The warnings behind the labels
Garments made in low-cost countries and retailed in the UK and mainland Europe carry a considerable margin but still many importers economise on the care label. Even the most basic checks may be ignored and as a result, whole ranges may give unsatisfactory results when cleaned.
In an unacceptably high number of cases, those responsible for designing the care label have a very poor understanding of the full meaning. The main problem continues to be the over-optimistic use of a circled P with a bar underneath. Time and again beads shatter, buttons break and there is widespread abrasion fade because the maker assumes that this symbol will give the cleaner all the necessary information.
The British Standard (BS EN ISO 3175 part 2) provides garment makers with methods for checking the care label and states that for "sensitive" items the cleaner should raise the level of the solvent dip and reduce the cleaning time. These are the only precautions specified for reducing the mechanical action. Even a delicate trim is supposed to be capable of resisting the repeated impact against the machine’s metal side during the tumble drying. This stage could last over 20 minutes and it cannot be shortened.
The standard does not mention net bagging or basting with cotton wadding so the cleaner should not need to use these techniques. In practice, most cleaners have found out the hard way that this extra protection is frequently necessary.
Three other restrictions might be required by the circled ‘P with a bar beneath’ symbol: Reduced drying temperature, reduced solvent temperature and reduced moisture in the fabrics and solvent but the cleaner must read the fibre content label to know when to apply these.
The case studies illustrate the problems that can be caused by a failure to understand the full meaning of the care and fibre labels.
Wash label does not specify the detergent
Fault: When the cleaner washed these attractive pillowcases the owner complained that the colour had changed so they no longer matched the new pair she had just bought.
Cause: The cleaner followed the wash care symbol correctly but care labels never specify the type of detergent as this is a part of the cleaner’s craft skills. Here, the cleaner used a washing detergent containing optical brightening agents (OBAs). These have bonded onto the cotton fibres and react with the ultraviolet part of natural daylight to create brilliant white light. This has diluted the pink colour and produced the colour difference. The washed pillowcase, under UV light, is on the left in this picture.
Responsibility: As a responsible professional, the cleaner is expected to know which detergent to use for whites and which are suitable for coloured textiles.
Rectification: Once an OBA has bonded onto the cotton surface it is virtually irremovable. The colour change should be regarded as permanent.
Designer jacket now looks shabby and worn
Fault: Drycleaning removed the soiling from this cashmere jacket but the colour changed from cream to dingy grey.
Cause: Examining the jacket under magnification showed that some yarns had a very low twist. The combination of the solvent’s lubricating properties and the mechanical action in cleaning caused the fibres in these low-twist yarns to work free, hence the shabby appearance,
Responsibility: This lies with the garment maker and ultimately with the fabric designer. The cleaner is not to blame. The maker should not rely on the symbol telling the cleaner that the garment cannot withstand the relevant British Standard process, on which the delicates cycle was almost certainly based.
Rectification: None.
Turn down the heat when drying
Fault: After cleaning, this expensive designer dress had clearly shrunk and the cleaner was unable to press out the excessive amount of wrinkling.
Cause: The care label correctly included the circled P with a bar beneath but the fibre label showed that the fabric blend included modacrylic yarns. This indicated that the air-off-the cage thermostat should be lowered to 40C to avoid thermal shrinkage.
Responsibility: The cleaner should take responsibility here. If a blend contains acrylic fibre, the setting should be reduced to 50C but modacrylic is even more sensitive and requires a reduction to 40C.
Rectification: None.
Studded trim fails on delicate perc cycle
Fault: This attractive metal stud trim could not withstand drycleaning on a delicate perc cycle. Some studs lost their metal cap, leaving only the plastic base, and some dropped off the fabric as the adhesive did not hold them in place. The maker blamed the cleaner for using a process that was too severe.
Cause: The process used by the cleaner was certainly too severe for this poorly designed or poorly labelled trim. Simple tests indicated that the adhesive was incapable of withstanding the solvent specified and the stud structure could not withstand the mechanical action of the tumble dry stage.
Responsibility: The maker is responsible for the damage here, firstly for specifying the wrong solvent, secondly for not using more robust studs and thirdly for not checking the label properly. Even the simplest test clean would have revealed the weaknesses found here.
Rectification: None, unless the maker has replacement studs and adhesive of a better quality than those used here.
Leather coat shrinks and puckers
Fault: The owner of this black grain leather jacket with quilted outer complained that it had shrunk and also puckered at the seams.
Cause: The garment was labelled with circled P with a bar beneath, but this only applies to a textile process, which would have spoiled the garment. This cleaner realised the label was wrong and used a cycle correctly dosed with leather oil. The garment has shrunk by 3%, which is in line with the allowance for relaxation shrinkage potential that the British Standard 7629 part 1 allows to garment makers. The garment was cleaned correctly.
Responsibility: The maker is responsible for the wrong care label but this did not cause the problem here. The retailer should have warned the customer that some shrinkage in cleaning was unavoidable and to allow for this in the fit. They should take responsibility if they did not do so.
Rectification: The specified 3% tolerance for relaxation in cleaning, is assessed after pressing but skilled re-pressing under tension might recover a little more. If the maker had used the correct leather care label, it would have specified the level of leather oil in the final bath, which would have maximised the chance of success.
