So far the nominations for stitches to use as object lessons have been rather sparse. I've gotten suggestions to do:

• Porcupine Stitch from B. Walker's Second Treasury of Knitting Patterns, p. 282
• Drooping Elm Leaves from B. Walker's A Treasury of Knitting Patterns, p. 217

I've also gotten notes from people who said that given the hints posted over the past week they've been able to graph up

• Mermaid Mesh from Walker's Second Treasury, p. 267
• Madeira Cascade from Walker's A Treasury, p. 222

As the big boss at work would say, "Good on 'ya!"

These two patterns are not quite straightforward. Cascade has five stitches above and beyond the repeat that need to be apportioned into edge stitches. It does however have a very strong central spine - a double decrease that lines up on all right-side rows. Mesh is a bit harder in that it has both lots of edge stitches, plus a massive number of decreases and increases that use natural slant of the decreases to visually wander left and right. Certainly not a pattern for the faint-hearted to graph!

For the object lesson I'll do Porcupine and Walker's Starlight Lace (Second Treasury, p 288). Drooping Elm is interesting, but doesn't pose some of the conundrums that these two do. I'll start today with Porcupine. Starlight will appear later in the week.

Porcupine Stitch from B. Walker's Second Treasury of Knitting Patterns, p. 282

Porcupine has some interesting features. It's a 9 row repeat, in which only three rows are substantive. BUT those three rows are each repeated at least twice, and the same instructions are repeated on both the right and wrong side rows of the piece. There are also four stitches requested over the 12 stitch repeat count that will have to be accounted for in edge stitches, but they seem to always stay outside the ** repeat marks, so keeping track of them shouldn't be a problem.

Walker notes that this texture design is of Victorian origin. It does have a major feature that was much more common in early instructions than in later ones. Porcupine includes patterning on both right side and wrong side rows. You don't see this often as most modern? patterns confine increases, decreases or other shaping elements to right-side rows only. Flipping the instructions for decreases is far more confusing than just translating knits to purls and vice versa.

My write-up will intersperse the as Walker gives them with how that row ends up being graphed. The Walker quotations will be in bold.

Multiple of 12 stitches plus 4
Row 1: K2, *Yo, K2tog; rep from * to last 2 sts, end k2
Looking at the pattern, I suspect it will be a good idea to graph out two repeats of the pattern, that's 24+4 = 28 stitches across my chart. We start with a right-side row:


Row 2 and 4: K2, purl to last 2 st, end k2
Very easy. Remember this is a wrong side row, and that mental inversion thing should be invoked to "flip" knits to purls and vice versa.

Row 3: Knit
Because Row 4 is the same as Row 2, I'll graph up both 3 and 4 here.


Row 5 and 8: K2, *sl1-k2tog-psso, k4, yo, k1, yo, k4, re from *, end k2
Now it begins to get interesting. Still, stitch counts are maintained. How can I tell this? By looking at the part between the **s. It includes a double decrease that finishes with the rightmost stitch on top, plus two yos to compensate for the two stitches eaten by the double decrease. Warning though. It's not all that hard to visualize row 5, it's a right-side (odd numbered) row, but I can sense some hyperventilation among those who have noticed that this same sequence is repeated on a wrong-side (even numbered) row. We'll deal with that bit of chaos when we get there.

Row 6, 7 and 9: K2* p3tog, p4, yo, p1, yo, p4, rep from * end k2
We have now hit the twilight zone row - the one that will cause many people to give up graphing. But it's not impossible. Remember that mental flip thing? Flex your brain because we're now going to do some gymnastics.

On Row 6, we've been told to do a p3tog on a wrong side row. Now, a p3tog on a wrong side row, if viewed from the right side of the work is a dead ringer for a k3tog. How do I know this? The Sainted Barbara tells me so in the glossary of chart symbols in her Charted Knitting Designs (aka Walker III), and A Fourth Treasury of Knitting Patterns (aka Walker IV). Also I experimented. I'll use my symbol for k3tog, BUT I'll remember to build a double column glossary to accompany this pattern that describes what should be done when this symbol is encountered on both right-side and wrong-side rows.


