LOWERY STAND HACK
In one of those “this never happens” moments, I ran across a Lowery stand being offered on my local freecycle exchange. Of course I leapt on the opportunity. Although I have one I now have a second to use in another room, or to leave at our Cape hideaway, so I have less to schlep when we visit.
This one is a bit older than the one I bought several years ago. It came with two attachments – a plastic tray in daisy form meant to hold stitchers’ oddments, and a bar with a pincushion, plus a crosspiece of unknown purpose. I took off the tray because it was very awkward and space-inefficient.
Some digging led me to the answer for the crosspiece bar – originally it held a plastic comb-like attachment, over which waiting threads were to be draped. But this re-homed stand has seen some hard use, and the plastic comb insert was long gone. And for me – not missed. I generally do monochrome or limited color set pieces, and have no need for an extra set of fingers to hold my rainbow of threads.
But the crossbar did suggest something to me. I have always wanted to display a design page alongside my work. Using my big scrolling frame mounted on the Lowery large frame extension, this wasn’t a problem. I could easily affix a page to my working surface or to a little magnet mounted on the end of the frame’s stretcher bars, using a magnetic needle minder. But if I plan on employing the Lowery to hold a smaller hoop, there isn’t enough real estate for that.
I have a flat metal magnet board of the type commonly sold for stitching. But the angle and aperture of the crossbar’s slit were wrong. The board didn’t sit well, nor was it at a useful angle. And it wobbled in the stand. So I went looking for something that might help.
More serendipity. This is the plastic “zipper style” cutting slider strip that comes with large boxes of Stretch-Tite brand plastic wrap. I find them pretty useless for their intended function, but being a packrat, I tend to keep the slider bar in the drawer with the box of wrap until the wrap is used up and the box is consigned to recycling. Here you see it clipped onto the leading edge of the crossbar. I haven’t pushed it all the way on so you can see how they engage.
Obviously I will eventually cut the plastic to length and discard the blue thumb slider. But here is the magnet bar, mounted behind the now-thicker/plastic covered front edge of the crossbar, wedged between it and the crossbar’s back. Nice and secure. At a useful angle, and ready for pattern page deployment.
Oh. That thing I’m stitching? A very small piece of linen I rescued from yet another estate sale. It came neatly hand-hemmed. It’s too small even for my hoop-on-a-stick sit-upon, so I had to pull out my hand-hoop for it. It’s exceptionally nice fabric, with evenly spaced, easy to count warp and weft. There’s a couple of minor stains on it, but once it’s stitched they won’t be noticeable. I’m looking forward to working a hoop on my hand-me-down Lowery. It will be a first, since I usually only pull it out for larger pieces.
The count on this is roughly 33.25 threads per inch in each direction (penny count method – 25 threads covered x 1.33). I’m using this doodle piece to test if I like using Sulky 30 as a single, and to beta some of the designs that will be in Ensamplario Atlantio Volume III, which I’m composing right now.
You can see my basted guidelines marking the center, and on two sides, marking about a half-inch in from the edges. That’s all I need. Gridding for this isn’t necessary. I will stitch out from the center to the right edge, and note where in the pattern I am when I reach my edge-mark guideline. Then I’ll go back and stitch to the same point at the right. For the strips symmetrical to a center line that will be the same point left and right. For strips that are centered on a box unit instead of a line, that will be within one box unit further than the iteration on the right (assuming I center the left edge of the central box on my based centerline). And for non-symmetrical or unidirectional borders like the one I’ve established on top, I’ll just work in the general direction left/right but wait until I’ve established an edge with the symmetrical strips, then I’ll “catch up” to them and make the edges even.
Do I have any idea what strips I will be using? What the overall design will be? What motto or word (if any) this will bear? To what use I will put so fully an embroidered small cloth?
Nope.
No clue as to any of those things. But that hasn’t stopped me before. Like I said – this is an experimental doodle, a portable bit of amusement to eke out the summer’s migrations. Not a deathless Project For The Ages, or an incipient family heirloom. Stay tuned to see how this one evolves. If nothing else, it will be a bit of bungee-jump stitching fun.
A BUSY JUNE SO FAR
Who said that retirement would be boring? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
We’ve spent the last month quite busy, buzzing back and forth to the Cape to escape the heat and enjoy the late pre-season quiet of the beach. We’ve kept at the garden I detailed in the last post. So far everything is surviving. Bushes and flowers bloomed and my tiny raised bed garden is beginning to offer up a small, but appreciated harvest of peppers and herbs. The eggplant will catch up eventually. And of course I’ve been doing needlework projects. The chair recover is in hiatus until the fall – too much infrastructure to schlep around, but smaller, portable projects have been thriving.
First up, a stitching finish on a WIP that’s been bopping around since before the Unstitched Coif. This is a forehead cloth, in more modern terms – a kerchief. I had made two some years back, and have loved them to pieces. The stitched body of each is still in perfect shape, but the ties on them have died. Here is the new one, not yet assembled into final, wearable form.
This is a doodle of a pattern that will be in Ensamplario Atlantio Volume III. I’ve been working on that, too and have about 20 plates of new fills. I’m planning on including several pages of larger patterns, strips, and even yokes, too. I am still dithering about including the free patterns that make up my Epic Fandom Stitch Along in it, too. It’s already a wildly anachronistic work, and it might be handy to have all that content in one place. In any case, EnsAtl III is very much a work in progress, and will be out as soon as I can manage it.
