I’m well into my learning sock now, and I have to say that like any method, the one oversize circ technique for knitting in the round (popularized by Bev Galeskas under the name "Magic Loop") has its plusses and minuses. But so do both the two circ method and using traditional DPNs.

Advantages will be mostly felt by newer sock knitters who aren’t used to working on DPNs. They include not having all those DPNs in the work, and not having to worry about them falling out in one’s knitting bag, or having stitches drop off the ends. Also, because there’s a moment where one can pull the yarn of the last stitch on the other side of the needle tight around the circ’s cable, it’s easier to avoid those corner ladders that can form if tension isn’t just right.

Deviating from the Galeskas method a bit, I found standard (round, Dutch, Vee) heels are a bit easier to visualize if?the flap is worked back and forth on one side of the piece, and picking up to form both gusset edge is done so that all heel-forming stitches end up on?one side of the circ. Depending on the depth of the heel and heel style chosen some reapportionment of stitches may be needed just before the heel is started, so that one side of the?circ carries only the stitches needed for the heel flap, and the other carries the rest of them destined to become the top of the foot. After the heel flap is done and the gusset stitches are picked up, the gusset decreases are worked until the foot’s stitch count around?has been reached. At that point if there are unequal numbers of stitches on the two sides of the circ they can be re-divided into equal parts so that toe formation is easier. Short-row heel production is pretty close to the same compared to DPNs, except that the heel unit is worked entirely on one circ half as opposed to being done on a unit composed to two DPNs.

For me however, the method presents a couple of disadvantages. First, I’m taking a severe cut in production speed compared to using five DPNs, as after each half-round I have to stop and thread the circ through the stitches on the needle so that the points are correctly placed for the next half. I am not particularly fond of the bit of wrestling needed to move the stitches back and forth over the cable joins at the base of the needles, and I find the first row to be particularly annoying, especially with the stretchy half-hitch cast on I favor for sock tops. Also very short circumference rows are more of a pain than wider circumference rows. I’m going to be sorely tempted to move my knitting to DPNs when I get down to the toe, rather than finishing out the piece entirely on the giant circ.

I can also see that extended use of a circ in this fashion is more stressful on the needle than conventional knitting in the round. I’d be wary of using a needle from a multisize kit in this fashion, were they to come in a suitably long enough length. I also note that most people are using very long circs (36" or 40") to knit relatively small circumference things like socks (although if only one sock was being made at a time, some knitters might be able to get away with one size shorter needle). These are expensive and can be difficult to find. Items wider than say hats would be difficult to do using the one oversized circ method unless a really long needle could be found.

The giant circ method is very close to the two-circ method in terms of execution. Both divide the stitches in half. In the giant loop method, the halves are separated by the teased out cable loop. In the two circ method, each half of the sock is on its own needle. Working methods are the same, except there is no teasing the needle back through the work each half row with two circs. To be fair, there is a moment of drop and hunt as the needle end needed for the next half row must be selected from the three danglers. Heels are worked in the same manner, with the heel unit being contained entirely on one circ. And both methods can be used for side-by-side sock production, in which both socks of the pair can be knit at the same time, each from its own ball of yarn.

To my mind, there’s one more clear advantage of the two-circ method over the one-circ method – while you do need to shell out for two needles, they needn’t be extra long. Many people may have two circs of sufficient matching diameter already in their collections. The two-circ method can be done even using two circs of unequal length (if the difference in length is very large, stitches may have to be divided in a smaller and larger group rather than evenly). Even using shorter or mis-matched circs there is less limitation on how large in circumference an item can be done than there is using the one-circ method. In fact, if one WERE to use two 40-inch long circs in the two needle method, one could knit a tube of around 75- 80 inches around (or bigger if the yarn/stitches were squishable). Of course, at the lower end of the range, the two-circ method has the same weakness as the one-circ method – smaller circumferences and fewer stitches are more of a pain than larger ones because there is more stop and grab or needle shifting compared to knitting time as a whole.

Finally, any sock pattern knit in the round – toe up or cuff down – can be used with both methods. Patterns written for five DPNs (four in the work, one to knit with) translate the easiest, as each side of the sock is equivalent to one of the circs in two-circ; or half of the stitches placed on one side of the giant circ in the one-circ method. Patterns written for three needles just need a tiny bit of tinkering to divide the available stitches between two needles. For sanity, I’d suggest dividing the stitch groups at the point between the ones that will form the top of the foot (the instep stitches that are not worked during heel production); and all others. In some cases this should be evenly in half, in others, there may be one needle at the sock’s outset that carries a few more than the other.

