For some reason I really enjoy figuring out how to work decreases and increases into stitch patterns: witness all of my hats (Beaufort, Maple Seed, Rose of Sharo

I think this should be the knitter's counterpoint to the carpenter's mantra of "measure twice, cut once."   The reason the photos show an item with the bottom edge of loose stitches hanging free is that I didn't math twice-- not even once, real

Pattern now available for purchase!

(Cross-posted from the CAL).

Apologies to any Beatles fans out there.  Anyway, we are Stateside for the summer; I can already see that this entire Italy experience will be fraught with mixed feelings--glad to be back/sorry to be leaving, glad to see old friends & family/sorry to leave new friends behind, glad to be rattling away in my native English, sorry to be losing my hard-won gains in Italian a little more each day.  And sorry to have left behind what must be one of the best photo-shoot locations ever; do you think I can Photoshop myself into these rooms modeling my future knit projects?! At least my item (is that vague enough?) for the winter IK is done and I can blog easy:  work in some loose ends, write up some long-promised patterns.  I'd also love to knit Lutea for myself this summer, but  I'm having a helluva time finding any Classic Elite Sundance.  (Anyone know where I can score some of that stuff?)  I may have to substitute a similar yarn, or--more entertainingly--a completely different weight yarn.  Whee!  (I know, I probably need a margarita or a mojito or some new shoes--my fun meter appears to be in desperate need of recalibration.) Speaking of working in loose ends, I finally did that with my Dayflower Lace top, and even wore it in public!  Sometime in the next few days I'll post for the Create Along and cross-post here.  (Recognize the earrings?)    

(Cross posted from the CAL.)

(Cross posted from the CAL.)

Isn't the difference in color in these photos wild? The middle photo is WAY too blue and the others are too gray. Anyway, first a little background: I did decide to use increases along the front to shape the bust area, rather than short rows or increases along the sides. But what then to do with the extra stitches above the bust? I could just leave them; the front of the top would then be slightly wider than the back. I could take the extra stitches into account when I decreased to shape the armholes and/or neck edge, especially if the neckline was a deep U or V--but I was concerned this might give those edges an odd line. Or, I could place decreases directly above the bust, giving what I felt to be the most, how to put it, anatomical shaping possible. The first photo shows my initial attempt at this; unfortunately, I didn't like the way the decreases looked--to my mind, as if someone had snagged a stitch and then yanked on it. (I noticed that Hattie mentioned a similar problem, but with increases, in this post. I had luckily realized that the corded edge at the top of the Dayflower Lace--visible in the left lower corner of the above photo--hid my bust-shaping increases pretty nicely.) Then I thought I would try a different way of decreasing, along several rows instead of one, and also try using some columns of faggoting to hide or camouflage the decreases: see the photo at left. This proved to be difficult to place so that the columns didn't look odd next to the faggoting along the neck and armhole; if I tried to center the decreases over the bust, the faggoting was off center, and the angled neckline made centering the faggoting difficult. In the end, I decided that too much going on in the upper front just detracted from the lace...but I still thought that some vertical openwork columns lined up with the Dayflower repeats might dress up the upper top, so I tried putting them on the back instead. Hmmm...that corded edge is looking a little wavy...do I like it? Or not? (Hint: RIBBIT.)

Here you can see how I decided to decrease the Dayflower Lace pattern; the partial flower in the last few rows of lace is divided by a YO at its lower edge, which I felt kept it from looking too blocky. If I decreased further, I could perhaps have made that last flower look more like a mini version of the others--but then the underbust circumference would have been too small. An interesting problem with this sort of decreasing is that for each stitch decreased within the stitch pattern, you will have the same number of stitches decreased as there are repeats of the pattern; thus, for this top, every time I decrease one stitch within the Dayflower lace panel, I decrease 14 sts per round. The problem arises if/when you try to write a pattern for multiple sizes. I'll use a simple example, a sweater with a lace pattern lower border, in which I want to use decreases within the lace to get from hip to waist circumference. Generally, the amount decreased from hip to waist doesn't vary much from size to size. But if I want to write the pattern for hip/bust sizes 34 (40, 46, 52), with a gauge of 5 sts per inch, and I have 8 (10, 12, 14) repeats of my lace stitch pattern respectively, then if I decrease 1 st per repeat, I now have decreased 8 (10, 12, 14) sts in one row--or roughly 1 1/2 (2, 2 1/2, 3) inches--a markedly different amount for each size. Not so different with one decrease, maybe, but if I want to decrease 6 inches to shape the waist, then I have to make 4 decreases for size 34, 3 for size 40, probably 3 for size 46 (5 inches--close enough), and 2 for size 52--meaning three different decrease methods. If I tried to decrease the same way for each size, I might end up with (for example) 4 1/2 (6, 7 1/2, 9) inches decreased--which in size 52 is probably too much for any except the best-endowed AND wasp-waisted. Other options? Compensate by making the hips proportionally larger in the larger sizes, or perhaps leaving a few of the repeats unchanged in the center back/front, or at the sides, in the larger sizes. One solution might work well for a particular garment and stitch pattern, and not for another. But I think you can see why this type of decreasing is not that common, except perhaps in hat patterns. Oh yes, these pictures also show attempts 1 & 2 at the underbust band, with eyelet holes for a twisted cord tie; I felt that the first one didn't have a clear enough delineation of the band/lace transition, and also that the bust increases (several rows above the eyelet holes) were too visible. (Cross posted from Create Along.)

Okay, let's pretend that two weeks or so have passed since my last post. After a couple of weeks of non-frenzied knitting, the lower portion of my Dayflower Lace top has been completed, and I can't put off deciding how to decrease any longer.