: Medium (38-40" chest)
Children's: Middle of age range (size 6 in 2-10 range)
Why These Sizes:
Represent average proportions
Fit model availability
Industry standard (facilitates comparison)
Central position (equal number of sizes up and down)
Sample Size Importance:
The sample size pattern must be perfect because:
All grading radiates from this foundation
Errors in sample multiply across all sizes
Fit perfection in sample essential before grading
Grading magnifies proportional issues
COKAA Approach: We develop and perfect sample size patterns through thorough fit sessions before grading. Only when sample fits beautifully and balances correctly do we grade—ensuring strong foundation for entire size range.
Basic Grading Terminology
Grade (noun): The difference in measurement between consecutive sizes. "The grade for bust is 1 inch" means each size increases/decreases bust by 1".
Grade Rule: Specification of how much and in what direction each pattern point moves when grading. Includes X-axis (horizontal) and Y-axis (vertical) movements.
Nest: Visual display of all sizes overlaid, showing how patterns grow or shrink concentrically from sample size.
Grade Point: Specific location on pattern where measurements are taken and grading applied—shoulder point, bust point, waist point, etc.
X-Grade: Horizontal grading movement (width changes).
Y-Grade: Vertical grading movement (length changes).
Growth: Amount pattern increases from one size to next (used interchangeably with grade).
Base Size: The sample size from which grading radiates (synonymous with sample size).
Part 2: Grading Methods and Approaches
Professional pattern grading uses various methods depending on resources, scale, and complexity.
Manual Grading (Traditional Method)
Process: Pattern maker manually measures and marks grade increments on pattern pieces using rulers, squares, and curves, physically creating each size by hand.
Steps:
Mark grade points on sample size pattern
Measure specified increment for next size
Mark new points
Connect points with appropriate curves
Create complete new pattern for that size
Repeat for each size in range
Advantages:
No technology investment required
Suitable for small-scale or one-off production
Pattern maker maintains complete control
Can make intuitive adjustments
Disadvantages:
Extremely time-consuming (hours per style per size)
Human measurement error accumulates
Difficult to maintain consistency
Hard to modify once complete
Physical storage space needed
Cannot easily duplicate or share
When Used:
Small ateliers or custom clothiers
Limited size ranges (3-4 sizes maximum)
One-of-a-kind or very small batch production
Vintage or historical garment reproduction
Learning grading principles hands-on
CAD Grading (Professional Standard)
Process: Pattern grading software automatically generates all sizes based on specified grade rules applied to digitized base pattern.
Steps:
Develop base size pattern in CAD
Establish grade points on pattern
Input grade rules (X and Y values for each point)
Software automatically generates all sizes
Verify nested sizes visually
Check critical measurements
Make adjustments if needed
Output all sizes digitally
Advantages:
Extremely fast (minutes vs. hours)
Mathematical precision (eliminates human error)
Perfect consistency across sizes
Easy modification (change rule, regenerate instantly)
Digital output compatible with cutting systems
Unlimited replication
Visual verification through nesting
Disadvantages:
Requires CAD software investment
Learning curve for software
Requires proper grade rule knowledge
Automated process can mask proportion issues if rules wrong
When Used:
Professional production (vast majority)
Any scale beyond very small batch
Modern fashion industry standard
Brands requiring consistency
Production grading for manufacturing
Industry-Standard CAD Systems:
Gerber AccuMark
Lectra Modaris
Optitex
Tukatech
StyleCAD
COKAA CAD Grading: We use Gerber AccuMark, industry standard ensuring compatibility with manufacturers worldwide. Our grading combines software precision with expert judgment—establishing intelligent grade rules, verifying proportional accuracy, and ensuring each size maintains design intent.
Proportional Grading vs. Standard Grading
Standard Grading: Uses industry-standard grade increments based on body measurement studies and established sizing standards.
Typical Standard Grades (Women's):
Bust/Chest: 1" per size
Waist: 1" per size
Hip: 1" per size
Shoulder: 0.25" per size
Length: 0.5" per size
When Standard Works:
Target market matches standard body proportions
Using established sizing systems (US 2-16, etc.)
Mainstream fashion brands
Consistency with competitor sizing expected
Proportional Grading: Custom grade rules developed specifically for brand's target customer or unique garment requirements.