Back to this piece. It’s an experiment. I wanted to try out Sulky 30, a spooled thread sold for hand and machine embroidery. I’m working on 32 count linen, and two strands of the Sulky work nicely in terms of coverage and line depth. There are four colors here – an almost-cranberry red, a forest green, a navy blue, and (hard to see) small motifs filling problem spaces, worked in black. There are LOTS of mistakes in this. Places I missed a stitch, or substituted the wrong twist or size center flower, but since this is a quick stitch, meant to be worn to death and not a future heirloom of my house, I didn’t bother to go back and pick them out. I did fix mistakes that would have thrown off the design as a whole, though.
My thoughts on the Sulky? Not my favorite. It’s very hard twist and dense. While that makes a nice, clean line, it does make intersections a bit more difficult to keep even. Plus when picked out, both the blue and the green crock a bit – leaving color residue on the cloth independent of fiber crumbs. I’ll probably use up what I have on things I intend to wash savagely, but I won’t be buying more. The Unstitched Coif project spoiled me. Silk over cotton, any day.
I can’t report on the origin of the ground. It’s a scrap left over from something else. A garment has been cut from it. I did get a pile of linen scraps from someone here in town, via one of the local waste-nothing exchange groups. I’m pretty sure this was one of the pieces. So my guess is that it was yard goods, not custom-sold for needlework. Even so, the count is remarkably even. There’s some slubbing but not overly much, and the thread count is something like 32×33 threads. No selvedge left so I can’t guess about warp vs weft counts.
I am going to investigate narrow twill tape for the ties this time – both for this forehead cloth and to replace the now frayed and ruined ties of the older two. I had used the ground itself, double folded and seamed for the ties on the old one. Better I should use something more densely woven and robust, and that can be easily replaced.
I’ve also been knitting and crocheting. Here are July’s socks. Not sure what made me knit the wide-stripe pair so tightly, but I did. They are the same stitch count around as the other pair, but are significantly narrower. I can wear them (just), but not all of my target audience can. So they will either stay home with me or find a narrow footed new friend with whom to play.
And I’ve been crocheting snowflakes. Not to keep cool but as a probably-the-case present for Elder Spawn, who has moved cross-country. It’s unlikely that we will be able to enjoy the family tree together this year come holiday time. A first for Casa Magnifica. So I have promised to make new snowflakes for what is now Casa Magnifica del Oeste, and ship them plus some of the family ornament stash, to furnish the new tree. I’ve got a half dozen complete. Six more to go, plus pin blocking and stiffening them for best display. Here are the first three, still looking sad and crumpled, right off the hook.
All of these are from this book. I have another one with better patterns. Someplace…
What’s next? Another stitched doodle on a thrifted linen rectangle, possibly to use up some of that black Sulky on a higher count ground. But more on that later this week.
ANNUAL SPRING SACRIFICE
My annual digression into gardening. Apologies if you came looking for needlework content. I must document my annual Rite of Spring, otherwise I’ll never remember what went in where. Please bear with me.
Spring finally arrived here in the Boston, Massachusetts metro area. It snuck in two weeks ago after an extended bout of “Are we Spring yet?” weather. And we have now performed our annual rite of sacrifice, cleaning up our planting beds, destroying invasive weeds, dividing and moving the overgrown, spreading 6 cubic yards of mulch, and otherwise adding to the plant population and general ambience.
First the front view:
The mountain laurel in back of the mulched perennial garden is on its last legs. I will do everything possible to keep it going because it’s my favorite, but it’s no where near as impressive as it was eight years ago. I added to the perennial collection, a Trollius Europaeus – a compact yellow flower variety, dead center, next to the tall peonies. The other plantings from last year did appear to survive. On the far side of the steps from right to left are Spike, our rugosa rose, and two blueberry bushes. We hack Spike back every other year to keep him contained, otherwise he’d devolve into a tangle of lethally thorned and whippy stems. He doesn’t seem to mind.
Those who have visited us may note that the giant grass that usually sat behind the blueberries is gone. It got too unruly, and given its fairy-ring growth pattern, was more an empty hole with scions invading the rest of the bed than the rustling clump it had been. There was really no way to take it back and rejuvenate the bed, so we excavated and removed it. Next year we will put something else there. Perhaps a dwarf tree or tall shrub, preferably flowering, and a bit out of the ordinary. No rhodies, arbor vitae, azaleas, or cherries. It’s fun to branch out (pun intended).
The side bed. Always a problem. It had been totally overrun by goutweed. All the plantings in there were shot through with the stuff, with no way to pull it without massive collateral damage. So I finally conceded defeat and yanked everything. Then I sorted through, carefully detangling white-stripe hostas, fern clumps, and daffodils from the carnage. I split up the hostas and put them all around the property. With one exception every white stripe you see in these pix is a transplant from the tree bed. The ferns I put under the mountain laurel. The daffodils (if they survive being moved at the wrong time of the year) will re-emerge in front of the blueberry bushes. Here you see the side bed, reduced to JUST the Hawthorne tree, now in early flowering, surrounded by stones unearthed from the bed, and mulch around that.
Continuing up and around the southern side of the lot, more goutweed was cleared. The elderberries we put in two years ago continue to thrive in spite of the shade. We gave them friends, adding low growing Japanese clumping grass and some of the transplanted hostas in between.
Now for the corner. Last fall the mighty maple that defined the corner of our lot had to come down. Here he is on his last day, in early October 2023.