Now on Row 7, we're told to do the same thing as on Row 6. But we're on a right-side row. A p3tog on a right side row is a p3tog on a right side row. I don't have a symbol in my set for a p3tog, so I'll have to make one up. Visually, in a P3tog done on an odd numbered row, the right hand most stitch of the three worked together ends up on top. I'll make a hybrid symbol that sort of reminds me that three stitches are being worked together, the right hand most one will end up on top, and that it's a purl. If it turns out that I like this symbol, I'll add it to my permanent stencil collection in Visio:


Row 5 and 8: K2, *sl1-k2tog-psso, k4, yo, k1, yo, k4, re from *, end k2
Row 8 is a repeat of Row 5, but it's done on a wrong-side as opposed to right-side row. Again referring to the Sainted Barbara, we see that a s1-k2tog-psso done on the right side has as its wrong-side counterpart the delightfully awkward p3tog through the back of the loop. Again - remember we don't actually have to DO a p3tog through the back of the loop here unless we are doing this pattern in the round, but the symbol we use on the chart is the same one that would be used for one of those awkward puppies worked on the right side. I don't happen to have a standard symbol for p3tog through the back of the loop, so I'll invent one.

Row 6, 7 and 9: K2* p3tog, p4, yo, p1, yo, p4, rep from * end k2
Row 9 is a duplicate of Row 7. We've already graphed that. So we now have the nine rows of our repeat. It's also become clear that stitch counts are rock-stable row to row, and that the four extra stitches here are just garter stitch selvedges there for convenience, and aren't required to eke out partial repeats of the pattern. I'll mark the four extras off in blue.

But we're not quite done even though all nine rows are graphed out.

We've got a repeat made up of an odd number of rows. That means that Row 1 repeats on Row 10. In fact, although rows 10-18 are the same as Rows 1-9, each one graphs up as its opposite-side sibling. (I can sense I've lost quite a few of you, so I'll show rows 10-13:

Row 10 duplicates the action of Row 1, but does it on a wrong-side row. Therefore, the stitches that graph up as K2togs in Row 1 use a different symbol in Row 11. Likewise the knits/purls of rows 11-13 show as their opposite.

Row 14 duplicates Row 5, but as a wrong-side row. We've already graphed that bit of twisted thinking on Row 8, so adding it isn't a problem. Row 15 replicates Row 6, again we already did that flip on Row 9, so a simple cut and paste takes care if it, too.

Row 16 duplicates Row 7, which has its wrong-side counterpart originally on Row 6. Row 17 is another Row 8 in its right-side expression (Row 5). Row 18 is another Row 9 flipped for the wrong side (Row 6). If you place all of them on the chart, add the stitch key, grids, titles, and attributions you end up with this:



Now this may seem a long way to go for a short drink of water compared to Walker's original write-up. In this case, the prose description is only five lines long, but the chart takes up half a page. There's no bonus for brevity awarded for the charted format. But there is one major advantage to having this described in a graph. This chart is equally useful to people knitting in the flat and people knitting in the round, because all the right/wrong side transformations have been done.

People knitting in the round experience every row as a right-side row. To knit this reversible pattern entirely in the round, they'd cast on an even number of the stitch multiple (without the four blue extra stitches) then they'd follow every row starting at the right hand edge of the graph, and using the key symbols as interpreted in the "On Right-Side Rows" column. People knitting in the flat would follow the chart in the manner I described before, starting the odd numbered rows at the right edge, and the even numbered rows at the left, alternately using the appropriate columns from the accompanying symbol key.

Have fun with this one. Try out Porcupine Stitch in a swatch. You'll find the lacy effect is magnified if a larger needle than one would usually use for a given yarn is used. Lacy or dense, the result will be rather puffy. Given the appropriate yarn it would make nice two-sided scarves, shawls, or blankets. Stay tuned for more adventures in charting!