When Proportional Needed:
Niche target markets (athletic, petite, tall)
Plus size ranges (different proportions)
Brand-specific fit philosophy
Ethnic/regional body differences
Performance/technical requirements
Example: Athletic Fit Brand Standard grading: Chest +1", Waist +1" Proportional grading: Chest +1.5" (muscular), Waist +0.5" (lean)
Example: Plus Size Specialist Standard extended: Keep same 1" increments through plus Proportional plus: Adjust ratios (bust +1.5", waist +1.25", reflecting actual plus size proportions)
Combination Grading Approach
Hybrid Method: Uses standard grading for most size range with proportional adjustments where needed—common approach balancing consistency with fit optimization.
Typical Application:
Standard grading: Sizes XS-XL (0-16)
Transition adjustment: Size 16 to 1X
Proportional grading: Plus sizes 1X-4X (18-28)
Why Hybrid Works:
Maintains consistency in standard range
Accommodates different body proportions in extended sizes
Smooth transition between size categories
Optimizes fit across complete range
Part 3: Establishing Grade Rules for Garments
Grade rules specify exactly how much each measurement point changes between sizes. Establishing correct rules is critical for successful grading.
Women's Top Grading Standards
Basic Fitted Top Grade Rules:
Measurement Point | Grade per Size | Typical Range (XS-XL) |
Bust/Chest Width | 1" | 17"-21" (4" total growth) |
Waist Width | 1" | 14"-18" |
Hip Width | 1" | 18"-22" |
Shoulder Width | 0.25" | 14.5"-15.5" |
Center Front/Back Length | 0.5" | 24"-26" |
Armhole Depth | 0.25"-0.375" | 8.5"-10" |
Neck Width | 0.125" | 6.5"-7" |
Sleeve Length | 0.25"-0.5" | 23"-24" |
Bicep Width | 0.5" | 5.5"-7.5" |
Considerations:
Circumference vs. Width: Remember patterns show half measurements (flat). Bust circumference 36" = pattern bust width 18" (half).
Ease Distribution: Grade rules include wearing ease. Tight-fitted garments have smaller grades than loose-fitted.
Style Variations:
Fitted styles: Smaller grades maintaining close fit
Relaxed styles: Larger grades for generous ease
Oversized styles: Even larger grades creating dramatic sizing
Women's Bottom Grading Standards
Basic Pant/Skirt Grade Rules:
Measurement Point | Grade per Size | Typical Range (XS-XL) |
Waist Width | 1" | 13"-17" |
Hip Width | 1" | 18"-22" |
Thigh Width | 0.5" | 10"-12" |
Knee Width | 0.25"-0.5" | 8"-9" |
Leg Opening | 0.25"-0.5" | Varies by style |
Front Rise | 0.25" | 10.5"-11.5" |
Back Rise | 0.5" | 15"-17" |
Inseam Length | 0.5" or constant | 30"-31" or fixed |
Crotch Depth | 0.5" | 11"-13" |
Special Considerations:
Rise Grading: Critical for comfortable fit. Insufficient rise grading causes binding and discomfort in larger sizes.
Inseam Grading: Some brands grade inseam (taller people in larger sizes), others keep constant (offer separate length options).
Leg Taper: Affects how grades distribute along leg—straight leg grades uniformly, tapered leg concentrates growth at hip/thigh.
Men's Wear Grading Standards
Men's Shirt/Jacket Grade Rules:
Measurement Point | Grade per Size | Typical Range (S-XXL) |
Chest Width | 1" | 19"-23" |
Waist Width | 1" | 17"-21" |
Shoulder Width | 0.5" | 17"-19" |
Center Back Length | 0.5" | 29"-31" |
Sleeve Length | 0.5" | 33"-35" |
Neck Circumference | 0.5" | 15"-17" |
Armhole Depth | 0.5" | 10"-12" |
Men's Pant Grade Rules:
Measurement Point | Grade per Size | Typical Range (S-XXL) |
Waist Width | 1" | 16"-20" |
Hip/Seat Width | 1" | 20"-24" |
Thigh Width | 0.5" | 12"-14" |
Front Rise | 0.25"-0.5" | 11"-12" |
Back Rise | 0.5"-0.75" | 16"-18" |
Inseam | Varies or constant | 30-34" offered separately |
Men's Grading Considerations:
Drop Sizes: Relationship between chest and waist (6-drop = 6" difference). Different drops accommodate different body types: athletic (8-10" drop), classic (6" drop), portly (2-4" drop).
Neck-Sleeve Relationship: Men's dress shirts often sized by neck and sleeve independently: 15-32, 15-33, 15-34, etc.
Children's Wear Grading
Age-Based Sizing Challenges:
Children's wear complicates grading because:
Bodies growing rapidly, proportions changing
Wide variance at same age (genetics, development)
Safety considerations (no choking hazards, etc.)