I was heartbroken but knew it was for the better. He never recovered from the abuse suffered when our side neighbor took out the in-ground pool in her yard. With half his root system compromised, he lost a major side trunk, and became severely rot-damaged on the side away from the camera. He was a looming threat our backyard neighbor’s house. Luckily we were able to get him tended to before last winter’s major storms. So there was a big empty spot that needed to be filled. We opted to put a witch hazel there. Eventually it will be 12-15 feet tall. And of course, more hostas. I am looking forward to seeing the blooms of the witch hazel come October. It will be the only late blooming thing on the property.
Oh. The witch hazel’s name? June of course. After June Foray, the brilliant voice actor who provided so much to animation during my kid cartoon years. Including this character – Witch Hazel, an occasional nemesis of Bugs Bunny.
Continuing to the next major improvement, we come up to the space where I used to plant our scarlet runner beans, climbing up an improvised trellis made from giant grass canes and cable ties. Now that there is more sun and less volunteer labor here, we decided to make life easier. Fernando built me a raised bed. I’ve populated it. Rosemary in back, with parsley, some marigolds, then a big space, and in the front, three varieties of mild and medium hot peppers, plus Japanese eggplant. Since the photo was taken I’ve added established clumps of chives and oregano to that barren spot, overflow gifts from Neighbor Kevin’s prolific garden.
Obviously there is still some work to be done. Weeds sprout in the narrow path between the lawn and the garage. And there’s that one last bastion of goutweed, lurking at far left. I will savage that sometime this week.
So there is the summary of what we have been up to the past three weeks. With luck everything will survive my ungentle hand.
MORE CATS, UNDERFOOT
You may have seen this image floating around the ‘net today. It’s of concrete tiles, cast into tessellating cat shapes. It was easy to graph up into a blackwork fill pattern, so I did so.
Then I decided that before I could post it, I had to find the original source and give credit where credit was due.
The hunt proved a bit more difficult than I expected. The thing has been passed hand to hand since 2022, and many layers of links via Pinterest and other social media sites took a while to munch through. But I found it.
The cat tiles are a product of a Korean firm – designdb, and are part of a recycling initiative named Green Road. They are concrete, but instead of aggregate, the firm uses milled plastic waste. In the case of these tiles, the addition is made largely from the empty, discarded bags that formerly held cat food. You can find the firm’s description of the project here. Call up Google Translate to navigate the Korean. No clue if these are sold internationally, but the initiative itself is worthy of respect.
And now having given the design firm its due, I present a simple blackwork embroidery fill based on their tessellated cat design.
Enjoy!
SAVAGE BLOCKING
The merino/possum wool shoulder shawl turned out to be one of the quickest completing projects I’ve done in a while. It took only four evenings to knit.
For the record again, I used a wonderful luxury yarn – a gift from a pal. It’s Happy-Go-Knitty’s Ahuru 8, labeled as DK, but I like it as a worsted weight. It’s airier and less compressed at a stockinette gauge of 20 stitches for 4 inches/10 cm than at the DK gauge of 22. I started with a Knitty pattern from almost 10 years ago – Wavedeck, by Kate Atherley.
I made a couple of minor departures from Kate’s original. In the feather detail motif that constitutes the bottom round of the design, I worked the feathering for 15 odd number rows, not 12. Being a bit taller I thought a bit of extra length would be nice. I might have done at least three more because I had enough yarn to do so, but I was worried that blocking might not work out if I added too much depth.
Also, on the final round of bind-off, at each natural point formed by the feather border, I added a small cast-on/cast-off picot, both to accentuate those points, and to make a nice, sturdy spot for extra tugging during blocking. (To do this as I bound off according to directions, when I got to the centermost stich of each feather’s middle rib I cast on three extra stitches using the cable cast on, then immediately cast them off as per the method specified in the pattern. This made a little triangular nub at the base of each feather.
All in all, I used 1.75 skeins worth of yarn (estimate). I think I have enough left over for a pair of small wristlets, which will be a nice, comfy use for this super soft and super warm yarn.
Now for the blocking, savage or otherwise – you be the judge.
First we start with the completed, unstretched knit. Measuring with more precision but without stretch, it’s about 23 inches deep from center neck to center bottom, and about 46 inches across the wingspan (58.42cm x 116.84cm). You can see the little nubbins I added to each feather spine.
The first step is to get it nice and wet. I didn’t bother washing it with Eucalan or Kookaburra. It wasn’t dragged around enough in four days to get it grimy. Wetting was enough. Once wet, I gently squeezed out some of the water weight (no wringing, or rubbing, just a couple of compressions. Then I laid the piece folded in half on a bath towel, and rolled it up into a big jellyroll.
I leaned on the jellyroll to squeeze water into the towel, rotating it several times to get as much out as I could, but without subjecting the shawl to any undue stress.
Then I prepared my blocking area. First I laid out my usual blocking sheet – a rally checked flat twin sheet I found years ago at a yard sale, spread over a sturdy braided wool throw rug. Then I assembled my other blocking tools – blocking wires (some hand-me-downs from long time stitching and knitting pal Kathryn), and my long pins.
I began on the long side, threading every garter stitch edge bump along the straight edge onto blocking wires. Note that I used three of them. I deliberately left about a third of each wire bare, doubling up for about six stitches when I changed from one wire to the next. The reason I did this to leave room for stretching during blocking. If I filled up each wire completely, then stretched the thing during pin-out, stitches would fall of the end of the wires. Better to have lots of extra room and overlap. Bump threading below.