I’ll continue and finish out this pair of socks using the one-circ method. I’ll probably do another using two-circ just to keep parity. But being DPN-handy, I won’t be switching over to use either method for routine sock production. However both methods ARE handy tools to keep in one’s knitting toolbox. I DO use two-circ now quite often for knitting sweater bodies in the round, and find it a godsend for working two in-the-round sleeves side by side (no more "is the second sleeve long enough yet?" guesswork). I might use the giant circ method for hats or leg-warmers, but for something as narrow as a sock, mitten, or wristlet, it’s just too much needle manipulation for me.

To sum up – both methods are nice additions to one’s knitting tool set. Both have advantages and limitations. While both are useful (especially for the DPN-shy), neither is an absolute substitute for DPN skill for everybody, nor for every instance in which DPNs are commonly used. I encourage everyone to expand their skill sets. You never know when a left-handed wratchet-ended sawtooth crimper is required, and it’s nice to have one available when faced with that need.

If you want to learn more about these techniques I’d suggest Galeskas’ The Magic Loop: working Around on One Needle (Fiber Trends, 2002) for the one-circ method; and Cat Bordi’s Socks Soar on Two Circular Needles (Passing Paws Press, 2001) for the two needle method. Both books present these methods in well-explained detail, accompanied by patterns and sample projects. Both are widely available through general merchandise and needlework/knitting specialty booksellers.

Something must be in the air, because several people have written to me this week asking if toe-up socks are more difficult than standard cuff-down socks, or if I could venture an opinion on how they fit and wore compared to cuff-down socks. Perhaps this is a product of all the people hoping to knit up one last holiday present before the end of the year. In any case, I’ll try to answer.

Why Toe-Ups?

1. I detest doing that last boring slog from heel to toe, especially because I find all on-foot patterning to be uncomfortable inside my shoes, so my feet are always done in plain old stockinette. If I leave the feet for last I’ll NEVER finish the socks. So I do them first, get them over with, and then have the fun of the patterned ankle part.

2. I’m not particularly fond of grafting. I can do it, but it’s a pain. Toe-ups let me avoid that step.

3. I like being able to pause and slip the growing socks on to make sure the fit is perfect. That’s easy with toe-ups.

4. I like not having to worry about yarn consumption. If I’m using 50g skeins, I knit the ankle part until I run out of yarn. If I’m using a 100g skein, I knit to the same length as another pair of socks, or if I want to eke out every inch, I put Sock #1 aside without binding it off, then knit Sock #2 on another set of needles. Once both are the same length, I’ll finish off the ribbings side by side, one from either end of the ball, making sure that I use every scrap.

5. If I feel like using the two-circ method, my toe-ups with their short-rowed heels adapt with no fuss at all to that method.

Toe-Up Fit

Toe-ups with short rowed heels are narrower at the point where the ankle joins the foot than are standard heel flap/box heel socks. Some people, especially those with high insteps find them confining. I don’t, even though I have BIG feet for a fem (recently remeasured to Euro 42/US 10.5EEE). If you feel this might be a problem, look for a toe-up pattern with an inverted standard heel rather than a short-rowed heel.

Ease of Working

I don’t find toe-ups to be any more difficult than heel flap socks. In fact, I find them easier. Using the short-row heel and five needles, once I’m past the initial toe I ALWAYS have the same number of stitches on each needle – even during heel production. That makes it easy to put down and restart my socks. That’s a good thing because socks are usually my briefcase project and get done in tiny spurts.

Many people complain about my favorite cast-on for toe-ups – the no-sew figure-8 toe. (It’s Judy Gibson’s, I’m just one of her sock disciples). They say it’s too fiddly, or they can’t get it to work, or it’s too loose. To be fair, it IS fiddly, but it’s worth it. The secret is letting that first row be miserably ugly and loose, but taking care not to split the yarn as it is worked. Once a couple of rounds have been established, it’s very easy to go back and use a needle tip to snick up the looseness. A little care will work the looseness past the knot that forms at the base of the tail, and out from the sock to become part of the dangling end.

If you give up or just don’t want to bother with the no-sew figure-8 toe, there are tons of other toe-up sock patterns out there that use different starting methods. Wendy has one. Or you can start with a provisional cast on, then go back and Kitchener darn the toe up later.

