# 9 oz.? 14 oz.? What does it all mean???



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

I know that ounces are used to measure the weight of a cloth, but what area does it go by? A square yard?
(I also guessed that 9 oz. is light and 14 oz. is heavy from previous threads.)
By the way, does it strike anyone else as ironic that a discussion in a forum is called a thread and that this is a clothing forum?


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

this is a question ive been wanting to know the answer to all this time as well.
hopefully someone will give us an educated answer.

i dont find 'thread' ironic , but it is funnily coincidential


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

You're right, Benjamin, in guessing that the weight of wool fabric in ounces is _ounces per square yard_. Wool fabric weight is often expressed in _grams _as well, as in _grams per square meter_. It's relatively easy to convert from one system to the other by dividing the weight in grams by 33.9 to get the corresponding weight in ounces, or by multiplying the weight in ounces by 33.9 to get weight in grams. Your 9-oz. wool (305 g.) would be considered a light-to-medium weight, whereas your 14-oz wool (475 g.) would indeed be considered heavy.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Roger said:


> It's relatively easy to convert from one system to the other by dividing the weight in grams by 33.9 to get the corresponding weight in ounces, or by multiplying the weight in ounces by 33.9 to get weight in grams.


I thought the conversion factor was 31.

For more detail see this thread from the London Lounge (in particular see Manton's post):


----------



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

What is the appropriate weight for a summer linen dress shirt? Does 3.75 sound about right?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Roger said:


> You're right, Benjamin, in guessing that the weight of wool fabric in ounces is _ounces per square yard_. Wool fabric weight is often expressed in _grams _as well, as in _grams per square meter_. It's relatively easy to convert from one system to the other by dividing the weight in grams by 33.9 to get the corresponding weight in ounces, or by multiplying the weight in ounces by 33.9 to get weight in grams. Your 9-oz. wool (305 g.) would be considered a light-to-medium weight, whereas your 14-oz wool (475 g.) would indeed be considered heavy.


Except as per Manton's piece on the London Lounge, it is not "per square yard" or "per square meter." It's one yard of the running width (60 inches) or one meter X 150cm. I knew one square yard wasn't right, but I held my peace figuring somebody would come up with the correct numbers.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

For shirtings the weight of the fabric matters much less. With linen in particular the thing that makes it cooler is less the weight than the fact that it breathes well. I will wear 100 grams + in summer as cottons/linens breath well anyway and the thickness absorbs sweat better. Weight matters more with suiting fabrics.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Two things:

(a) You're right, Sator, so I'd better modify my previous post. Manton (on information from Dougal Munro, President of Holland & Sherry) has pointed out in the thread on the London Lounge linked by Sator that the area of measurement is not exactly the square yard or square meter, but rather 36" X about 58" (allowing for the selvage) for the imperial system (thus more than a square yard) and 100 cm. X about 145 cm. (again to allow for the selvage) for the metric system. In other words, an 8-oz. wool weighs 8 oz. for an area of 36" X 58", or about 2,088 sq. in. (or about 1.61 sq. yd.), and a (corresponding) 250 g. wool fabric weighs 250 g. for an area of 100 cm. X 145 cm., or 14,500 sq. cm. (or 1.45 sq. m.). This fact does lead to a different conversion factor--30.54, instead of the 33.9 that I gave earlier, or for all practical purposes, *31*, as Manton pointed out and Sator notes (and 30 would, in fact, get you close enough). Thus, our earlier 9-oz. light-medium wool would, in metric, be given as 280 g. (or maybe 270 g.), and the 14-oz. heavy wool would be given in metric as 430 g. (or maybe 420 g.--the metrics are usually rounded to the nearest 10 g.). Sorry for any confusion.

(b) 3.75 oz. could be a reasonable weight of a summer-weight linen shirt fabric, I think. I've always seen cotton and linen expressed in the metric system, so that the 3.75 oz. would, using our conversion factor, work out to about 116 g., which would probably be reported as 120 g. I think we need Alex Kabbaz here, but 120 g. seems just a little on the heavy side for a true summer-weight shirting fabric. The summer shirts I've had made up have all been in 95g. to 105g. cottons, but perhaps with linen a little more weight is needed.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Roger said:


> I think we need Alex Kabbaz here ...


I don't think so. If I get into this I shall start pointing out the fallacies in this discussion.

Such as: Who appointed 58"? Not all woolens are woven 58" wide. I have great respect for Dougal ... but are we certain he heard the question?

Such as: Shirtings are woven in 36", 45", and 60" widths. Someone want to pick a width out of thin air and call it the "weight standard"?

In many woolen books, weight is expressed in ounces and in grams. In the woolen wholesale price lists I used to deal with, weight is espressed as gsm or gm2 which respectively stand for grams per square metre or grams/metre/squared.