After wires were placed along the straight edge, I pinned them out following one of the horizontals of my checked sheet. I started at the center and tried to place pins and stretch evenly both to the left and right. The blocks of the sheet’s print helped me keep that stretch even.
Once the straight edge was laid out, again starting in the center I began pulling the points. There is no feather point at the center of this piece, so using the two points to the left and right of the center line, I used the sheet’s checks to make sure that the visual center line of the piece was perpendicular to the straight edge, and began pinning the points out from there. Now I’m not the best blocker. Were I so I would have calculated the angular difference at my chosen circumference, and marked it, pinning each to the exact spot on the indicated, scribed half circle. But that’s not me. I just winged it by eyeball. Good enough for home consumption.
Pinned out like this it’s about 30 inches deep, and 60 inches across (76.2cm x 152.4cm) roughly a gain of 7.6% in the stretching. It will probably relax a little bit once it’s released from savagery.
The next steps include letting it dry completely, unpinning and unthreading it from the blocking wires, and darning in a few ends. But at this point, it’s done. Four days of knitting, and 45 minutes of blocking, and fewer individual stitches than a single sock at my usual gauge. And one super cozy shoulder shawl, soft as whispers, to wear come autumn.
PLAYING (WITH) POSSUM
Fueled by Friend Kim who surprised me with a yarn gift, I dawdle a bit more in the Land of Knitting. I’ve done a ton of socks since finishing my Unstitched Coif submission – 14 pairs to be precise. But charmed by this super soft yarn I decided to do up a larger project – a shawl.
First the yarn. It’s an exotic fiber – a blend of possum and merino – the yarn on the right in the photo below. It’s Happy-Go-Knitty’s Ahuru 8, labeled as DK, but knitting up more like a true worsted. It’s soft as butter; very warm; extremely light, airy and compressible; and adaptable to being knit down possibly as far as sport (24 stitches for 10 cm/4 inches) and up to worsted (20 stitches for 10cm/4 inches). The color name of my skeins is Caramel, possibly the undyed color of the possums themselves. The mixed color sock weight (red supplement with a brown to ecru main skein) from Prosper Yarns will decide what it wants to be later. That one is a luscious merino/nylon blend. I think the red accent skein is intended for toes and heels.
Back to the Ahuru. Now possum isn’t North American Opossum, it’s a New Zealand beast. It was introduced there from Australia and became an uncontrolled and invasive nuisance. But folk in New Zealand appear to be quite practical – there is now an entire yarn industry based on the controlled harvest of these creatures, limiting the ecological disruption they cause and furnishing some lovely fiber and (so I’ve heard) pet food.
Now the project. I have about 476 meters, roughly 520 yards. I initially thought of using it in combo with another yarn to make a yoke style pullover, but I decided that this stuff needed to shine on its own merits. So I went looking for something else. I hit upon Wavedeck, a Knitty project from 2014. It’s a half circle shawl based on the Pi Shawl principle, heavily textured with YO/decrease pairs, directionally arranged to create flower petals, with feather edging that can keep going until the yarn runs out. If it ends up a few rounds longer or shorter than the official count, it won’t matter.
Although this one looks complicated, with massive charts, it’s nowhere near as difficult as first glance would make out. The patterns are extremely logical, requiring mostly that one keep track of the current row number (odd rows only – all the even rows are the same). My only deviation so far is to use a US size 8 needle (5mm) instead of the pattern’s recommended size 7 (4.5mm). I liked the slightly looser drape of the produced fabric better with the larger size.
Here’s two evenings’ progress. I had forgotten how quickly knitting at this gauge goes. I’m up to Row 25 of the largest chart, and halfway through it.
I really like the stitch definition I am getting with the Ahuru. The mottled colors come across a bit more orange than they are in the late night indoor illumination, but in person the color spread is grey to a tannish smoke brown, with spots of ecru and occasional bits of a darker chocolate, all with a tiny hint of mustard. Sounds like a mishmash, but in person it looks very Vintage Camouflage.
Knitty tags this one as “tangy” – their euphemism for “slightly challenging.” It’s one step up their four-step scale from beginner to complex. So far I’ve found it very easy to follow. If you are comfortable with yarn overs, left and right leaning decreases (K2tog and SSK), and can manage a center double decrease (three stitches merged into one, with the centermost presenting on top), and can pick up along an edge, you can do this one. Use sticky notes or a magnet board to focus on the current row, and go for it.
I’ll post back when I’ve run out of yarn and declare the project complete. After this, I’m not sure what will be next. Always a pair of socks as a guard against waiting room boredom. But I itch to stitch. Something…
LOOKING BACK AT AN OLD PROJECT
I’ve been tidying up my closets and drawers. I stumbled across a couple of items that I haven’t worn in a long time. Luckily they still fit well enough, so they’ve been rescued and added to the regular rotation. One was this T-shirt style pullover.
It’s one of the most intricate projects I did, mostly because I designed it myself. I did it back before Russian language sites became notorious for malware dissemination and wholesale piracy/copyright infringement. There were a few knitting sites back then that were clearly hobbyist-generated, with hand drawn charts for texture patterns. Needless to say there are many reasons why I do not recommend visiting any of them now and strongly caution against it, but I do confess that in the early days of the international Internet, I did browse worldwide.
In any case I stumbled across a hand drawn texture pattern thumbnail that led to this diagonal design. It wasn’t as tall a repeat as I present, and the drawing didn’t show a center mirroring, but both that detail and elongation were so obvious to me at the time. So to maximize the fun, I doodled up a pattern. The resulting repeat with its offset verticals was SO large that to this day it remains one of the largest knitting charts I’ve ever drafted.