In a perfect world there would be an intuitive set of graphing symbols that would be quick and easy to understand. They'd cover all possible maneuvers in knitting, and would be useful in every circumstance. This is however, a total pipe dream. Knitting is near infinite, and knitters are fiendishly clever in the variant ways they have found to produce their desired results. There are a number of knitting techniques and stitches that pose special problems to charting:

Large numbers of stitches increased or decreased at the same time

When you see instructions like "make 5 in next stitch" you'll need to invent a symbol to handle it. I've seen German and Japanese charts that use a variant on something like this:



Decreasing a large number into one stitch would generate need for something similar, perhaps with the V upside down, and the number of stitches to be eaten indicated between its open toes.

Also unless you're dealing with an edging, it will probably be impossible to graph up a pattern containing massive group increases or decreases without using the no-stitch boxes we discussed yesterday. Still, these problems fall into the "inconvenient but not insurmountable" camp.

Bobble and bell-shaped semi-detached units

Some bobble and bell units are produced by knitting back and forth over a small number of stitches, to make a blister-like addition that's attached to the main work at top and bottom. Most chart authors treat this type of unit as a separate sub-process. The main chart may have a single box with a specified symbol in it, indicating where the unit is to be placed. The unit itself will be described either in prose, or in a "mini-chart" accompanying the main chart as a sidebar. Another "inconvenient but not fatal" challenge.

Patterns containing stitches either slipped from or knit into the row below

These can pose real charting problems, especially in linen stitch family textures where large numbers of stitches are worked "out of row." I've seen large V-shapes superimposed on the graph that are supposed to represent these distended stitches, but they are visually difficult to deal with. If there are lots of them, the clutter can be overwhelming, and some linen stitch or slip-stitch based patterns may be impossible to graph at all.

It is interesting to note that B. Walker used a special charting notation for her slip-stitch based mosaic colorwork. In that format each row of the chart represented two rows of knitting instead of the more conventional one row worked = one row charted ratio. She didn't try to show stitch deformation by the use of a symbol set, instead she stuck to two-color mosaic patterns that swapped colors every two rows. The squares on her charts indicate whether one is to form the next stitch by working with the current strand, or slipping the color of the previous two-row set up onto the needle.

Threaded stitches or stitches with right-side floats, or decorative wraps spanning one or more stitches

There are some patterns that form colorwork or texture patterning by using separate strands that are threaded back and forth through live stitches during knitting. Other patterns use as decorative elements floats or wraps of one or more stitches, deliberately formed on the right side of the work. These are both very difficult to represent in charts. I'd probably go with some sort of notation in the main chart that Effect #1 happens here, and accompany the chart with a separate detail write-up.

Novelty stitches

Some popular novelty stitches are near impossible to chart. Loop Stitch is a good example. That's the stitch used to make a surface completely covered in shag-rug style loops. The manipulations required to make the loops don't lend themselves to graphing, and beyond noting which stitches carry the loops in a piece that uses both adorned and unadorned areas for contrast, indicating their presence is of little value.

In spite of these exceptions, if a pattern contains just knits, purls, cables, simple increases and decreases - even twisted stitches - it can probably be graphed. The graph may be massive, but it can be done.

I've got only one nomination for a particularly vexing pattern to use in tomorrow's object lesson. If you're got one to suggest, please send me an eMail (replace the "AT" in the address with the standard @ sign).

We've covered basic charting, and charting variable width edgings. Now for panels and insertions. Those are patterns that can be used as accents in the main body of your piece. Sometimes they show up as single strip scarves, sometimes several repeats of the design are combined across to make an all-over design (occasionally fitted together with half-drop variations), sometimes a single panel is repeated to make a long stripe in combo with a stockinette ground, sometimes just one vertical repeat of the design is used as a spot accent, sometimes panels of different patterns show up side by side. What makes them different from edging patterns is that they can be embedded in the center of a piece, and that piece can be knit in the round.

These insertion style patterns can have either stable or variable stitch counts from row to row. One with a stable count (either no increases/decreases or an equal number of increases to decreases on every row where they occur) are graphed more or less the same way as the pattern in Charting 101. The ones with changing stitch counts do pose special problems.

