WHISTLING DEMONS AND BLACK LACE GLOVES
For your holiday themed enjoyment (and because I’ve been stacked with precious little knitting time of late), I present our very own whistling demon. This candid of Younger Daughter is courtesy of a kids’ Halloween trick or treat party hosted by my employer, and the clever camera of Ms. L. Smith:
Elder Daughter however has more elaborate costuming in mind. She loves the black lace doodle scarf, but wants to complement it with black lace fingerless mitts. Never one to back down from a challenge, I’ve been playing with the concept – flying without a pattern, but as you can see – not without a black lace net.
Left is the thing patted flat, right is the mitt stretched out a bit on a roll of paper. I began at the cuff with a provisional cast-on, then worked a fused picot hem (barely seen here). I continued in pattern, with a mega-eyelet band after I’d done a bit of cuff. I might end up threading a wide ribbon through those eyelets – or not, depending on the bespeaker’s preference. The thumb gusset is done entirely in stockinette, and both the thumb and the top are also finished off with a picot hem, although on the cast-off row, I’ll need to take a tapestry needle and stitch down the live stitches now stowed on the white cord, cast-off fusing being a bit too fussy for the inside of such small spaces. I don’t know if anyone is interested in a stitch by stitch pattern. If so, I’ll consider writing one up from my notes.
The white cord itself is a handy tip. It’s plastic lanyard string (aka gimp or boondoggle). I’ve found it to be quite handy for provisional cast-ons, and as a flexible stitch holder for exactly this purpose. It’s stiff enough to make threading the stitches onto it easy, can be cut to any length, and it’s very inexpensive, especially if you scoop up a spool in an unpopular color from the craft store’s discount bin.
DOODLE SCARF – FINISHED
My doodle scarf is done. Blocked and everything. It ended up being about 16 inches across and just under nine feet long. I ended up using a variant of the double YO “Dewdrops” edging (found in Sharon Miller’s fantastic Heirloom Knitting) instead of the item that prompted the last two posts:
I also played with the main diamond motif – alternating ones with the full pierced centers with ones that filled in the center-most four diamonds. I chose the edging because the structure replicated the mesh in the pierced diamonds. I also took the lazy way out on the corners. Rather than calculate the miter, I just went around the edges, doubling up on my rate of attachment to make enough fullness to ease around the 90-degree angle. Elder Daughter has poached this one for her very own. But (to quote someone I ran into in the airport while I was working on this last week). “You’re a sneaky parent. How much of a Goth air can it provide when the wearer has to ‘fess up that “My mom knit it for me” whenever she’s asked?”
I’m thinking of doing matching fingerless mittens – something relatively long, perhaps between matinee and elbow length (that works out to mid-forearm, for those of you too young to remember formal gloves), with the pierced diamond motif on the back of the hand. I’m pretty sure that Elder Daughter would swoon for those. Especially if I can get them finished before Halloween.
In a somewhat related topic – yesterday’s post brought a comment from Lace Goddess Nurhanne, she of Yarn Over. She’s got the original book that the edging I’ve been posting about is from, AND she can read German. She says that I did miss something in the accompanying text. Her comment read “I don’t have the Lacis book, but an original 1921 copy in which the accompanying text instructs you to work even rows 2-16: yo, k to end with k1p1 in double yo. Even rows 18-32: k2tog, k to end with k1p1 in double yo.”
I had posited the “make it up on the wrong side” method back when I began experimenting. It looks like the original pattern took that approach. I need to experiment though to see if adding/subtracting those stitches at the leftmost edge (the beginning of the row for even numbered/wrong side rows) works. But I am a bit leery of that approach. I think that putting adds/deletes there will interfere with the patterned repeat, but I’m willing to try it out. I’m tickled to have another opportunity to learn something new. Especially if I’m sitting chela at the feet of someone who really knows this stuff.
CHARTING 108 – LACE STRUCTURE
Apparently my last post caused some confusion. A couple of people wrote to say that they didn’t understand why the original graph wasn’t knit-able. I’ll try to explain again.