The yarn I used was a bit unusual. I knit this from Silk City’s Spaghetti – a narrow cotton tape ribbon, with a native gauge that was roughly sport weight (24 stitches to 4 inches/10cm). The result was both crisp and springy, making a negative-ease garment that was quite come-hither and curve-hugging. Any hard twist sport weight cotton, linen or ramie can be used. As dense and tightly twisted as possible for maximum display of the textures.
I knit this project before I began blogging with intent – probably around 1991 or so. I shared an initial write-up in the ancient KnitList email based chat group, and eventually revised it and posted it on an earlier incarnation of String-or-Nothing in 2004. It’s been up and available ever since, but I don’t know of anyone else who has tried to knit it. The short length and close fit however seem spot on with current street fashion so I present it again. If I had a full length mirror I’d post an as-worn, but I am quite a bit older, and a bit bigger these days. The pattern is offered in just one size, and given the stretch would probably fit a US size 14-20 of ample endowment. I knit and wore it as a 16-18, and can still present it credibly if a bit brazenly as size 20. You could probably tinker it down a couple sizes using a slightly thinner yarn and smaller needles.
The name? I named it after the middle name my mom always thought was hers, until a birth certificate was obtained and she found out she’d been saddled with another. Since it was a Russian derived name and my mom has always been my knitting inspiration, it seemed fitting.
You can download the pattern for Raiisa here,
or from the sweaters section of the free Knitting Patterns Page tab available elsewhere on this blog.
ELIZABETH HARDWICK ON BIAS?
Once again a chance image on Facebook throws me into a frenzy of charting. The Friends of Sheffield Manor group posted this image of Elizabeth Hardwick, Countess of Shrewsberry. attributed to the school of Hans Elworth. It’s accession 1129165 of the UK’s National Trust collection.
Obviously what struck me were the sleeves. I tried and tried to chart them on the diagonal, but the geometry worked out much more cleanly if done straight. Now sewing, especially historically accurate construction is not my strength. But I ask folk more versed in it than I am, was it possible that if embroidered linen was used for those sleeves might they have been cut on the bias and not with the grain? The motifs look grain-wise at the collar, but are clearly sitting “on point” on the diagonal for the sleeves.
In any case, I’ve added the graph to the on-site free collection here. My rendition of it is approximate, but as close as I was able to achieve. I’m fuzzy on the exact shape of the free floating rondels occupying the empty areas where the chain rosettes meet. And their color is also problematic. Some are brown, some red, and some a pale indeterminant color – it might just be fading of the paint.
I lay no claim to the design itself – only my graphed rendition. Like most of the pieces offered here on String, this is available for your personal use. It’s Good Deed Ware – if you work it up please consider paying the kindness forward, assisting someone in need, calling a friend or family member who could use a bit of cheering up, or otherwise making the world a tiny bit more pleasant. And please note that my representation of this design is copyrighted. if you are interested in using it commercially or for larger distribution, either incorporating it into a pattern for sale or other dissemination, or if you want to use it on items that are made for sale or donation, please contact me.
And as always, I love to see what mischief the pattern children are up to out there in the wide-wide world. Feel free to send me a photo or a link. And if you give permission, I’ll add your work with or without your name (as you desire) to the growing Gallery page here on String.
A SUPPORTING CAST OF GRIFFINS
Friend Craig posted a memory last week, and re-shared a chart he adapted from one of the Siebmacher modelbooks – from the 1611 edition.
It got me to thinking. Those heraldic style charted bands appear over many years, and in several iterations. It might be fun to see how they assorted over time. So I went hunting. I combed through my notes, the Internet Archive’s collection of modelbook images, and several other sources.
This isn’t an exhaustive analysis, but it covers most of the easily accessible editions of the chart. And the large number unearthed really underscores the differences in that accessibility from the time I started poking into these early publications (circa 1974) to today. Back then there might be a couple of modelbooks as part of a microfiched set of early publications on file at one’s university. There were several sets of these ‘fiches scattered across the country, so the set that was local to me at Brandeis wasn’t necessarily the same as the set someone else might have at the University of Pennsylvania. A happy trade of blurry low quality photocopies ensued among us needlework dilettantes, and in some cases precision in attribution wasn’t as clear as it could have been. As a result, when I get around to reissuing The New Carolingian Modelbook, my first book of researched patterns, there will be corrections. Especially among the Siebmacher attributions, because somewhere along the way prints from several editions became confused, leading to a couple of the designs marked as being from the 1597 edition, actually being from a later printing.
And Siebmacher or Sibmacher – both actually. I haven’t a clue as to which spelling is the correct one, because both are used. IE is represented more often than just I, so I go with that.
So here we go. It’s another overly long post only a needlework nerd will love.
1597
Johann Siebmacher’s Schon Neues Modelbuch von allerley lustigen Modeln naczunehen, zuwürcken unn zusticken, gemacht im Jar Ch. 1597. Printed in Nurmburg.
This edition is held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Accession 20.16 and can be accessed here. Notes accompanying this edition cite that the modelbook historian Arthur Lotz cataloged two editions were printed in 1597, and this is from the later of the two. (I will try to fill in the Lotz numbers for these as I mention them. I have that book, but I don’t read German so please forgive my tentative attributions.) My guess is that this one is from Lotz 32b.