Durability requirements
Typical Grade Increments:
Smaller than adult grades, reflecting smaller bodies:
Chest: 0.5"-1" per size
Waist: 0.5" per size
Length: 1"-2" per size (grows faster than girth)
Shoulder: 0.25" per size
Growth Allowance:
Children's wear often includes extra ease for growth between purchases.
Part 4: Plus Size and Extended Range Grading
Plus size grading represents specialized expertise—improper grading here creates the worst fit problems and customer dissatisfaction.
Why Plus Size Grading Differs
Proportional Changes Beyond Size 16-18:
Bodies at larger sizes have different proportions than scaled-up standard sizes:
Fuller Bust Characteristics:
Bust positioned lower on torso
Fuller under-bust requiring different support
Wider bust span
Different dart angles and placement
Torso Proportions:
Often shorter torso relative to girth
Fuller mid-section requiring accommodation
Different waist position
Broader back and shoulders
Arm and Shoulder Width:
Proportionally wider shoulders
Fuller upper arms
Different sleeve cap requirements
Armhole needs more width and depth
Hip and Thigh Relationship:
Hip-to-waist ratio different
Fuller outer thigh
Different curve from waist to hip
Inner thigh considerations
Grading Into Plus Sizes Correctly
Transition Point Challenge:
The jump from largest standard size to first plus size (typically 16 to 18 or XL to 1X) requires careful handling—not just another increment.
Wrong Approach:
Continue same grade rules (1" bust, 1" waist, etc.)
Results in poor fit—proportions wrong
Correct Approach:
Assess actual plus size body proportions
Adjust grade rules for plus range
Often increase increments
Change proportional relationships
Example Grading Comparison:
Standard Range (Sizes 8-16):
Bust: +1" per size
Waist: +1" per size
Hip: +1" per size
Bust-Waist difference: Constant 4"
Plus Range (Sizes 18-26):
Bust: +1.25" per size (fuller bust growth)
Waist: +1.5" per size (midsection growth)
Hip: +1.25" per size
Bust-Waist difference: Decreases (reflecting actual plus proportions)
Extended Size Range Strategies
Complete Size Inclusivity:
Brands offering XXS through 4X face significant grading challenges—maintaining design intent and fit quality across 10-12+ sizes requires expert approach.
Multi-Zone Grading:
Zone 1: Misses Petite (XXS-XS)
Smaller overall scale
Potentially adjusted proportions
Shorter lengths
Zone 2: Standard Misses (S-XL, sizes 4-16)
Standard industry grade rules
Consistent proportional relationships
Mainstream fit expectations
Zone 3: Plus Sizes (1X-4X, sizes 18-28)
Adjusted proportional grade rules
Accommodation for different body distributions
Maintained style aesthetic
Smooth Transitions:
Critical that transitions between zones feel smooth—customer shouldn't notice different grading approach, just that everything fits beautifully.
Testing Requirements:
Extended size ranges demand fit testing across multiple sizes—cannot assume grading works without verification:
Fit test at size breaks (end of each zone)
Verify proportional correctness
Check design intent maintenance
Customer body type validation
Plus Size Grading Best Practices
Don't Just Scale Up: Biggest mistake is treating plus sizes as larger standard sizes. They're different body types requiring different pattern shapes.
Adjust Dart Positions: Fuller busts sit lower—dart points must lower. Simply enlarging creates darts pointing to wrong location.
Accommodate Fuller Areas: Midsection, upper arms, inner thighs need proportionally more ease and different shaping than simple enlargement provides.
Maintain Style Aesthetic: Plus size customers deserve same fashion-forward styles as standard sizes. Ensure design doesn't become frumpy or matronly in larger sizes.
Fabric Selection Matters More: At larger sizes, fabric behavior more critical—proper structure, recovery, and drape essential. Consider in pattern development.
COKAA Plus Size Expertise:
Our 20+ years include extensive plus size grading experience. We understand the proportional adjustments needed, we don't simply scale patterns, and we ensure designs look equally beautiful and fashionable across complete size range including plus sizes—customers deserve quality fit regardless of size.
Part 5: Common Grading Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Learn from typical grading errors that create fit problems and customer dissatisfaction.
Mistake 1: Using Uniform Grade Rules Everywhere
The Error: Applying same grade increment to all measurement points. "Everything increases 1 inch per size."
Why It Fails: Different body measurements grow at different rates. Shoulders don't increase as much as bust. Length doesn't increase proportionally to width. Uniform grading creates distorted proportions.