Let's consider this simple variable count insertion. It's my own write up of a simple embossed leaf inside a framing K2, P2 rib:

Cast on 9
Row 1 (wrong side): P2, K5, P2
Row 2: K2, P2, (K,P,K in one stitch), P1, K2
Row 3: P2, K2, P3, K2, P2
Row 4: K2, P2, (K1, YO)2x, K1, P2, K2
Row 5: P2, K2, P5, K2, P2
Row 6: K2, P2, K2, YO, K1, YO, K2, P2, K2
Row 7: P2, K2, P7, K2, P2
Row 8: K2, P2, K3, YO, K1, YO, K3, P2, K2
Row 9: P2, K2, P9, K2, P2
Row 10: K2, P2, SSK, K5, K2tog, P2, K2
Row 11: P2, K2, P7, K2, P2
Row 12: K2, P2, SSK, K3, K2tog, P2, K2
Row 13: P2, K2, P5, K2, P2
Row 14: K2, P2, SSK, K1, K2tog, P2, K2
Row 15: P2, K2, P3, K2, P2
Row 16: K2, P2, K3tog, P2, K2

As you can see, the thing starts out being nine stitches across, but grows on row 9 to 17 stitches across.

How to chart? The symbol set is pretty straightforward. Each individual row poses no problems. For example, here's row 8:



If we normed one edge like we did with the edging patterns, we'd end up with this:



While all the info is there and this chart could be worked from, it's deceptive in that it looks like an edging. Plus one of charting's prime directives - representing knitting in a format that's visually akin to the finished product - has been fouled.

So. Let's look closer at this pattern, looking for obvious points of internal symmetry or reference. We quickly see that the thing IS symmetrical. There's a center stitch in every row. Let's stack our rows on the center stitch:



That's closer. You can begin to see the leaf shape in the center, but the wiggly edges are still a bit confusing. Here's another cut at the same basic concept. This time however, I've lined up not only the center stitch, but also the knit ribs that frame it:



Those gray areas? They don't exist. Flat out aren't there. They're the equivalent of the stage attendants dressed in all black who move props around in full view of the audience during a drama or puppet performance. You're not supposed to see them, even though they're in plain sight.

The grayed out areas are spacing mechanisms introduced for the sake of visual clarity in the rest of the pattern. They have no correlation to stitches in the actual knitted piece. Working from this chart, I'd skip right over the gray background. My first row would be P2, K5, P2, just as in the written directions. Now different authors represent non-charted "no stitch" or null spaces differently. I chose to use a general background shading, with no boxes marking individual stitches. Other people don't bother removing the box notation from the no-stitch spaces. On their charts the no-stitch boxes can be a bit harder to interpret.

How to know when to use mystery no-stitch boxes? Although it's a matter of personal preference, sometimes they're absolutely necessary because there just isn't room to graph out your piece unless they're in the mix. I could graph out my embossed leaf without the no-stitch areas, but if this leaf was part of a larger graph covering a wider area, the distortion introduced by the width of the longest row might ripple out and perturb the representation of design elements to either side. In that case, using the no-stitch boxes would keep my two edges parallel and let the leaf panel sit more comfortably in the total project chart. That in turn would help the knitter keep his or her place on the wider graph.

Tomorrow I'll look at patterns that are extremely hard (if not impossible) to chart out. The final piece in this series I'll build one chart for a lacy or complex cabled design that has presented a special challenge. Nominations for the final object lesson will be accepted. Please contact me off-list before Thursday night if you know of a prose texture pattern you'd like to suggest for group edification.

I'm delighted that people found yesterday's post useful. The most asked question though was TexAnne's original one - what does one do when stitch counts change from row to row?

The guiding principle here is clarity of illustration. You want your chart to reflect as closely as possible the visual appearance of the finished knitting. That might mean that you handle the problem differently depending on the general situation. An edging for example might be graphed up differently than a panel insertion.

Let's start with the basics - some different types of increases and decreases. They are after all the Evil Agents that perturb stitch count across rows.