Note that it presented on the same page as the parrot strip. The numeral LV (55) at the top refers to the number of units tall the strip is. Note that all filled blocks are depicted in the same way – as being inhabited by little + symbols. There is also a companion border that shows a combo of filled boxes and straight stitches. Also note that the two “reflection points of the repeat are both shown, along with enough of the repeat reversed to indicate that the design should be worked mirrored. Craig got this spot on when he drafted the design for himself. I’m used to working straight from the historical charts but most folk find the mental flip a bit arduous. He wisely spared himself the conceptual gymnastics.
Johann Siebmacher’s Schon Neues Modelbuch von allerley lustigen Modeln naczunehen, zuwürcken unn zusticken, gemacht im Jar Ch. 1597. Printed in Nurmberg.
Here is the same page from the other edition of 1597. Very possibly Lotz 32a. It’s held by the Bayerische Stasts Bibliothek, and is shared on line here.
It’s very clear that these are both impressions from the same block. The inking is a bit heavier on this one than the other, but the design is the same. Note though that the little “4” in the upper right corner isn’t shown on this one.
The Bibliotheque nationale de France’s copy of Johann Siebmacher’s Schön Neues Modelbuch von allerley lustigen Mödeln naczunehen, zuwürcken unn zusticken : gemacht im Jar Ch. 1597 looks like it might be the same printing as the Lotz 32b version above. It has the same “4” in the corner. BUT throughout the book it appears that someone has added shadings and color variation indicators by hand – over-inking or penciling in selected areas of many of the patterns. I don’t know if this was done by an owner, or was sold this way. I suspect the former. The darker boxes are clearly produced by careful inking, not printing. In other pages of this edition, you can see differences in how thick the ink was laid on, following pen or brush stroke lines, and not imprinted.
I don’t see a date associated with this other annotated edition, listed only as Johann Siebmacher, Newes Modelbuch, but I suspect it’s the 1597 one based on plate similarities. It’s another book in the Clark Art Institute library. Again someone took the liberty of hand-inking some of the pattern pages to add additional shading or interest. You can view it here. Given the placement of the shading, it might be the source for the version Carl used when he drew up his own graph.
Additional reprintings.
I’ll spare you more echoes of exactly the same page, but here are other representations of these 1597 editions.
There was a reproduction made in 1877, called Hans Sibmacher’s Stick- und spitzen-musterbuch: Mit einem vorworte, titelblatt und 35 musterblattern. The editor was Gerold Wien, and it was put out by the Museum fur Kunst und Industrie. The plate is a duplicate of the Lotz 32b one, complete with the 4 in the upper corner. The date of the original is cited in the repro. You can see it here. A second copy of the 1877 facsimile edition is held by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and can be found here.
There is an additional reproduction of this book in the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art, as issued in Berlin in 1885. The image quality is excellent, you can find it here.
1599
Martin Jost. Schön Neues Modelbuch von allerley lustigen Mödeln naazunehen Zuwürken vn[d] Zusticke[n]: gemacht im Jar Ch: 1599. Printed in Basel.
Yes, a different name is on this book. Lotz 34 refers to it by the name of the publisher – Ludwig Konig in Basel. The on line listing also mentions Jost. It is very closely related to the works above with lots of designs in common. But not entirely the same. The on line copy is here.
That’s our friend the griffin, the same motifs on the shield being supported, and the same flower pot behind – all absolutely stitch for stitch true to the earlier version. But the repeat is truncated along the left edge. The left side of the flowerpot is gone. However the upper and lower companion border with its straight stitching is the same, and is aligned the same way with the main motif. Obviously the parrots are gone, replaced with a panel representative of cutwork. The words above the design are the same font size and typeface, but are now centered between the new borders. The letters have the same proportional size to the design’s block units, but the block units are now rendered as solid – not boxed crosses. These books are said to be among the first created using copperplate – not carved wood. I am not familiar with the process of creating those, but it does look like a print of the original might have been used to create this smaller version. Licensed reproduction, cooperative venture, or unauthorized knock-off? I am sure there are academics who have explored this, so I won’t let my speculation run wild.
Additional appearances.
There is another copy of this same griffin imprint in a book cited as Ludwig Kunigs Fewrnew Modelbuch, von allerhandt künstlicher Arbeidt: namlich gestrickt, aussgezogen, aussgeschhnitten, gewiefflet, gestickt, gewirckt, und geneyt : von Wollen, Garn, Faden, oder Seyden : auff der Laden, und sonderlich auff der Ramen : Jetzt erstmals in Teutschlandt an Tag gebracht, zu Ehren und Glücklicher Zeitvertreibung allen dugendsamer Frawen, und Jungfrawen, Nächerinen, auch allen andern, so lust zu solcher künstlicher Arbeit haben, sehr dienstlich. Printed in Basel, 1599. You can find it here.
The Lotz number for this one is 35. It’s a problematic work because it looks like at some point a bunch of pages from several different pattern books were bound together into a “Franken-edition” incorporating some of Pagano, Vincoiolo, and Vecellio in addition to the Siebmacher-derived pages. But the solid blocks griffin with the cut off flower vase, plus the cutwork panel below is identical to the other 1599 imprint.
Jost might have been a bit peripatetic. There is an identical impression of this version in another Jost Martin printing, Schön neues Modelbuch von allerley lustigen Mödeln nachzunehen, zuwürcken un[n] zusticke[n], gemacht im Jar Chr: 1599, printed in Strassburg. No differences from the one above, so I won’t repeat. Possibly the same Lotz number, too. But you can visit it if you like.
