To be quite honest, the Hearts of Oak pattern is not the speediest knit around, especially when worked on US #3 needles.  The unblocked fabric is fun to look at in different lights, and its almost crunchy texture invites you to grasp a handful and squeeze-- but even so, it seemed to me that I knitted endlessly on Selva before finally reaching the point where it was time to start the waist decreases. I had swatched the "ribbon" stitch pattern I used for the top of the skirt, and measured the swatch stretched to determine whether a zipper was necessary:  I decided no.  As I progressed toward the waistband, decreasing steadily in the plain purl sections at the sides, I instead started to worry that the waistband would stretch out of shape:  the "ribbons" weren't quite as firm as I had hoped, and of course the reverse stockinette wasn't firm at all.  That's why I decided to add the elastic to the waistband. In the case of this pattern, the sizing was dictated by the stitch pattern:  the difference between sizes is two repeats or 20 stitches (or 2 1/2 inches) at the hips.  Having said that, it is easy to change the frequency and number of waist decreases to customize the fit for a larger or smaller waist in relation to hips. Filatura di Crosa "Zara" is a great choice of yarn for this skirt; it has tight twist, lots of resilience, and seems to be fairly durable (standing up well to frogging).  It also comes in an extensive palette of colors.  If another yarn is substituted, I would encourage using something with similar characteristics.  A quick glance at yarndex suggested these as possibilities (note that I have no personal experience with any of them):  Jaeger Matchmaker Merino DK or Extrafine Merino DK; Dale of Norway Falk; Classic Elite Classic 150; Debbie Bliss Rialto DK; Louet Gems Opal; or Knit Picks Merino Style.  Note that for most of these (as for Zara), the suggested needle size is larger than US #3, and the gauge thus looser than the 6 sts to the inch I got in stockinette stitch with #3s.  SWATCH!

The blog takes on a life of its own, true?  I first started blogging because I had an idea for a book of knitting patterns--a series of books, actually--several years ago, but I decided that no editor would

This cute raspberry number was knitted by Thiire from Finland.  She e-mailed me before starting the hat crown decreases:  I am knitting the smallest size, and am about to start the crown shape. Crown shaping:  Rnd 1: *K1, YO, k2, SSK, (k2tog) twice, YO. Rep from * to end of rnd. 64(72, 80) sts.Rnds 2, 4, 6, 8: K.Rnd 3: *YO, (SSK) twice, k2tog, k1, YO, k1. Rep from * to end of rnd. 56(63, 70) sts. I do not understand the parts which I colored red above. Am I meant to do k2tog twice (or not at all) in the round 1?Am I meant to do SSK twice or not at all in the round three? At first I didn't understand her confusion--and then I realized that she was wondering if the fact that the k2tog and the SSK were in parentheses meant that they should only be worked for the medium and large sizes.  I was trying to avoid confusion by using those parentheses, but I think they are really unnecessary. Thanks for your question, Thiire!  This pattern-writing is certainly a learning process.   

I just had to demonstrate what I meant when I said the hydrangeas must love all this rain; I've never seen them like this before.  I mean, don't they look Seussian, like they should be blooming under Truffula trees? What's that?  What do hydrangeas have to do with wisterias?  You think this post should probably be called "hydrangea hysteria"?  You don't give a flying f--- about a bunch of freaking freakishly blue flowers?  Where the f--- is the CHINESE LACE? Ah, yes.  Here, here she is, in child's sleeveless dress form, and I shall call her...Wisteria.  Why?  Well, the first time I remember noticing a wisteria vine, I was a college freshman, and knew (and cared) very little about gardens--and yet the cascades of purple flowers adorning the entrance to the Frick Chemistry Lab amazed me enough that I asked someone the name of the plant.  Since then, I've seen Wisteria sinensis (or Chinese wisteria--how perfect is that?!) on buildings, on pergolas, and ascending tree trunks, and it never fails to amaze.  As this dress took form, its violet color and the waterfall effect of the Chinese Lace border brought the wisteria to mind. And yes, instructions will be available soon, for girls' sizes 6 months to 10 years; I reworked the neckline today, and so the pattern should be up by (dare I say it?) next week. 