Increases come in two flavors - visible and invisible. A visible increase is something like a yarn over. It's an increase that leaves an intentional eyelet hole in the piece. Invisible increases come in all sorts of flavors - some more invisible than others. Often an invisible increase is called a make one. Some people favor raised bar style increases, others do the knit into a stitch of the row below, and others go for the less invisible knit/purl into the same stitch (or k1 front, k1 back into the same stitch). Which method of invisible increase is used is up to the knitter, although the designer may suggest one that works particularly well for the project in hand. In general though, the two types of increase have different notations in charting. I favor a boxed circle for a visible increase and a boxed M for an invisible increase. I even go so far as to slap a bar across the M if I want to specifically call for an invisible increase that forms a purl stitch. Here are the symbols I use for some of the more common increases and decreases:



Apologies for the size of the illustrations today. I'm having an argument with the picture upload facility, and this is the best resolution that I can get working this morning. Although my symbols were inspired by B. Walker's and L. Stanfeld's two, apparently I stuck to industry standard practice, doing whatever the heck I felt like doing and coming up with my own set.

Now. How do you use these?

Let's start with a simple edging. Edgings generally have one straight edge where they attach to the thing being trimmed, and one that's dagged, pointed, crenelated, scalloped, picoted or otherwise fancified in some way. The fancy bits (I'll call them all points for simplicity of reference), are formed by increases and decreases. In some the decreases come as partially bound off rows. Here's a good example. This one is the edging I used on my Kombu scarf:

Cast on 4
Row 1, 3, 5 (wrong side) Knit
Row 2: K1, YO, K1, YO, K2
Row 4: K2, YO, K2tog, YO, K2
Row 6: K3, YO, K2tog, YO, K2
Row 7: Bind off 4, K3 (4 stitches remain)
Repeat rows 2-7

First off - assume that all edgings knit side to side are knit in the flat. The 'wrong side' notation confirms this. Row 7 starts with binding off and is a wrong side row. That means that if you hold the piece with the RIGHT side facing you, the straight edge will be on your right, and the ziggy-zaggy one will be on your left. Row 1 is not repeated, and appears to be just a foundation row. Armed with this orientation info, we begin charting rows 1 and 2.



Row one is a wrong-side row, so even though the directions say "knit" the stitches are plotted as purls (that chart = right side view thing). On row two we've got two yarn overs. They increase the total stitch count by two. We know that this is an edging. We know that the jagged edge will be on the left when viewed from the right side. Therefore I have chosen to make the stitches line up along the right hand edge. Here's a proofing trick. There are no decreases in this row, therefore number of stitches in this row EXCLUSIVE of the yarn overs should be equal to the number of stitches in the row below. 4=4, we're o.k. Let's continue:



Row 4 contains two yarn overs, but the total stitch count is increased by only one block. That's because it also contains a K2tog (stitch count +2yos -1k2tog = stitch count +1, not +2.) Row 5 is just another all knit row. Proofing stitch counts vis a vis the previous row can be done by counting the number of plain knits, plus two for every K2tog or SSK decrease. In this case we've got 6=6. It works.

Row 6 and 7 get interesting. There is no uniformly acknowledged (or obvious) symbol for binding off, therefore charts that contain bound off stitches often use a text notation to indicate what's going on. Also remember if you bind off stitches you end up with one remaining loop on the needle:



Again Row 6 increases total stitch count by only one (two steps forward, one step back covers the YOs and the decrease). Row 7 includes the instruction to bind off four stitches, BUT there's a visual discrepancy between the chart and the written directions. The chart says BO4, K3. The chart shows four stitches. That's because one of those is the loop that remains after you've bound off the four stitches at the beginning of Row 7. You have that loop on the needle, then you knit the remaining three stitches, for a total of four stitches on the needle. I've also shaded out Row #1. Just like the edge stitches in yesterday's illustration, this indicates that Row 1 is not part of the regular repeat. It's a foundation row worked at the start of the edging strip, and not repeated thereafter.