1601
Georg Beatus, Schon neues Modelbuch, printed in Frankfurt, 1601.
Yup. Another publisher. This copy is Lotz #40, and is held in the Clark Art Institute Library. You can see it here.
This print looks a lot like the Jost/Konig one, but not exactly so. First, you can dismiss those little white dots. Those are pinpricks, added by someone who ticked off the solid units as they counted. I deduce that because they are also present in many of the empty boxes. But you will notice some oddities. First, the design is further truncated at the right. We’ve lost the complete shield shape bearing the quaternary flower. And the column at the far left has been duplicated. There is also an imprecision on column and row width in this representation, absent on the others. Finally, it’s been formatted for a single print, with no supplemental design below. I’m guessing another plate.
1604
Johann Siebmacher. Newes Modelbuch in Kupffer gemacht, darinen aller hand Arth newer Model von dun, mittel vnd dick aussgeschneidener Arbeit auch andern kunstlichen Neh werck zu gebrauchen. Printed in Nurmberg, in 1604, in the shop of Balthasar Caimox. It’s in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession 29.59.3, and can be seen here. I don’t see this one listed in Lotz under 1604, but the Met’s listing says that it’s likely a re-issue of the 1602 edition which would make it one of the ones Lotz labels as 38a through 38e. What’s notable about this particular copy is that while many of the other fabulous animal/mythical creature strips that accompany the griffins page in the other works, the griffin page itself is missing. It wasn’t in this edition, or the page that bore it has been lost to time. I’ve included this citation here for the sake of completeness.
Note also that this 1604 edition is the one upon which the modern Dover reprint is based. Dover reissued Ernst Wasmuth’s 1880 publication, which he entitled Kreuzstich-Muster 36 Tafeln der Ausgabe v. 1604. That was based on 36 plates from this 1604 printing.
1607
Sigmund Latomus, Schön newes Modelbuch, Von hundert vnd achtzig schönen kunstreichen vnd gerechten Modeln, Teutsche vnd Welsche, welche auff mancherley Art konnen geneet werden, als mit Zopffnath, Creutz vnnd Judenstich, auch auff Laden zu wircken : Dessgleichen von ausserlesenen Zinnigen oder Spitzen. Allen Seydenstickern, Modelwirckerin, Naderin, vnd solcher Arbeitgefiissenen Weibsbildern sehr dienstlich, vnd zu andern Mustern anleytlich vnd verstendig. Printed in Frankfurt, 1607.
Yes, another name on the spine, and printed in another city. The copy from the National Library of Sweden is visible here. It’s cited as being Lotz 43b.
At first glance this looks like another imprint of the same Siebmacher griffins and parrots page from 1597, but look closer. This design adds a blank column of squares to the right edge, replacing the design elements that were there on the earlier block. This is especially evident in the parrot strip, which has lost its center reflection point along the right edge. Also the blocks are filled in, again not the boxed crosses of the earlier work. And the fills look printed, not applied (more on this later). Yet another plate? Not impossible.
1622
Sigismund Latomus was still active in 1622, issuing a modelbook, entitled Schön newes Modelbuch, von 540. schönen auszerwehlten Künstlichen, so wol Italiänischen, Französischen, Ni-derländischen, Engelländischen, als Teutschen Mödeln, in Frankfurt. As one would expect from the lengthy name, he swept up a number of pattern images, issuing them in one big bundle. Of course we can’t rule out that what we see isn’t the original document as published. It’s not at all uncommon for later owners to bind works together (binding was expensive, and separate from publishing).
Our griffins are in this collection, TWICE. One version is another imprint the same rather squished version we saw issued by Beatus in 1601, the other is one we haven’t seen before. It’s roughly similar to the one above it, but there are some very subtle differences in detail, especially along the left and right edge. And of course, it’s paired with yet another secondary border. Original inclusion, or the result of later co-binding? Your guess is as good as mine. The book is here, it’s in the Clark Art Institute Library’s collection.
1660
Skip forward even further, now 63 years since the griffins appeared. Rosina Helena Furst/Paul Furst’s Model Buch Teil.1-2 printed in Nurnberg in 1660 offered a collection of older designs in addition to new ones. There were four in his series. This particular binding combines books 1 and 2. Lotz cites volumes one and 2 as 59 and 60, each with multiple surviving copies. For what it’s worth the Furst books are the first one that mention knitting as a possible mode of use for graphed patterns, and very possibly the first that is credited either in whole or in part to a female author. Some sources credit Paul Furst as the publisher and Rosina Helena Furst as the author, others attribute the entire work to Paul, or imply that Rosina Helena took over the family business after Paul’s death. In any case, they were prolific publishers, and continued to revise, and re-release modelbooks for at least a good 20 years. They did recast the legacy images to meet changing tastes, but it’s clear that our griffin has deeply informed this later, slightly more graceful beast. Note that his pattern height number is different from the earlier ones because his spacing and borders are a different size. You can see this copy here.
1666
We continue on with the Furst Das Neue Modelbuch editions. This one is also from Nurnberg, and is a multi-volume set in the care of the Clark Art Institute Library. The parts are listed as Lotz 59b, 60a, 61b, and 62a. Again someone has inked in bits to indicate shading. But it’s clearly the same plate as the 1660 printing.