I'm aware that yesterday was the day the large rodent emerged to look for his shadow*; I was thinking more of the movie "Groundhog Day," and how every day can seem exactly like the one before.  Ever have that sensation of running in place?  I'm feeling the pressure from trying to complete a number of knitting patterns for a book proposal--self-imposed deadlines, to be sure (oh, to have an editor- or agent-imposed deadline!), moving targets, but looming no less for all that. And so, instead of working on Oliver, I've been working on swatches of different color combinations; figuring out yarn requirements for sizes from 3 months to Men's XXL; and double-checking to make sure that garment dimensions follow the CYCA's Standards & Guidelines for different sizes. Speaking of the CYCA, I did receive a nice email from Mary Colucci, their Executive Director, in response to my missive about improving knitting pattern directions, as well as an encouraging email from Interweave. *And what's up with that?  Anyone as far north as Pennsylvania (home of Punxsutawny Phil) knows full well that we'll be lucky if we only have 6 more weeks of winter!  2?!  Yeah--in Georgia, maybe.

Well, Oliver's first problem was that he was too short; pictured is his center back panel, with the bottom edge on the left.  Since I left the top stitches for the neckband live (which makes for a more stretchy neck edge than if they're bound off), I could normally have just knit a little further, but by the time I reached an attractive stopping point--the end of the larger diamond--it would have been too long.  So I changed the repeat on the pattern chart so that it begins with the large diamond instead of the small one; the new chart is shown at left.  If I stop at the top of the third large diamond, the back panel should be about an inch longer than before.  Panels like this are another reason pattern directions should give length in rows!*  If Debbie Bliss had done this in her pattern for the Cotton Aran Sweater I knit for my son, it would have been clear that a certain number of rows had to be worked for the pattern repeat to end as pictured in her book.  And then I wouldn't have had to change the neckline from a crew to a V so the repeat ended at least semi-attractively. Anyway.  On this photo of Oliver's front, the entire border ribbing area is circled.  The border rib doesn't stand out from the body of the sweater, which is as I intended; however, I don't like the way the border ribbing meets the mirror cable panel, which affects both the center back panel and the center front edge.  I'm going to try a garter stitch border instead.  *So far the response to my rant has been less than enthusiastic; okay, so it's been nonexistent.  That doesn't mean I'm going to give up.  My next step?  Letters to the individual members of the CYCA's Standards Committee.  (It's not too late to jump on the bandwagon!)

Yes, I'm still stuck on the subject of writing pattern instructions using rows instead of inches.  Please, bear with me a little longer!  Poor Oliver, who has been a little naughty--no, that's not fair; his problems are all my own fault--he's been bumped to my next post.  The photo at left is his front; I inserted it mainly because 3 posts in a row without pictures is surely the kiss of death in the knitblog world. Anyway, I got so fired up by this subject that I fired off an email to editors at Interweave Knits, Vogue Knitting, knitty.com, and Knitter's Magazine.  Since this was at 1 a.m. (my mind was racing and I couldn't sleep), my email was a little wonky, reading in part: I believe that the present convention for pattern-writing does not go far enough to ensure accurate sizing, and could be greatly improved by: 1) Amending the typical "TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE" to read, "BLOCK GAUGE SWATCH USING SAME FINISHING METHOD  (i.e. wet thoroughly, squeeze out excess moisture and dry flat; steam; press; tumble dry; pr none) YOU PLAN TO USE ON COMPLETED GARMENT, AND USE BLOCKED SWATCH TO DETERMINE GAUGE"; 2) Changing pattern instructions* so that dimensions are given in rows and stitches, not inches/centimeters. *Please note that I say pattern instructions; dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters. That whole gauge thing--ouch.  No wonder an editorial assistant at Interweave (which BTW already uses "check gauge after blocking"--credit where due!!) responded: Thank you for your input.  We will certainly be taking your suggestions into consideration.  The problem we often face is the issue of space available in our magazine, and a certain established style of pattern writing.  We appreciate hearing from our readers as it helps us serve you better! Translation:  You're a crackpot, but we try to be nice to anyone who takes the time to write to us.  So this morning, after I'd had my coffee, I composed and sent the following: Thank you for your response.  I apologize for sounding perhaps tongue-in-cheek; of course it is not realistic to print the entire "Gauge" statement I proposed for each pattern, and as I noted, your magazine does already use "check gauge after blocking," which is a great improvement over no mention of blocking at all. But I am quite serious about the latter suggestion.  The fact that your magazine uses "check gauge after blocking" suggests strongly that you and your fellow editors agree with me that blocking changes gauge, sometimes significantly.  Once you have made this assumption, it is just not possible to deny that measuring a garment in inches while it is in progress--unblocked--is inaccurate.  While in many cases a difference of an inch or two is unimportant, or the knitter instinctively compensates for the directions, (i.e. stretching slightly to measure), in some cases this inaccuracy can cause an unsatisfactory result, especially (but not only!) for an inexperienced knitter.  As the pattern provider, your magazine and designers should be motivated to provide the most accurate patterns possible:  more satisfied knitters make better customers.  And it is never simpler to convert inches to rows than when the designer has a completed sample, and/or a fully charted design and a good-sized blocked swatch, sitting in front of her (or him)--nor does it take any more space to state dimensions in rows rather than inches. Of course I realize this suggestion does not fit with the established style of pattern writing; that is why I am writing to you, and to other knitting magazines.  I quote Nancy Bush (Knitting Vintage Socks):  "[In nineteenth-century British sock patterns]...there was no information on yardage, on the weight of specific balls or skeins, or, most importantly, on gauge."  We've come a long way since then!  Why not continue to improve pattern conventions? Now, I ask YOUR help--knitbloggers and blog readers--so that patterns can be better for all of us.  If you agree with my logic, then please write to knit magazines and the Craft Yarn Council and let them know (and please implement these changes in your own original patterns).  Here is an improved version of the changes I recommend: 1) Amend the typical "TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE" (or simply "GAUGE") to read, "CHECK GAUGE AFTER BLOCKING" 2) Make gauge swatches in pattern stitch, not just stockinette (which many patterns already do) 3) Write pattern instructions so that all dimensions are given in ROWS and stitches, not (or at least in addition to) inches/centimeters.  Dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters.  P.S.  In the meantime, when using an already-printed pattern, you can always multiply inches given in instructions by the row gauge provided (assuming the gauge was done in the pattern stitch)--or maybe the BQ isn't such a flippant idea, after all.