As you can see, simple edgings are relatively easy bits of lace to graph. Stitch counts do vary from row to row, but because they have a stable edge, those extra stitches have someplace to go, visually. Having built this foundation of basic concepts, tomorrow we'll do a panel pattern that doesn't have the luxury of a free edge, and introduce The Stitch That Isn't There bugbear.

TexAnne eMailed a question that sends me off on a tangent. She'd like to know more about how to take a set of prose directions from a source like one of Barbara Walker's stitch treasuries and turn them into a chart. In specific, she'd like to know about how to handle things like double yarn overs, and stitch counts that vary from row to row. These are excellent questions. Since not everyone can leap right in at the graphing lace level, I'll start with simple charting and work up to the harder bits later in the week.

To start, transforming prose to charted directions is easier than some people think. Tools include some sort of mechanism on which to do the chart. I ping-pong back and forth between good old pencil and paper, and Microsoft Visio. Visio is an expensive Windows drafting/drawing program that I have on hand, mostly because I use it when I work as a consultant. There are other solutions out there, ranging from forcing spreadsheets to handle the function, to dedicated knitting programs. But don't despair if you have access to no computerized tool for charting. Plain old 1/4 inch quadrille paper (the Junior High School geometry teacher's friend), a friendly pencil and forgiving eraser work just fine. Principles of conversion remain the same regardless of tool used.

Let's start out with some basics. Charts are read from the bottom up. In most cases (but by no means always) there is a one to one correspondence between a stitch in the work and a box on the graph.

Charts represent the work as seen from the public or right side. As such, if you're working flat, you need to remember that the same symbol that represented a knit stitch on your right side row will represent a purl stitch on your wrong side row. (If you're unsure of this basic binary truth, go grab something with both knits and purls on the same row, like a swatch in ribbing, and use a pin to poke through a single stitch, then identify it on both sides of the work).

Two more basic truths of charts:

1. Almost every author or chart source has a unique symbol set. Some are similar, but none are absolutely identical.
2. Not everything can be completely charted

Oh, chart purists will argue about #2, but there ARE some patterns that just don't lend themselves well to charted expression.

Let's start with an easy one. Here's a recipe for a simple basket rib done in all knits and purls. Stitch counts remain constant from row to row. The source is Barbara Walker's Treasury of Knitting Patterns, Scribners, 1968;? page 17 (see footnote below).

Multiple of 4 stitches + 1
Row 1: (right side) K1 , *p1, k1; rep from *
Row 2: K2, *p1, k3; rep from *, end p1, k2.
Row 3: P2, *k1, p3; rep from *, end k1, p2
Row 4: P1, *k1, p1: rep from *
Row 5: K1, *p3, k1; rep from *
Row 6: P1, *k3, p1; rep from *

Now to chart this out, we examine the instructions. It's pretty clear that there will be an edge stitch. The "Multiple of 4 stitches + 1" says so. So let's start with Row 1. The stitches will read exactly as written, in the direction of the work. That means that the first stitch will be at the right hand edge of our chart. Since the directions call for a multiple of 4, +1, let's start off with an auspicious 13 stitches - that's three repeats. plus that one spare:



All well and good. In my twisted logic, a blank square is a knit, a square with a dash in it is a purl. Not everyone uses this notation. Some people use a square with a vertical line in it to represent a knit, and a horizontal to show a purl. Some people use a dot to indicate a purl. There's never been any international standardization of knit symbols, so use what's comfortable to you.

If you follow the charts that I've put up here and on wiseNeedle, you'll notice that I like to keep tabs of how many stitches are across my row by using a red rule every five stitches. When I chart out a big pattern, I set up a large red grid first and then populate it, but here I'll add in the red lines and row numbers as I need them. Again, this is a matter of personal preference. Set your rules 4, 5, or 10 stitches apart, or don't use any at all. It's up to you.

Now to add Row #2. The original prose instructions were written for someone knitting in the flat. In general unless you have absolute evidence to the contrary from any accompanying text, assume that prose instructions are written in the flat. This means that WHEN SEEN FROM THE FRONT OF THE WORK, the second row will commence at the left hand edge of the graph. A clue on this pattern is the notation "(Right side)". In a piece knit in the round EVERY row is a right side row, so this piece must have a wrong side row - hence it is knit in the flat. Yes I know this is confusing, because you always work in the same direction, but remember that if you were knitting in the flat, you'd have flipped the work over to go back.



