I'm currently working on proportionate systems for women's patterns and how they grade between sizes as a predictable basis for made-to-measure alterations.
For figures are of the same height but increasing bust girth (B-cup, proportionate other than height remaining static), F.R. Morris (and a few others) place all of the "contour" value for the necessary extra increase in vertical length into the scye depth. This is the same for both his proportionate draft as well as the grading. Here is an example from his chapter on grading. Notice how the length from depth of scye to hemline does not increase:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0MDStvxW/morris-back-grade.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0MDStvxW)
Most more modern grading examples I can find show the vertical increase split between the scye depth and the underarm length. Here's a simple example (from the book Patterngrams by Nancy Olson):
(https://i.postimg.cc/BjpMgxNL/patterngrams-back-grade.png) (https://postimg.cc/BjpMgxNL)
Is putting all of the vertical contour value into the scye depth as a pattern is graded up merely an oversimplification? Or could there be instances where this grading would be preferred? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Well........ in my eyes that is not good. In my system the grading process starts at bust line. With bigger sizes the waist goes up to bust line and the shoulder point up from bustling too. Bust line stays. If you search for muellerundsohn.com and here under suchen (search) Gradieren eines Oberteilgrundschnittes you will find a nice example.
Lg Posaune
I am at my tablet and do not know how to do links.blush😨
Given that the figures you are grading for have the same height, I don't see why you would want to increase the full length or the length to the waist?
https://www.muellerundsohn.com/allgemein/gradieren-eines-oberteil-grundschnittes/
This is the article Posaune is refering to.
Thank you for the replies! I am limited in what I can type at the moment due to trigger finger in my thumb.