One principle of lacy and other texture knitting is the equivalence of decreases and increases. In patterns with parallel edges, for every new stitch introduced into a row via a YO, Make 1 or cast on, there is an equivalent stitch removed by a complementing decrease. That decrease can come in many forms – a K2tog, a SSK, a cast-off, or as part of a multiple stitch decrease (Sl-K2tog-PSSO, K3tog, SSSSK, etc.) Yes, there are some exceptions – patterns that deviate by having a decreased stitch count on one or more rows, but if they have parallel edges, they must restore the stitch count on subsequent rows. I’ve graphed both types here before.
Walker’s Porcupine Stitch uses increases and decreases balanced throughout to maintain parallel edges
By contrast, her Starlight Lace Stitch is a parallel edge insertion that has a modified stitch count on rows 16 and 14, that is restored in both places on the next right-side pattern row. The presence of those evil gray “no stitch” boxes is a dead give-away that stitch count monkeying has happened.
To create a panel with one or more decorative edges – edges that zig in and out to make nifty curves, scallops, or sawtooth or triangle points – the stitch count has to be deliberately altered so that the width of the piece grows and then shrinks in a predictable manner. Most of these decorative panels are edgings – strips with one nice firm straight edge that is usually knit or sewn onto the thing being trimmed, and one fantastical dagged edge – the decorative points or ruffles that hang free. There are two-edged edgings that in the past were used as trim or decorative strips all by themselves – lingerie straps, camouflage for shelf edges, free strips appliqued onto towels and house linen, but they’re far less common and are rarely seen in modern pattern collections.
The stitches introduced (or decreased) to form the points can occur anywhere in a row. Placement as well as the number helps determine the overall shape and depth of the point. If the new stitches accumulate or disappear from the left of the location of increase/decrease, the points tend to be a bit sharper. If they accumulate between the stable edge and the location of the increase/decrease the points formed are more like waves or scallops. We saw that in the pattern I charted in the last post, where the point-forming increases/decreases were relatively close to the stable right edge of the piece, stitches were accumulated between the stable right edge and the location of increase decrease, and that spot was followed by a relatively large section that had a stable stitch count. Here are simple graphs of a few basic edging shapes, stripped of all lace detail. Note that in each and every one, if a row has more (or fewer) stitches than the one that preceded it, there is a clearly discernible cause on that preceding row – an increase or a decrease that’s clearly to blame.
It’s the absence of any stitch-to-blame in the historical chart that made it un-knitable:
Yes, the graph looks good. The points march in and out in clearly defined order – but the causes for that patterning are absent. Every YO on this graph is countered by a decrease. There are none left over to form the basic triangle point shape.
Now as to why the chart was published this way – the pattern book I was working from is a direct facsimile of a work produced in Germany in 1921, in a language I can’t read. I did double check the instructions, both against the English key thoughtfully provided by the book’s modern editors; and against the original diagrams presented at the front of the book. Those show standard symbols and a little engraving of what the resulting work should look like. I also successfully reproduced another pattern on the page that uses the same symbols, so I’m pretty sure that in spite of not being able to read the accompanying text I didn’t miss anything substantive.
My guess is that because charting was new, and the symbols used in the original book are not standard (charting symbols aren’t standard even today), among the pattern designers, the artist that laid out the pattern, the typesetter, and the proofer, errors slipped in. Proofing knitting patterns isn’t an easy thing, as any modern professional pattern writer/editor can tell you. In my experience, the most accurate patterns appear to have been produced between 1950 and arbitrarily – 1985. Stuff before in general isn’t as stitch for stitch perfect or isn’t in modern notation; and stuff after seems to have suffered from a lack of skilled manpower and/or editorial time. Not to say everything published after 1985 is junk, but we’ve all seen books rushed to market that required dozens of pages of errata. Books published during the designated “sweet spot of knitting” era tended to require far fewer corrections than do many contemporary works. Kudos to those professional authors/editors/publishers who have taken on the extra time and expense in pursuit of perfection. Eyebrows are raised at those who cut corners. Slack is cut for pre-modern works, especially those that pioneered new forms of instruction.
So the moral of the story in knitting as in far more weighty world matters, is “trust, but verify.”
Afterword: People new to charting might find the Charting 101-107 series here on String useful. You can find those posts under my Reference Shelf tag.