I'm not current on woolens. Perhaps the ways of the world have changed and left me in the dust.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Such as: Who appointed 58"? Not all woolens are woven 58" wide. I have great respect for Dougal ... but are we certain he heard the question?


If you had read the post, or had much experience with suitings, you would know that most English suitings are woven in 60" widths. 2" of that are subtracted for selvedge. Everyone agrees that selvedge actually takes up a little less space, but 2" is given as a standard measure that favors the consumer. Overestimate slightly the unusable part. That's the idea.

Continental goods are measured in centimeters, and woven mostly on 150 cm looms. 5 cms are typcially subtracted for the selvedge.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

manton said:


> If you had read the post, or had much experience with suitings, you would know that most English suitings are woven in 60" widths. 2" of that are subtracted for selvedge. Everyone agrees that selvedge actually takes up a little less space, but 2" is given as a standard measure that favors the consumer. Overestimate slightly the unusable part. That's the idea.
> 
> Continental goods are measured in centimeters, and woven mostly on 150 cm looms. 5 cms are typcially subtracted for the selvedge.


 WTF? Your condescension is unnecessary, rude, and as well you are aware, incorrect. Even my three-year old knows that most suitings are woven at 60" and my seven year-old would know to subract the selvedge. That is not germane.

You have conveniently avoided the meat of my post, to wit: Since when - exactly - has the standard changed from gsm or oz/y to an arbitrary weight per yard of woven width?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Since when - exactly - has the standard changed from gsm or oz/y to an arbitrary weight per yard of woven width?


The answer is: since never. Weights have always been calculated by ounce/gram per running yard/meter. I makes little sense to calculate by square yard/meter, when so little cloth is woven in yard/meter widths.

Still, for instance, hand loomed Scottish tweeds woven in 36" widths are measured in ounces per square yard, but only because the loom width happens to coincide with a square yard. Even so, this can be confusing to consumers. At a 36" width, a relatively heavy weight carries a realitively low weight number. 16 ounces at 60" is nice and heavy. 16 ounces at 36" is a Space Shuttle heat tile. 16 oz. at 60" is more line 9/10 oz. at 36".


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Sooo, the 1200g coating Fox is sending me is about 40oz. :teacha:


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Sooo, the 1200g coating Fox is sending me is about 40oz. :teacha:


That is really, really heavy. Russian winter heavy.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

manton said:


> That is really, really heavy. Russian winter heavy.


Da, tovarisch. Or Chicago winter heavy.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Benjamin E. said:


> I know that ounces are used to measure the weight of a cloth, but what area does it go by? A square yard?
> (I also guessed that 9 oz. is light and 14 oz. is heavy from previous threads.)
> By the way, does it strike anyone else as ironic that a discussion in a forum is called a thread and that this is a clothing forum?


so glad that you pointed that out. it never occurred to me at all. 
what do you think were the chances.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Da, tovarisch. Or Chicago winter heavy.:icon_smile_big:


I think Russians would say Gospodin Manton these days

It was only during the Soviet era that the traditional Russian for "mister" (gospodin) was replaced by "comrade" (tovarish), due to it having overtones of being a landowning gentleman or master. Then again "mister", "monsieur", "Herr", "signor" all have such origins.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Sator said:


> I think Russians would say Gospodin Manton these days
> 
> It was only during the Soviet era that the traditional Russian for "mister" (gospodin) was replaced by "comrade" (tovarish), due to it having overtones of being a landowning gentleman or master. Then again "mister", "monsieur", "Herr", "signor" all have such origins.


_Spasi Gospodi, lyudi tvoya!_


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Teacher said:


> _Spasi Gospodi, lyudi tvoya!_


"Gospodi" here means "Oh, Lord". It is one of rare instances of the survival of the vocative case through its use in ecclesiastical Russian.

Manton might command our respect but I would not elevate him that far :icon_smile:


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

It's okay as I am not Russian. I guess I'm dating myself. :icon_smile:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Teacher said:


> _Spasi Gospodi, lyudi tvoya!_


The other thing - I think that should read "Spasibo Gospodi" (thank you, O Lord).

I have been trying to figure out what "Spasi" meant for a few hours now, assuming it was some archaic ecclesiastical Russian, but it just dawned on me that it is something rather simple.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Sator said:


> The other thing - I think that should read "Spasibo Gospodi" (thank you, O Lord).
> 
> I have been trying to figure out what "Spasi" meant for a few hours now, assuming it was some archaic ecclesiastical Russian, but it just dawned on me that it is something rather simple.


The phrase I quoted is not -- despite what many think -- Russian. It's Old Church Slovanic. It's a prayer that is also used in the _1812 Overture_. Knowing what it means, I put it here as a joke.


----------

