Design 01 Piparminttu jersey pinafore dress

[mom2a2z]

Size 62-92 cm

Post your pictures and notes about this pattern here!

[TanyaMT]

Be careful tracing piece 1, the front yoke. Looking at it, I think there may be a printing error as, if you trace the size 92 (for example) with your finger from the shoulder (outermost line) down the arm to the bottom, that sz 92 line connects with the line marked size 62 (the shortest bodice length line, or the inner most line if you are looking at the center front). I'll edit if I discover it was my vision, but I have been looking at this a while, and as of right now it clearly connects to the 92 to the 62.

The same thing can be seen on piece 2, the back bodice yoke. And piece 4, back skirt, shows size 62 as the widest largest size on the side seam line, but 92 for the same line at the top and bottom, i.e., the sizing numbers are reversed where they are printed at what will become the armpit area.

It runs quite wide. I actually reduced the width in this a little already, but it is still wide, although my binding doesn't help (cotton rib stretched too much).

[quartercentury]

Be careful tracing piece 1, the front yoke. Looking at it, I think there may be a printing error as, if you trace the size 92 (for example) with your finger from the shoulder (outermost line) down the arm to the bottom, that sz 92 line connects with the line marked size 62 (the shortest bodice length line, or the inner most line if you are looking at the center front). I'll edit if I discover it was my vision, but I have been looking at this a while, and as of right now it clearly connects to the 92 to the 62.

The same thing can be seen on piece 2, the back bodice yoke. And piece 4, back skirt, shows size 62 as the widest largest size on the side seam line, but 92 for the same line at the top and bottom, i.e., the sizing numbers are reversed where they are printed at what will become the armpit area.

I agree, it looks like there is a printing error. I traced sz 62 today and just kept to the 'smallest' lines, if that makes sense. I hope it turns out!

[jcsews]

As pp have said, there is definitely an error in the bodice pieces. It is not just a mislabelling -- the pieces are shaped wrong. This dress is definitely sized for a shirt to go underneath. The armholes are large, and it is wider than necessary if you are planning to use it as a summer dress. You might want to downsize if you are not planning on layering it.

[absmom]

A hair wider than I expected but I like the length.

[caseyj]

Made a width of 80, length of 92. Love it!

[quartercentury]

I made this in a 62 (tracing the smallest size, despite the printing error) for my baby when she was about 64 cm long, cut without a seam allowance and then sewed the side seams 5/8" from the edge... so 1.25 inches narrower overall than the pattern intended? And it still layers fine over a t-shirt.

The instructions specify clear elastic tape for gathering the skirt pieces to the front and back yokes, but I just used plain old gathering stitches and it worked fine.

I left off the little false placket piece and buttons because I didn't have anything that matched!

I will make more of these for the coming spring/summer - cute and easy. Though I will probably continue to make them narrower than the design intends.

Here with the pants (design #2 from the same issue), also in size 62:


Here, again with pants, on 65ish cm baby (just shy of four months old), layered over a long-sleeve onesie:


And here on 73ish cm baby (the same baby, eight months later!), the same top/dress. Still works great as a layering piece, though much shorted, obviously:

and

[SynEpona]

I agree that this runs wide. I traced size 68, and it fits wide, but otherwise well, on my 6mth old 20lb baby.

Added sleeves to it for spring, instead of layering, and I think it will fit nicely. I gathered with my serger instead of lastin, and the default ratio was perfect to make the skirt portions fit the yokes. I will make this again for DD, it's a quick assembly with a 'more than a teeshirt' look.