Look of Short Rowed Heels

Knitzanknitzanknitz asked about how short-rowed heels in self stripers look. Here are a couple of mine:

With a little care and willingness to make the sock a row or two longer/shorter you can plan your heels to miter on the breaks between the striper’s color changes.

Sources for Toe Up Patterns

To be immodest – there are mine. wiseNeedle has toe up patterns for several gauges.

The toe-up pattern that started me off and running is by no-sew toe guru Judy Gibson. Wendy Johnson has a popular toe-up pattern, and there’s another at Needletrax. There’s a toe up tutorial at the Socknitters website, and Flor’s got one as well. One of the oldest toe up patterns on the web was done by Manny Olds. Google on "toe up socks" for zillions more.

I’ve noticed a spate of questions from newer knitters of late – via eMail, on wiseNeedle, in the mailing lists and in Live Journal forums – all asking about how to wind balls, or start skeins, or asking about the different yarn put-ups. I thought I’d help.

Part I – Shapes of the Beast

Knitting yarn is sold in many different configurations. Here are a few of the more common.

1. Large amorphous glob. Actually this is a hank or skein, similar to #6 and #7, but it’s massive and rather shop-worn. Like all hanks or skeins, it has to be rolled up into one or more balls before knitting can begin. Examples: Rainbow Mills Pebbles (shown); Schaefer Elaine and Miss Priss.

2. A spool-like ball, with the yarn rolled around an inner form. In this case, there’s a large cardboard tube inside. I’ve also seen yarns rolled around spongy centers and plastic foam cylinders. I would not recommend long-term storage of yarn wound on cardboard for long periods (read 7+ years) because cardboard is acidic, and the yarn in the center might discolor or become brittle over time. Spooled yarn can be knit as-is, without rewinding by finding the end and just starting. The spools will skitter around a bit, so keeping them in a bag while you’re working can be a good idea. Some of the ribbon yarns sold on spools benefit from being unreeled toilet-paper-roll style instead of being pulled off the top while the spool sits on its flat end. Doing so can minimize the number of twists as you work. I sometimes use an improvised axle type arrangement for unreeling (more on this in another post). Example: Plymouth Colorlash (shown); Berroco Suede

3. Cones. The thinner machine knitting yarns are often sold on cones. Sometimes you can find heavier yarns on cones, too – especially from mill-end shops. Coned yarn can be a great buy because the maker didn’t need to pay for the machines or labor to wind it off into balls or skeins. Coned yarn can be knit as-is, although just pulling it off the top of the cone can also introduce twisting. Some people prefer to unreel coned yarn using an axle set-up, or to wind the yarn into balls. While coned yarn also has a cardboard core, the high yardage on a cone means that relatively little of it is in direct contact with the yarn compared to the short yardage spool style balls. If I thought a coned yarn (especially a white or light color yarn)might languish in my stash for a decade or more I might be tempted to wind it off into balls. Example: Classic Elite Believe – bought at the CE outlet in Lowell, MA (shown)

4. Mushroom style puffballs, usually speared in the center by an arrow-ended tag. I hate these. They’re always 50g, short yardage, and they appear to be among the most favored put-ups used by high end makers of expensive yarns. They behave especially poorly on the shelf or in the stash, losing their tags and falling into floppy messes at the drop of a hat. They can however be knit directly from the ball without rewinding. Sometimes if your fingers are clever they can fish the tail end out of the center, and they can be used either as center-pull balls or from both ends at once. Example: Grignasco Top Print (shown): Debbie Bliss yarns; On Line Linie 157 – Tessa.

5.Log-style wound skeins. These come in many sizes and price ranges. The giant format here is most common among lower cost mass-market yarns. The same format (but much smaller) is often found for more expensive yarns – notably European import cottons. These log skeins do not need any preparation. Most have both ends accessible on the outside, and can be knit from either end. Examples: Red Heart Super Saver (shown); Marks and Kattens Indigo Jeansgarn; Southmaid Cotton 8

6. and 7. These are standard issue hank style skeins. They are the most economical put-up for makers to use, and the most common among small producers and hand-dyers, although they exist across the entire spectrum of yarns. Typically they’re made from yarn that’s been wound into a large diameter circle, then twisted a bit with one end inserted into the other. It’s easy to reduce them back to a single big circle. While some people claim they can untie the little strands holding a hank together, place it on the floor and knit directly from it – I wouldn’t recommend the practice. It sounds like an excellent opportunity to make a tangled mess. Save your sanity. Wind hanked yarn into balls before knitting from it. [More on this in another post]. Examples: Bartlett 2-Ply Worsted, Rowan Rowanspun 4-Ply (both shown)