I was sitting here, trying to write a simple drop shoulder sweater pattern for about 11 sizes (patternmakers deserve respect for the sheer drudgery of tasks like that, even if the pattern, like this one, is relatively simple) when I had a thought.  A HUGE thought.  We all know that blocking changes gauge, right?  Sometimes quite a bit!  And we don't block while we're knitting, do we?  Not in the middle of, say, a sleeve, anyway.  Right?  So WHY does almost EVERY printed pattern say things like "work until length measures 8 inches", "work until piece measures 15 inches", "work for 3 inches"?  Do you see what I'm getting at?  Those measurements mean NOTHING before blocking!  The length that's supposed to be 8 inches on the finished garment could be 9 inches after blocking. Knitting patterns tell you how many stitches to cast on, both for pattern stitch purposes AND for size; they don't say, "Cast on 14 inches."  Similarly, knitting patterns should give length in ROWS, not inches (or centimeters), because that's the unit from a gauge swatch that remains constant, before AND after blocking.       Edited to add:  I should elaborate on that last sentence.  I don't mean the numbers of rows per inch remains the same, because the whole point of this little tirade is that it often doesn't.  What I meant will hopefully be clarified by the following story:  THE BLOCKING QUOTIENT Say you make a 20-stitch wide, 24-row high swatch which after blocking is exactly 4 inches square (and yes, okay, you really should have made it a little bigger), but before blocking was 3.5 inches square (a not unreasonable change): well, you have the same number of rows and stitches, but your gauge has changed from 5.7 sts and 6.9 rows per inch to 5 sts and 6 rows per inch.  Being a meticulous person, you choose your size based on your after-blocking gauge, and you knit a simple tunic that's 24 inches long and 35 inches around. You're nervous because it's supposed to be 40 inches around, but the directions said to cast on 200 stitches and you did, so you're hoping for the best.  You block it, and--surprise!  It's now 40 inches around--huzzah!!--but at 27.4 inches long, instead of barely covering your butt, it's hanging at mid-thigh.  "WTF!?" you say.  "I followed the instructions to the letter!"  YES, YOU DID!  The instructions were wrong, not you; instead of "Bind off at 24 inches," they should have said "Bind off at row 144" (which would have been at about 21 inches, as knitted).  OR they could have said, "Divide your after-blocking gauge by your before-blocking gauge; this is your Blocking Quotient.  Multiply any lengths specified in the directions by your BQ to get the length you should knit." (In the example above, the row BQ would be 6/6.9, or .87.)