ADVENTURES IN LACE – CORRECTING HISTORICAL LACY KNITTING PATTERNS
First, let me reassure everyone that it’s not my intent to supplant the need for the books I’ve been using lately. I strongly recommend that people interested in lacy knitting buy them, and have as much fun learning to knit from them as I am having. But I also realize that it’s very daunting for many people to think of picking up a book in a language they don’t read, that uses an unfamiliar symbol set, and that can be full of unexpected differences from modern knitting logic (to the point that would be thought errors in modern books.) Mining these older works for usable ideas is a form of Extreme Knitting* – one that I want to encourage more people to try. I hope these posts help bridge some folk over to beginning their own explorations.
For example, here’s another lace redaction problem that turned into a paddle in the lace design pool.
I intended to finish out my black lace doodle scarf with an edging appearing in the same book as the insertion strip I modified for that scarf’s body. But the graph of the original isn’t quite logical, especially when compared to the engraving of the finished item. The edging I originally intended to use is on page 12 of Knitted Lace (Kunst Stricken) by M. Niedner anf G. von Reden (edited by the Kliots).
If I flat transcribe each of their chart symbols into modern notation, I get the chart in the diagram below (click on it to make it bigger).
Although the chart looks good, it’s not knittable. Not if you want to make an edging that looks like the one in the engraving. Why? Look at each graphed row. If you count up the increases (the YOs) and the decreases (ssks) you quickly find that there is an equal number of both in each row. That’s perfect if you’re doing a straight insertion with parallel sides, but this is supposed to be a dagged edge that grows and shrinks to make triangular points. In order to achieve the ragged left edge indicated the stitch count should increase or decrease each row. But you say – it does! The little points are being formed. MY point is that there is no indicated origin for those extra stitches. For Row #3 to have one more stitch on it than Row #1 as shown, there should have been an increase without an accompanying decrease on Row #1. Otherwise that stitch just appears **poof** without a logical point of origin.
Now, if we want to knit this edging, we need to add that missing stitch. In fact, if you look at each and every line of the pattern you’ll see that there’s either a missing increase or decrease on each illustrated row. We need to put them in.
There are several ways to make those corrections. The simplest is to leave out one strategically placed decrease somewhere on the “growing” rows (working the two stitches involved as plain knits); and to introduce one somewhere on the “shrinking” rows (working two stitches shown as being knit as a decrease). Another fix would be to make up the differences on the interstitial even numbered rows. A third method would be the most noticeable – incorporating the corrections as visible additions to the pattern, in effect, editing the pattern to introduce new eyelets or decreases to form a new design element.
Now. Where to put them? Again looking at the original graph, you’ll see that the only area that changes is the part I marked in blue on the original chart (the original didn’t differentiate these stitches in any way). Other than growth/shrinkage in that triangle area, the pattern is stable, alternating between two design rows – the unshaded area shown on Row #1 (repeated on 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, and 29) and the unshaded area shown on Row #2 (repeated on 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, and 31). Obviously all of our edits will have to take place within the blue shaded area. Even with those edits, the heavy reliance on only two pattern rows means this will be an easy pattern to memorize once we’ve noodled out the missing bits.
I began experimenting, although I fizzled out along the way, having lost enthusiasm for using this particular trim. But I did produce a workable solution. It relied heavily on the original chart, modifying some of the decreases on the growing rows and adding some on the shrinking rows:
As you can see, while my yarn choice for this swatch isn’t optimal (something lighter would conform better and shape itself more fluidly up and over the triangle’s point, it did work. It also looks pretty close to the original. But not spot on (more on that below).
I tried mightily to make the mods on the off-side rows piece work. In theory it sounded feasible. It would have worked, had there not been the flower-like quad eyelet structure in the point of the base triangle. Adding/subtracting stitches at the right edge (the straight edge) perturbed the placement of the eyelets and lost the symmetry of the feature. Putting those additions/decreases elsewhere by adding/subtracting stitches along the pointed edge of the base triangle produced a clunkier, more clumsy finished product than did working them in on the right-side row.
