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

This 100% superfine alpaca yarn is a new experience for me; although the sheen and the color--a warm chestnut brown threaded subtly with red-- are lovely, I'm not loving its tendency to shed small hairs, nor the fact that I'm burning through the

Here are sketches of Lutea size XS and 2XL (the smallest and largest pattern sizes), drawn to scale on graph paper at 1 box to one inch, to fit bust sizes of 28-30" and 48-50", respectively.   According to the Standards & Guidelines for Knitting & Crochet, the Cross Back (shoulder to shoulder) measurements for these two sizes are 14" and 18".  As you can see, the lace shoulder sections also angle out slightly from the center, meaning that the width at the base of the lace sections must be slightly narrower than the width at the top.  We'll keep it simple and say that the shoulder sections for sizes XS and 2XL must be 13" and 17" wide at their bases, respectively. This means that for size XS, for front or back, since the width at the bust is 16 inches, the armhole shaping must yield a decrease of 3 inches (16-13), or 1 1/2 inches on each side.  However, for size 2XL, since the width at the bust is 26 inches, the armhole shaping must yield a decrease of 9 inches (26-17), or 4 1/2 inches on each side.  Because angling the lace sections more would result in an overly sloped shoulder (since the sides of the lace section are perpendicular to the top of the shoulder), and angling them less would result in a too-narrow V-neck, AND making the shoulder section wider would make the top edge of the armhole form a shelf past the end of the shoulder--my only option was to make the armholes more deeply cut in the larger sizes. By the way, thanks to Connie, who brought me an issue of the summer 2007 Interweave Knits, last week I was finally able to see Lutea in print!  It was my first in-person meeting of someone I met online, and it went so well that I'll have to try it again sometime.   

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.

Well, Jeri, that is a very good question, and one which I had asked myself--and why doesn't Maple Seed swirl in the opposite direction, since it uses left-slanting decreases (SSKs) instead of right-slanting decreases (k2tog)? The stitch pattern for Beaufort originally caught my attention because it was so similar to one segment of Chinese Lace, and I had even MORE questions about the latter.  Why do the first two segments, rows 1-4 and 5-8 on the chart, slant to the left, even though the YOs slant to the right, and the decreases slant both left and right?  Why are the third and sixth segments, rows 9-12 and 21-24, essentially vertical, in spite of slanting YOs and decreases slanting both left and right?  And why do the remaining segments, rows 13-16 and 17-20, slant to the right, even though the YOs slant to the left?  Is it the proximity of YOs and decreases?  Well, I must admit that the main conclusion I had drawn from Chinese Lace was that the direction of decreases and the position of YOs does not always determine the slant of a stitch pattern--or lack thereof.  And this was confirmed by my experience with Beaufort and Maple Seed. But to return to Jeri's question, there are two different kinds of swirls going on in these hats:  one is the spiral at the crown, and the other is the diagonal that the stitch pattern creates, which would exist even if the knit fabric was flat.  First, why does the stitch pattern spiral at the crown?  I had noticed the same phenomenon in Grumperina's Odessa hat pattern.  I know that I did nothing in the way of decreases to create the spiral at Beaufort's crown; in fact, I reworked those decreases a number of times, not only to create the most consistently decreasing shapes within the knit columns, but also to keep the natural spiral as smooth as possible. We've already noted that Beaufort's stitch pattern moves at an angle from the bottom edge--which is a circle, since it's a hat.  If you picture a hat as a series of concentric circles, and the line crossing the circles at left shows the angle of B's stitch pattern, you can see that as the circles get smaller, and the line continues to cross each one at the SAME angle as the first, it begins to curve in a spiral. As for what causes that angle, if you look closely at the photo of Beaufort, you can see that the decreases for each 4-row pattern repeat form the shape of a triangle, (I'll call these the "decrease triangles", colored gray in the above diagram), while the corresponding YOs form--roughly-- an upside-down triangle that fits next to the first (white in the diagram; the purled areas are represented by the squiggly lines).  Thus begins the Beaufort swirl, but what causes it to continue is that the left lower corner of each subsequent decrease triangle sits on the apex of the decrease triangle below, forming a diagonal line. Clear?  Unclear?  Agree?  Disagree?  The floor is open for discussion.

A perfect opportunity to get a little knitting in, especially when you don't give a rat's ass who wins.  (Although the commercials are kind of fun.)  Thanks to the Steelers and the Seahawks I've made significant progress on Oliver, and here's the proof.  I like the front band much better with a row of twisted stitches setting it off.  The neckband will be folded in half and sewn in place, so I thought I'd try using cotton for the part that will form the lining, to protect my nephew's tender neck from the wool.  Anyway, that's why it's a slightly different color.  On the back, I'm liking the way the vertical and horizontal patterns meld, but will reserve final judgment until I finish the second sleeve and the bottom band. One disappointment:  I've had mixed success getting the travelling stitches even (and I love them so!), especially the ones that cross to the left;  I noticed that Eunny mentions this problem in a recent post.  I first tried following Barbara Walker's instructions for crossing the stitches while both remain on the needle, but I found that for left-leaning crosses, I had better luck when I took the first stitch off the needle, held it between my fingers, knitted the second at the very tips of the needle, then put the first stitch back and knit it.  Pulling the yarn tight and keeping the stitches at the very tips of the needles seem to be important in keeping those crossed stitches more uniform.  (And luckily for me, as Eunny noted, wet blocking helps.)

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.)   

When I decided to remove the rib border of my partially-finished seaweed scarf, I thought it would be simple enough: just unravel from the cast-on edge to where I wanted the scarf to start, bind off, and continue knitting from the other end.  But when I started unraveling, I found that approximately one in three stitches, rather than freeing itself w

Just a simple trick which helps me bind off faster in pattern:  When binding off knitwise, as in this photo, the stitch to be passed over the other stitch and off the right-hand needle is picked up in front of the work--easy.   But when binding off purlwise, you have to pick up the same stitch from behind the needle, either blindly, or by rotating the work so you can see what you're doing--either of which slows the process, at least for me. So here's my trick: Each time I transition from a purl to a knit stitch, I move the yarn from the front to the back of the work before binding off:  this allows me to bind off knitwise even if I have just purled.  In seed stitch, it goes like this:  k, p, move yarn to back, bind off 1st stitch knitwise, k, bind off, p, move yarn to back, bind off knitwise...see?  Even though you are binding off in seed stitch pattern, all stitches are bound off knitwise.  In 2 X 2 rib, 3 of 4 stitches can be bound off knitwise:  k, k, bind off, p, bind off purlwise, p, move yarn to back, bind off knitwise, k, bind off, k, bind off, etc.