Aha! A second complication! The prose instructions start off with K2, p1, but the chart shows p2, k1! Don't panic. Remember, we're on the second row - a wrong side (aka purl side or inside) row. The "2" is at the left edge to remind us of that fact. Those first two wrong-side knit stitches WHEN SEEN FROM THE FRONT are purls. That's the way they are graphed. If your head is starting to hurt, just contemplate that while this is a mind-stretching exercise, mental gymnastics like this have been shown to delay brain aging.

Adding Row #3 makes which stitches compose the 4-stitch repeat more clear:


In adding Row #4, I've moved to a more conventional method of shading. Most charts that show edge stitches do so by shading them. Here it's clear that there are three repeats, plus one column of edge stitches (to be fair, I could designate either the first or last column as my edge, as in this simple pattern with a one-stitch edge, it doesn't matter which column serves that purpose.)



In prose it's not immediately evident where the actual repeat falls, and what parts of the directions cover the non-repeating edge stitches. This is one reason why I prefer working from charts.

Since we've covered the basics, I'll quickly add the last two rows. Graphed out, not only do we see where the repeats are, we also see that a basketweave pattern is formed by a half-drop. Rows 1-3 and 4-6 contain the same basic unit, but in rows 4-6 it's advanced by two stitches. I've marked the same basic unit in yellow on rows 1-3, and in orange on rows 4-6.



The simple nature of this repeat and the symmetry that builds it into a basket weave pattern are difficult to discern by just reading the prose instructions, but in a chart, the logic stands out.

Now, knitters working both in the round and in the flat can use this same chart. People knitting in the flat would cast on a multiple of 4 stitches plus 1. Then they would start at the bottom right corner and work across Row 1, then they'd flip the work over and start the next row at the "2" - taking care to do the mental flip; and so on. People knitting in the round would cast on an even multiple of 4 stitches, and starting AFTER the blue edge stitch, would work across Row 1 as many times as needed - skipping the blue stitches, eventually returning to the point where their round commences. They'd then start to work Row 2, again working from the chart's right hand edge and skipping the blue edge stitch whenever it was encountered.

So you see - translating a pattern into a chart isn't that tough. This particular texture is an easy one. It's all knits and purls, with no increases or decreases. There are no variant stitch counts. Every row has the same number of stitches. There are no slipped or dropped stitches, no wraps or other bits of oddness.

In Charting 102, we'll look at the mystery that is The Stitch That Isn't There. I'll go over patterns with increases and decreases, and what happens when the stitch count changes. TexAnne, I hope this helps.


* My quotation of B. Walker's directions, verbatim. Normally I don't do this. If I use a pattern that's in a stitch treasury, I try to alter it a bit. I start at a different place in the repeat, center the repeat differently, chart it where it was in prose before, or rechart it starting at a different point. I do this because while no one person owns copyright on a knitting texture pattern, they do own copyright on the way they have expressed that pattern. This is analogous to recipes. No one owns the concept of "apple pie," but thousands of authors each own their individual description of what goes into one, and how to make it.

In this case however, quoting Walker verbatim falls within the bounds of fair use. I've given the citation, crediting the original author. The quotation is there because the premise of this piece is how to take a standard set of well-known prose instructions and turn it into a chart.

Some random questions popped into my inbox this week. I try to answer:

You said you knit a lot of socks, and the colorful bits on the booties are leftovers. Leftovers from what? What are your favorite sock yarns?