Example of Failure: If shoulder, bust, waist, and hip all grade 1" per size:
Shoulder becomes too wide in larger sizes (should be ~0.25" grade)
Garment looks boxy, unflattering
Armhole too wide, sleeve droops
Design intent lost
How to Avoid: Establish appropriate grade rules for each measurement point based on actual body proportion changes. Width measurements typically grade more than length. Circumferences grade more than structural points like shoulders.
Mistake 2: Neglecting Vertical Grading
The Error: Focusing only on width grades (X-axis), ignoring length adjustments (Y-axis).
Why It Fails: Larger people are generally taller. Garments need length adjustments along with width—otherwise, larger sizes fit strangely: waist hits too high, hem too short, sleeves don't reach, neckline proportions wrong.
Example of Failure: Dress graded for width but not length:
Size XL has proper chest and waist width
But dress length barely covers, waist seam too high
Looks like child's proportions on adult body
Uncomfortable, unflattering
How to Avoid: Grade both X and Y dimensions. Typical length grades: 0.5" per size for body lengths, 0.25"-0.5" for sleeve lengths. Balance width and length growth for proportional results.
Mistake 3: Ignoring Pattern Balance When Grading
The Error: Grading pattern pieces independently without verifying they still match and align correctly.
Why It Fails: Front and back pieces must maintain proper relationships—seam lengths must match, curves must align, notches must correspond. Independent grading can disrupt these relationships.
Example of Failure: Bodice graded without ensuring front and back side seams remain same length:
Side seam mismatch creates pulling and distortion
Garment won't hang correctly
Construction becomes difficult or impossible
Each size progressively worse
How to Avoid: Verify pattern balance after grading. Check that corresponding seams match lengths, notches align correctly, curves meet smoothly, and pieces assemble properly in all sizes. CAD software helps visualize but manual verification still needed.
Mistake 4: Accumulation Errors in Manual Grading
The Error: When manually grading, small measurement errors compound as you create each size further from base.
Why It Fails: If you're 1/8" off grading from Medium to Large, then another 1/8" off grading Large to XL, by XXL you're 3/8" off in multiple locations—significant distortion.
Example of Failure: Manual grading across 6 sizes:
Each grade has minor ±1/8" human measurement error
By size XXL, pattern 3/8"-1/2" wrong in multiple dimensions
Fit deteriorates in size extremes
Quality inconsistent across range
How to Avoid: Use CAD grading for mathematical precision, or if manual grading, work from base size for each new size rather than grading sequentially (grade from Medium to each size directly rather than Medium→Large→XL→XXL chain).
Mistake 5: Failing to Adjust for Fabric Type
The Error: Using same grade rules for stretch knits and stable wovens, ignoring that fabric behavior affects size needs.
Why It Fails: Knit fabrics stretch—garments can fit with less ease, sometimes even negative ease. Wovens need full ease allowances. Same grade rules don't work for both.
Example of Failure: Athletic leggings graded like woven pants:
Leggings need compression fit (negative ease)
Woven-style grading creates too much ease
Leggings bag and sag rather than hug body
Doesn't achieve intended performance fit
How to Avoid: Adjust grade rules based on fabric stretch percentage. High-stretch knits can use smaller grades. Stable wovens need fuller grades. Test samples in actual fabric—pattern behavior differs.
Mistake 6: Not Testing Graded Sizes
The Error: Grading sizes, assuming if math is right, fit will be right. Never testing actual graded samples on appropriate body types.
Why It Fails: Math doesn't guarantee fit. Proportional assumptions may be wrong. Design may not scale well. Only testing reveals if grading actually works.
Example of Failure: Designer perfect sample in size Medium, grades to full range, produces inventory:
Size Small fits oddly—proportions childish
Size XL has unexpected fit issues—armholes bind despite measurements correct
Discovers problems only after 1000 units manufactured
Costly inventory adjustment or write-off
How to Avoid: Test fit in multiple sizes before production—at minimum, test smallest size, sample size, and largest size. Ideally test each zone (small, medium, large if doing extended ranges). Verify real-world fit on appropriate body types, not just measurements.
Mistake 7: Inadequate Plus Size Grade Rules
The Error: Simply continuing standard size grade rules into plus size range without proportional adjustments.
Why It Fails: Plus size bodies have different proportions than standard sizes—continuing same grade rules creates poor fit in plus sizes even though measurements technically correct.
Example of Failure: Size 8 dress fits perfectly, graded to size 22 using same 1" increments:
Size 22 measurements technically correct
But bust darts point to wrong location
Waist-to-hip ratio wrong for plus body
Garment doesn't fit the actual plus size customer shape
Plus size customers complain fit terrible despite being "their size"
How to Avoid: Develop specific grade rules for plus size ranges considering actual plus size body proportions. Adjust dart positions, change increment ratios, accommodate fuller areas appropriately. Test on plus size fit models.