1728
This is about as late as I research. Here we are 131 years after first publication, and there is still interest in the griffins. At least in the Furst interpretation of them. This is from the workshop of J.C. Seigels Wittib, in Nurnberg, and is a reissue of the Fursts’ Model Buch Teil 1-2. Again from the Clark Art Institute Library. It also looks to have been hand-inked on top of the same plate print. But if one looks very closely, there are small mistakes in ink application with very slight differences between the two. Including a forgotten square that shows the + behind the ink in one and not the other. A clear indication that the solid black areas were additions, and not done during the print process. It also makes me think that the 1728 inker had a copy of the 1666 book and copied the annotations to the best of their ability. Does that mean that some books were sold pre-inked? Not impossible. You can make your own judgement here.
Stitched representations
I am still looking for these. Representations of other Siebmacher designs exist in monochrome and polychrome counted stitching, as well as in white openwork. His reclining stag is the most often seen through time, but his unicorns, peacocks, eagles, religious symbols, long neck swans, flower pots, and rampant lions grace some spot samplers of the 1600s and into the early 1700s – mostly but not exclusively German or Dutch in origin. I’ve seen the parrots, undines, and mermen in white darned pieces (lacis in addition to withdrawn thread darned work). And that reclining stag crossed the ocean to appear on some early American samplers as well. But I haven’t seen a stitched version of these griffins. Yet.
Of course I haven’t seen everything, and back room pieces are being digitized every day. If you’ve spotted the griffins in the wild, please let me know.
Conclusions
This really is more of an observational survey than an academic hypothesis based essay.
Originally, seeing this (and other Siebmacher designs) repeat across multiple modelbooks, I assumed that they all were produced from the same plate. But on closer examination we see that probably isn’t true.
It is safe to say that there is a strong continuity of design here. And an interesting cross pollination among publishers. Was it tribute, licensing, sharing, or a bit of light plagiarism? We cannot tell from just examining the printings. But we can say that over the course of 131 years there were at least four and possibly five plates made based on the original griffin design, yet all are immediately identifiable as springing from the same source. I’m sure there are scholars who have delved into the interrelationships in the early printing industry, and have described other migrations of text or illustration among printing houses. Perhaps this look at a single pattern book plate will help inform their future musings.
We can also say that these design plates were used by a variety of prolific printers in Germany in response to what must have been continuing demand for pattern books. I say that because they were obviously selling well enough to warrant production over a long span of time, in spite of their largely offering up the same content over and over with only minor supplements. Also, in spite of the sometimes destructive nature of pattern replication at the time these early pattern books survived largely (but not totally) intact. For something so esoteric, with little literary value, they were seen as interesting and useful enough to retain in many libraries – to the delight of those who have rediscovered them again and again across centuries.
I just might have to stitch up these griffins, and in doing so know I’m helping to keep them alive.
A HOLBEIN COLLAR
Special thanks to Karen over at the Elizabethan Costume group on Facebook, who visited the current “Holbein at the Tudor Court” exhibit a the Queen’s Gallery, and came away with an assortment of extreme close-up photos of various clothing details. One of them showed an intimate view of the portrait of Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, a painting in the Royal Collection. The Duke died in 1554. and the painting was probably done in the decade before he was arrested for treason, which was about 8 years before his death.
He’s quite an imposing gentleman in his lynx fur, and his collar is hard to see in the official full-size repros of the portrait. But Karen’s extreme close-up helped. Her shot is below, shared with her permission.
Here’s the blackwork band I transcribed from his collar, more or less.
This redaction is only posited. It’s harder to chart from a painting than it is from a stitched artifact. Luckily this was a Holbein, who understood and clearly depicted the geometry and alignments of countwork. I’ve used my standard rules on this one:
- Modern blackwork and its expanded vocabulary aside, historical examples employ only straight lines, right angles, and 45-degree angles.
- Stitch length units are regular, and are constrained to multiples of a single whole unit, either on edge or on the diagonal. Yes, there are some artifacts with instances of half-unit stitches, but for the most part they are extremely infrequent in foreground design. They do appear sometimes in voided work, to help the stitcher cozy up to the outlines of their previously laid down foreground design.
- Gaps between stitches in a continuously linked design will be the same multiple of the base unit. There are no “floating islands” in this piece. Every bit is straight-line attached to every other bit, and therefore must be on the same base grid.
- Not every iteration of the original is assumed to be spot on accurate. Especially in painted depictions, where three dimensional rendering of rumpled cloth can add imprecision, or the painter not being constrained by a drawn grid, did a “you get the idea” representation rather than a stitch-faithful one.
On this chart I have rendered the background inside the interlaces as a block of solid color, as they were in the painting. It’s not clear what stitches were used to achieve this, but long armed cross stitch, boxed (four-sided) cross stitch, and plain old cross stitch are all good candidates. Note that because these areas are bounded by diagonals there will be considerable fudging with half diagonals (aka quarter stitches in modern cross stitch) to eke out coverage. The solid fill result here is what matters most.
In any case like most of the pieces offered here on String, this is available for your personal use. It’s Good Deed Ware – if you work it up please consider paying the kindness forward, assisting someone in need, calling a friend or family member who could use a bit of cheering up, or otherwise making the world a tiny bit more pleasant. And please note that my representation of this design is copyrighted. if you are interested in using it commercially or for larger distribution, either incorporating it into a pattern for sale or other dissemination, or if you want to use it on items that are made for sale or donation, please contact me.
And as always, I love to see what mischief the pattern children are up to out there in the wide-wide world. Feel free to send me a photo or a link. And if you give permission, I’ll add your work with or without your name (as you desire) to the growing Gallery page here on String.
String-Or-Nothing 