I have to admit, I didn’t bother with the increases as a decorative element step. To do that I’d have had to widen the pattern as a whole, and introduce a YO after the slipped stitch on each odd numbered row. On rows 19-31 I’d have had to follow that YO with a double decrease (removing one stitch to compensate for adding the YO, plus the one stitch needed to shrink the base triangle . Contemplating the result of the second scenario above made me think that this arrangement would also run afoul of that quad eyelet flower. Between that and realizing that this pattern wouldn’t be a good compliment for the design of my scarf’s body – I ran out of enthusiasm to keep fiddling with it.
Oh. The final straw? Examining the pattern chart, the engraving of the pattern and my knit sample, and realizing that the chart as shown (and that I knit – more or less) wasn’t the same as the engraving. That clearly shows four courses of eyelets, not three, plus two rows of crocheted picots. The picots I can forgive, especially since I can noodle out just enough of the blackletter-style German text to determine that instructions for it were included in the prose. Here’s the chart for my successful result, plus a posited modification to produce the four-course pattern shown in the book’s original engraving. I haven’t actually knit up the lower chart yet, but it should work.
I’ve run into these problems several times in these older pattern collections – both the lack of correspondence between chart and illustration of the final product; and basic charting that doesn’t produce the desired result. I’ve found it’s always a good idea to proof the rows in a pattern – especially one from a historical source – before sitting down to knit, and if knitting from an unproven vintage source, to always swatch up a repeat or two before committing oneself to a full project in any given stitch pattern.
Oh. What did I end up using on my doodle scarf? More on that another day.
*Extreme Knitting – A mythical book I long for instead of what’s on the shelves now. A compendium of highly challenging patterns in lace, colorwork, garment shaping and tailoring, tiny gauges, historical recreation/redaction – whatever, so long as each project is as magnificent and as timeless to wear as it was an inspiration and learning experience to knit. I hereby reserve this title, but will surrender it to any author who can prove his/her work meets these conditions.
RAVELED?
We’ve done science this week, why not science fiction, too?
How about sock puppets in space? With luck this opus sheds light on one of life’s eternal mysteries – where that second sock really ends up.
KNOTTY PROBLEMS
Science once again catches up to knitting. This article from Live Science details some recent advances in knot theory – a discipline that examines the rules, topologies and probabilities of physical tangles. It’s actually a useful area of study. There are lots of areas ranging from biochemistry to materials sciences that would benefit from a better understanding of what happens when filaments, proteins, or fibers touch. Still, it’s hard not to say “No kidding!” when faced with some of the observations listed in the write-up:
- It is virtually impossible to distinguish different knots just by looking at them
- “Surprisingly little disturbance or motion is even needed [to generate knots]”
- “A highly flexible string placed in a very large container will have a
higher probability of becoming knotted than a stiff one that’s confined
in a smaller container.”
I can now officially classify my knitting bag as an Official Basic Science Research Laboratory. Perhaps I can apply for grants to fund further exploration of the phenomenon.
WOVEN DIAMONDS – RUFFLES ON A POT ROAST?
Shawl. Unpinned, spread out and patted flat. My final size prediction was spot-on.
As you can see from the before picture – blocking lace is A Good Thing.
Now only one challenge remains. Where the heck would I wear such a thing? I’m not a shawl-wearing type person. They tend not to go with work boots, jeans, and polo shirts (my standard uniform). Which is the origin of today’s title. Name for the shawl itself? “Woven Diamonds” has been suggested.
It has also been suggested that I publish a real pattern for Woven Diamonds. I’ve got working notes and I’ve already charted the stitch designs, but writing up a full pattern would be a challenge. For example, describing how to fudge the ease around the corners on the edging, or how to do the final graft – neither would be easy. Given that I wouldn’t recommend this as a first lace project, I’m unsure how much previous lace experience I would have to assume any knitter would have.
Would you make such a thing? What level of detail would you need in a pattern?
SHAWL BLOCKING
I stole a bit of time today to get my brown/gray shawl pinned out and blocking. Lace is INCREDIBLY stretchy – or at least if knit from a good wool, alpaca, or other animal fiber – it should be. Here it is in an optically challenging presentation thanks to the rally check sheets I use as an alignment aid:
The checks make it very hard to see, but you can make out a bit more of the pattern now in the detail shot. I promise more pix tomorrow, and I’ll take those on a plain white background.