Part 6: Professional Grading Services vs. DIY Grading
Should fashion brands handle grading in-house or outsource to professional services?
DIY Grading Challenges
Knowledge Requirements:
Understanding body proportions across sizes
Knowing appropriate grade rules for garment types
CAD software operation (if using digital)
Pattern making fundamentals
Fit evaluation skills
Time Investment:
Learning grading principles
Establishing grade rules
Creating each size
Testing and refining
Correcting errors
Common DIY Outcomes:
Inconsistent fit across sizes
Proportional problems in size extremes
Customer complaints about sizing
Higher return rates
Damage to brand reputation
When DIY Might Work:
Very limited size range (2-3 sizes)
Established pattern maker on staff with grading expertise
Time available for learning and testing
Low production volume tolerating imperfection
Professional Grading Service Advantages
Expertise Application:
Years of grading experience across garment types
Understanding of body proportion changes
Knowledge of appropriate grade rules
Problem-solving for unique situations
Plus size specialization
CAD Technology:
Industry-standard software
Mathematical precision
Quick iterations and adjustments
Visual verification tools
Production-ready output
Quality Assurance:
Verification processes
Balance checking
Measurement validation
Proven grade rules
Tested approaches
Time Efficiency:
Rapid turnaround (days not weeks)
No learning curve delays
Immediate access to expertise
Focus on other business aspects
Cost-Effectiveness: While professional grading costs money upfront, consider total cost:
DIY Total Costs:
Staff time learning and executing
CAD software if needed (₹100,000-500,000)
Multiple sample iterations correcting errors
Customer returns from poor fit
Lost sales from sizing complaints
Reputational damage
Professional Service Costs:
Grading fee (typically ₹3,000-10,000 per style for complete range)
Faster market entry
Consistent quality
Customer satisfaction
Strong sizing reputation
COKAA Grading Services:
Our professional grading includes:
Appropriate grade rule establishment
Complete size range development (your specified sizes)
Plus size proportional expertise
CAD precision using Gerber AccuMark
Verification and quality checking
Production-ready digital files
Support for any questions during production
We grade patterns correctly the first time, saving you the expensive trial-and-error of DIY approaches while ensuring every size in your range fits beautifully.
Part 7: Size Range Planning for Your Brand
Deciding what size range to offer involves balancing market coverage, production complexity, and inventory investment.
Standard Size Range Options
Minimal Range (3 sizes):
Example: S, M, L or 6, 8, 10
Pros: Simple inventory, limited complexity
Cons: Excludes many potential customers
Best for: Test launches, niche specific sizing
Standard Range (5 sizes):
Example: XS, S, M, L, XL or 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
Pros: Covers mainstream market reasonably
Cons: Still excludes XXS, plus sizes
Best for: Most new brands, standard positioning
Extended Standard (7 sizes):
Example: XXS, XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL or 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
Pros: Better market coverage, more inclusive
Cons: Increased inventory complexity
Best for: Established brands, growth stage
Inclusive Range (10+ sizes):
Example: XXS-4X or 00-26
Pros: Maximum market coverage, brand positioning
Cons: Complex inventory, extended grading needs
Best for: Mature brands, plus size inclusive positioning
Plus Size Inclusion Decision
Market Opportunity:
67% of women wear size 14 or larger
Underserved market segment
Growing demand for inclusive sizing
Brand differentiation opportunity
Challenges:
Requires expert grading
Increased inventory investment
Potentially different manufacturing
Sizing reputation risk if done poorly
Recommendations:
If including plus sizes, do it right (expert grading)
Don't just add 18-20 (go to at least 2X/3X for meaningful inclusion)
Test plus size fit thoroughly
Consider starting standard, adding plus once established
Custom Size Charts vs. Industry Standard
Industry Standard Sizing:
Using established sizing conventions (US 2-16, etc.)
Familiar to customers
Enables size comparison with competitors
Limitations: Doesn't fit all body types perfectly
Custom Size Charts:
Develop unique sizing for your target customer
Better fit for specific demographic
Differentiation opportunity
Challenges: Customer confusion, education needed
Hybrid Approach:
Use standard size labels
Adjust grade rules to fit your target
Provide detailed measurements
Best of both worlds
Conclusion
Pattern grading represents the critical technical process that determines whether your beautiful sample size design translates into a complete range of well-fitting garments or becomes a nightmare of sizing complaints and returns. Proper grading requires understanding human body proportions, applying appropriate grade rules
Comments