8. Wound cheeses without center cores. Some yarn shops take coned or hanked yarn and wind it into these machine-assisted balls before selling it, often marketing the result as an in-store house brand. If you buy an inexpensive ball winder you can make these, too. Cheeses can be knit from either end and do not require rewinding before use. Example: Ball I made myself from Paternayan 3-ply

9. Small logs. These skeins are cousins of #5. They can be used as-is from the outside end. Very clever fingers can feel around the inside and pull out a glob to retrieve the inside end. That way these logs can be used as center pull balls, too. Example: Lana Grossa Melienweit Fantasy; Schoeller/Stahl Socka/Fortissima

There are other put-ups out there, this is not the full roster of what’s out there, but it’s pretty representative.

Why are there so many forms? Why isn’t everything sold knit-ready? Mostly it boils down to economics. Industry pals tell me that the machinery to make nice, neat ready-to-knit balls is expensive and hard to find. It just isn’t being made any more. For example, I’ve heard tell that Classic Elite uses some winding machines that are upwards of75 years old. If one of those machines breaks beyond repair, it can’t be replaced. They’ve had to reformat several of their yarns because of this problem.

On top of the machinery issue, winding is labor-intensive. Again, older machines require constant attention by operators, and using them is a multi-step process. For the most part, the industry just doesn’t have the volume of say a soda bottling plant. Except for the very largest producers (Caron, Coats & Clark), all knitting yarn makers/distributors rely on a level of labor that’s uncommon today. Labor is expensive. In an effort to minimize these costs, some makers have turned to less labor intensive put-ups, most notably selling in skein rather than in ball.

The sticker shock factor is another force contributing to the multitude of different forms – especially the prevalence of 50g sales units. Yarn is expensive. I’ve seen people shy away from larger 4 ounce skeins with hefty price tags, yet buy the equivalent dollar amount of yarn marked at $5.50 per 50gball. That lower per-ball price is a very seductive thing, even if the same total purchase price was expended. People also hate having to buy extra. If yarn came in 200g skeins and the typical project required 275g, a knitter would end up having to buy 400g to complete it. That’s 125g more yarn than needed. If the yarn came in 50g balls he or she would only have to buy 300 g – only 25g more than necessary. That overage translates to added cost and decreases the chance that the purchase will be made.

Does form factor influence purchase choices in general? I’d have to say yes. It does influence some people. I know several knitters who flat out refuse to wind hanks. They won’t buy any yarn that’s not ready to knit. On the other hand, I also know several that won’t touch a balled yarn, preferring to knit from yarns that come in hanks (I think there’s a snob factor here – they believe that all hanked yarn is superior to all balled yarn, although we all know that blanket statement “alls” are rarely true).

I can also point to one yarn that’s a business-case poster child for the psychology of put-up influencing yarn purchase. That’s Classic Elite Wings. Although there are no reviews yet, it’s a nice yarn – a classic finish alpaca/silk/wool blend that’s soft and comes in attractive colors. It’s relatively pricey, but no more so than other soft alpaca blends of similar weight. I saw it on the shelf at my LYS but noticed that people would pick it up yet buy other yarns instead. So I asked why. It turns out that the new format CE was trying out – sort of a hank folded in thirds and wrapped around the middle with a paper ball band -looked floppy and small compared to other yarns of the same weight/fiber/yardage. Those yarns came in happy little fat balls. They may have been the same 50g and within a yard or two of the Wings, but that wasn’t evident from the put-up. The balls plain old LOOKED bigger, even though they weren’t. Buyers were choosing the other yarn not because of color or price, but because they thought the balls were better buys.

Does form factor influence my own purchases? Generally not. I detest the mushroom ball, but if the yarn is attractive enough and priced right, I’ll buy it and use it. I do admit non-rationality in that I always feel rooked when a big, beautiful, squishy ball ends up being a thin veneer of yarn on a big, fat, sponge center, even if I’ve studied the per-ball yardage and know exactly how much I’m getting. I don’t mind winding hanks into balls. I figure that having to do so myself is saving me around 75 cents per skein; or is part of the entrance price for getting to use a custom-dyed or artisanal yarn.