6.09.2004. Pet Peeves, the cutting of waistbands
I'm sure I'll eventually end up with a whole host of pet peeves; this is one of
those things I always forget to tell folks regarding the cutting of waistbands.
While this is something that occurs mostly in RTW  it isn't a practice I
recommend adopting for personal or niche manufacturing purposes.

If you've noticed, the waistbands of (usually) jeans and other staple garments
(i.e. mass produced off-shore items) are cut with the grainline going around
the body, encircling the waist. The reason it is done in this manner is that
the manufacturer can cut very long strips of fabric that can be fed into a
folder (a sewing attachment) without seaming. Actually, waistbands in large
concerns are cut "on the roll", i.e. the fabric is not unrolled at all for cutting
but rather, the fabric is sliced  jelly-roll fashion. This is what I don't like and
this is why:

Many people believe that the straight of grain is the most stable grain to use
in the cutting of goods but this is simply untrue in that it is the lengthwise
grainline that is subject to the greatest degree of shrinkage, and how could
shrinkage make for greater stability? Now, it is true that we practice the
cutting of garments on the straight of grain and I don't mean we should
change that due to a myriad of justifiable reasons but we must be mindful of
our purposes rather than proceed numbly forward based on standard
practice and tradition to evolve greater results through selective practices.
The straight of grain (the length of goods) is the grain under greatest
pressure; these threads are wound more tautly than the opposing cross-grain.
For this reason, the cross grain is actually more stable with regards to
shrinkage. Between the straight of grain and the cross grain, it is the straight
of grain that demonstrates the greatest degree of shrinkage.

Now, when waistbands are cut like a jelly-roll (which provides greater cost
savings) they actually end up conversely to the rest of the garment upon
construction. Whilst the legs are cut on the lengthwise grain, the waistband
length is turned and stitched in an opposing fashion. So why is this a
problem? It's a problem because the waistband is not shrinking in direct
proportion to the rest of the garment; while the garment shrinks more in
length rather than girth, the waistband shrinks more in girth rather than
length (waistband width)...see my point? The problem is that when the
waistband shrinks in girth and this may not be obvious via visual inspection,
it is obvious fitting-wise. A pair of jeans you try on in the store may fit there
and you can calculate approximate shrinkage you'd expect, you cannot expect
the waistband to shrink in direct proportion to the girth of the hip for
example. The waistband will not shrink proportionately to any other girth
measure of the garment.

The solution is to cut waistbands so the grain ends up on the length of goods
after it has been constructed. This means that the waistband strips are cut
from side to side or weft to weft (weft to wight) which is more costly than is
done by large manufacturing concerns. I think this is a significant problem
that companies like Levi's have, and it seems to become worse and more
widespread every year. I have a pair of 501's with a 27" waist which were
impossible to wear when I had a 27" waist. I couldn't wear them until I had a
25" waist and this was not due to a mis-sizing, grading, misinterpretation of
technical specifications or drafting error; it was strictly waistband shrinkage.
So now these fit in the waist but the hip girth (for example) was not
commensurate and I look like I have a wong in the crotch. Also, make sure
you cut those pockets correctly or you'll have another mess. While on the
topic of jean front pockets, here is an aside to illustrate. Look on pg 568 of
Armstrong (2nd ed.) and see figure 3. Do Not, I repeat, Do Not make the
degree of correction to "B" as illustrated; it should only be 1/4" at most.
Rather, the tendency will be that you'll need to blend "A" to match "B" because
you'll need extra "bend" allowance to account for the thicker seam (owing to
more pieces joined) of that area. My aforementioned Levi's show this deficit
too.

Lastly, the reason I wrote this pet peeve is in defense of consumers as
manufacturers routinely blame consumers for getting fatter before they can
change their sizing to reflect changes. While it is true that people have gotten
heavier, the changes have not occurred overnight or in radical proportions
while manufacturer cutting practices have.  

Return to the main projects page...

Feel free to submit suggestions for my site. And I'll appreciate it greatly. Go
back to the contact me page to submit your ideas.

This site was last revised July 26, 2004