Now how stretchy is lace? My unblocked piece was approximately 39 inches across. See those checks? They’re 2 inch squares. My shawl is pinned out to be a square of approximately 60 inches on a side. My guess is that it will spring back somewhat after it’s dry. I’ll probably end up with something closer to 54 inches on a side (about 4.5 feet across).
We also made significant progress on the final stage of our bathroom renovation this weekend. Here you see The Resident Male exercising his inner artist. Before you write to me with safety tips, please note that we’ve got about 2 inches of closed cell camping mattress pad topped with another layer of bath towel underneath the no-slip tarp in the tub. The ladder is stable, and won’t mar the surface beneath its feet. Plus the ceiling is so low that no one has to climb above the second step to reach it.
As to the color – I don’t know if you can make out the difference given the variability among monitors, but the ceiling is bright white, and the walls are barely green. Not mint, not pistachio. Think three gallons of milk with one drop of food coloring. It’s my hope that they will contrast nicely with the white tile underparts and fixtures, echo (just barely) the green tile accent stripe, green stone sink top, greenish tint of the glass shower door, and make the green (rather than the yellow) in the stained glass window pop out more.
Even though it’s shrouded in protective plastic, you can see that the refinishing of the window and its replacement in the wall have both accomplished. A special merit badge for chemical management (with scrapers rampant) to he who did that work. Goodbye ugly mustard yellow enamel paint! And good riddance.
Comments Problems
We’re having intermittent problems with the comments feature that screens out automatic postings. Sometimes if you go to enter your comments the little “type what you see here” box isn’t displaying. If you want to leave a comment please scroll down and make sure that you can see that box before you begin typing. If it’s not there, try reloading the screen. We’re not quite sure what’s happening, although we’re working on it. When he’s not elbow deep in brushes and rollers, The Resident Male (website plumber par excellence) is busy applying his biggest software wrenches to wiseNeedle’s pipes. Apologies for any/all inconvenience.
WHAT BIRD?
This little fellow is fluttering in distress on my back porch. He doesn’t appear to be injured, but his behavior is that of a bird that’s been hurt – tolerating people walking close by, and flat out panting in fear.
He’s small – smaller than a house sparrow, and distinctly greenish above. The eye stripe and the crown are sharply defined gray with a faint black line around it. The eye is brown, and the bill is something like a sparrow or tiny vireo. And the feet are sort of blueish.
We’ve got no place to bring him, nor do we wish to cause further harm, so we’re leaving him alone for now. But I’ve not seen a bird like this around here before. For the record, we’re in the Metro Boston area, a close-in suburb to the northwest; inside Route 128.
Leafing through bird books and on-line references, but I don’t see anything that has the gray hat and mask, brown eye, olive upper part and cream breast. But this might be an immature bird not yet displaying its final colors. Any birders have an idea on what our little refugee might be?
UPDATE
Special thanks to Sally, who identified our little flutterer as a Philadelphia Vireo. We kept watch against cats (from a distance), but otherwise didn’t bother him or go near him. About an hour and a half after he was first spotted on the ground he shook out his wings and zipped up into the trees. Given the range reported on the bird ID link page Sally provided, he’s just passing through on his way down to the tropics somewhere. I hope he makes it.
CASHMERE LACE SHAWL – FINISHED!
Lead a Horse to Water Department
Reminder – every NYT file I posted a link to earlier this week is free-for-view to people registered at the New York Times website. I didn’t pay a cent to look at any of them. If you are getting a paid access message it means you are not logged in. Go to the main NYT page and register. It’s free. I’ve been a member since the site went live and not once in all that time have I received spam traceable to that source.
Cashmere Lace Shawl
It’s done! Here it is in the not-so-harsh light of a cloudy morning, unblocked but patted flat on a white rug:
It measures approximately 100cm (39 inches) square in this state. I’m sure blocking will add another couple of inches as it stretches. Some detail shots, too!
The patterns were adapted from charts appearing in The Knitted Lace Patterns of Christine Duchrow, volumes I and III. I’m pleased with the way my corners worked out. They’ll display better under blocking, but the designs meet up at the corners without truncation. The edging is a bit narrow to be in proportion, but I think that blocked it will also display better.
String-Or-Nothing 