Shrinking a IH UHF
-
Sell the shirt in the market place. Buy a smaller size.
-
Would like to shrink my UHF a little and was hoping to see what the recommended process was if anyone can help. Thanks.
Take it easy. They can shrink meaningfully and too much heat will shrink them a lot and even warp the fabric.
I’d start with a 60C machine wash on low spin. Then air dry. Take measurements before and after. Then, if you need more you can introduce the drier on the next round.
One more thing, be aware that the material shrinks proportional to the span of fabric so you lose most on the length of the body and the arms. If that is what you want, great, if not you can tug hard along the seams of the shirt while it is drying to mitigate a little of the shrinkage.
Neph, can you please clarify this? Are you saying they tend to shrink more in length than in width?
I have a really nice IHSH-181-GRY in a 3XL that is a little large in the chest, but a full inch too long in the arms. I tried a 3XL because some of the 2XLs are close fitting, but this one is actually bordering on too large.
I'm curious if it's considered to be sacrilege to shrink one of the larger UHFs as they seem to be pretty rare? I'm not completely opposed to selling or trading it, but I haven't made up my mind on that front.
The sleeves on this one are a true 28" with a 19.5" shoulder, so I think they'll be too long for most people. I have long arms and 27" is usually right for me.
-
Neph, can you please clarify this? Are you saying they tend to shrink more in length than in width?
Cotton fabric is funny stuff, but generally speaking, it shrinks proportionally. All other things being equal, a square piece of fabric will shrink the same amount in all dimensions.
Shirts are not square. The longer dimensions will shrink proportionately more than shorter ones. So the length of the body and arms will shrink more than the chest and shoulders.
-
All other things being equal, a square piece of fabric will shrink the same amount in all dimensions.
Shirts are not square. The longer dimensions will shrink proportionately more than shorter ones. So the length of the body and arms will shrink more than the chest and shoulders.
I find this a bit surprising, @neph93 . Depending upon the weave of the fabric, the tension and… I guess density? (amount of fibers in a given length of a yarn) of the warp and weft can vary considerably. So, there would normally be more tension in the warp than the weft, so I would expect the weft to shrink and expand more readily--this would be directionally-variable shrinkage. Perhaps in practice this really isn't an issue--maybe the relatively easier expansion of the weft versus the warp offsets its easier shrinkage? But I always assumed that's why you get roping and similar effects when you expose fabrics to shrinkage. And of course different tensions are applied to different directions when the garment is stored and worn too, impacting how it will stretch back out--gravity in one direction, your body perhaps in another...
-
Cotton fabric is funny stuff, but generally speaking, it shrinks proportionally. All other things being equal, a square piece of fabric will shrink the same amount in all dimensions.
Shirts are not square. The longer dimensions will shrink proportionately more than shorter ones. So the length of the body and arms will shrink more than the chest and shoulders.
As for sacrilege, deliberately shrinking UHF’s had a long, fine tradition around these parts. Plus, it is your shirt, so you can do whatever you like with it [emoji1]
Thank you Neph, this makes sense. In this case, it would be perfect if it shrunk more in length than width.
I acknowledge that it's my shirt and I can do what I want with it, I just know we have a passionate community, so if it makes more sense to sell or trade it to someone who needs the extra length, I can take that under consideration.
-
Would like to shrink my UHF a little and was hoping to see what the recommended process was if anyone can help. Thanks.
Take it easy. They can shrink meaningfully and too much heat will shrink them a lot and even warp the fabric.
I’d start with a 60C machine wash on low spin. Then air dry. Take measurements before and after. Then, if you need more you can introduce the drier on the next round.
One more thing, be aware that the material shrinks proportional to the span of fabric so you lose most on the length of the body and the arms. If that is what you want, great, if not you can tug hard along the seams of the shirt while it is drying to mitigate a little of the shrinkage.
@neph93 , I chickened out and I’m finally getting around to doing this. 60C is 140F, so that sounds like a truly hot wash. My machine doesn’t list temperatures, only specific cycles like hot/cold, warm/cold, warm/warm, cold/cold. Do you remember what you did? I am trying not to make it all fuzzy, so I’m washing inside out and I’d prefer not to wash it twice for the same reason.
-
My machine doesn’t list temperatures, only specific cycles like hot/cold, warm/cold, warm/warm, cold/cold. Do you remember what you did?
Most European machines (certainly the ones I have) have digital settings so you can choose any temp from 20C-95C. No hot/warm/cold descriptors I’m afraid.
I’d imagine cold is 30C, warm is 40C and hot is 60C but I could be wrong. Maybe check the users manual online?
-
How about publishing the amount of shrinkage for each dimension as a result of overdying. That would provide a good reference for the maximum amount of shrinkage you’ll get when washing. It seems that the UHF shrinkage question is still one of the most asked.
-
@DrPat said in Shrinking a IH UHF:
How about publishing the amount of shrinkage for each dimension as a result of overdying. That would provide a good reference for the maximum amount of shrinkage you’ll get when washing. It seems that the UHF shrinkage question is still one of the most asked.
i compared the sizing charts of the original version versus the OD versions of the recent OD UHF's and was surprised to generally see little shrinkage in the widths and about .5" lost on the lengths. There were a few exceptions, what could be easily attributed to vastly different sample sizes, but it gave me confidence on the "half-size shrinkage" on the original version of the product statement being fairly accurate.
edit: this is far from a complete story, but here's a comparison of the 330's