I like the Euro-style classic finish hard twist wool/nylon blend sock yarns best (I don't care for either wearing or knitting cotton socks). My short list includes Socka/Fortissima, Regia, Meilenweit, and the like. I'm slightly less fond of Reynold's sock yarns, finding them a bit coarser than I like. I knit with Opal once, the yarn's texture was nice and the colors were interesting, but not so much that I'd pay a premium to find more. I've also tried Kroy 4 ply (aka Kroy Sock), Special Blauband, and Brown Sheep Wildfoote. I'm not as fond of those. Brown Sheep is too thin, splitty and flabby. Special Blauband is also thin compared to my usual (their Blauband Ringel yarns though are more comparable to the Socka type). Kroy is a bit less densely spun than the Euro yarns, but it's economical and is stocked in solid colors. Once it was difficult to find multicolor sock yarn, now it's tough to find solids. I use solids for contrast, so I was very happy to find Kroy.

I've also tried some of the higher priced yarns, like Koigu and Lorna's Laces. In truth, though the Koigu colors were fantastic, I was less pleased with its performance in a sock than most. I found it too thick to make socks I can wear in most of my shoes, plus even under careful hand-wash, I found it fuzzed and lost that surface sheen that makes the colors pop. The socks are wearing well, but they've lost that special something that the yarn had in the skein. I'd use Koigu again in a heartbeat - but not for socks. The Lorna's Laces yarn was a bit loftier than my usual hard twist stuff, but worked up nicely. It's wearing quite well.

I've also tried a salad of other sock yarns - Alpine, Marathon, Happy Strumpf, Trekking - whatever wandered into my local yarn store that looked interesting. While all made suitable socks, none stood out as things I'd want to seek out for repeat use. Alpine was a Euro style yarn - good texture, boring colors; the others were heavier than I prefer.

I haven't tried the less expensive sock yarns from KnitPicks or Elann. I tend not to buy yarn via the Web if I can get the equivalent locally, and I live in a very sock yarn rich region. (Actually touching yarn before I buy it is a requirement.)

The links above just go to one representative of larger, similarly named sock lines. If you need more info on sock yarns, try wiseNeedle. Go to the search page and look up a sock yarn by name, or select "sock" from the drop down list of yarn types. About 135 are currently listed - 85% with at least one review. You can also find a chart showing some repeat lengths of common sock yarn self stripers here.

Still working on the scarf?



I like it better when you write about little stuff. The big projects are boring. What little stuff are you planning?

Unfortunately, I don't plan my knitting to fuel this blog. I knit wherever I want to wander, and the blog gets pulled along behind. That being said, I have to finish this latest crop of booties plus the Harvey Kombu, then rescue Elder Daughter's Rogue before returning to my large blanket. Plus the holidays are coming. I've promised a ton of socks, plus there are some other special gifts that I really should make. You'll see quite a few quickies over the coming two months, I guarantee.

Late breaking addition:? Ooooh. Mittens!? Haven't done full patterend mittens yet. Thank you , Wendy!

There must be something in the water (please excuse me for not drinking).

I find myself knitting booties for a flood of the newly expecting. So many in fact that over the past two weeks, for the sake of fun I've taken to playing with ankle part after the eyelet holes for the drawstring style bow.



This bootie is a combo of Dale Baby Ull and tiny leftovers from three candy color different self-striping sock yarns. Like I wrote before, just a yard is enough to do a stripe, so I save every scrap.

You could argue that my petaled bootie isn't entirely successful, that the top round of contrasting welting should be deeper, and that I should have worked a round in white before launching into the crown-like points at the top. But hey - these booties are the knitting equivalent of potato chips - quick snacks tossed off in between more substantial meals. However they are excellent for playing with some basic concepts before risking those ideas on a larger piece.

In this case, I looked at the thing (shown above before the bow tie is inserted), and thought that I'd like a pointy finish. I didn't want it elaborate or deep, and was too lazy to haul myself over to my bookshelf and dig through my collection of stitch pattern books. It being a no-brain night, I decided to improvise on the fly and do a no-brain edging knit onto the live stitches of my bootie ankle to eliminate seaming (a pain on something so small.)

These booties finish out with 40 stitches - 10 on each of four needles. 40 is a good number, it's an even multiple of 4 or 5, so an edging worked on 40 live stitches can have a 4 or 5 stitch repeat. For no reason whatsoever, I picked 5.

I cast two stitches onto a DPN, and knit one, then did a yarn over and worked the second together with the first stitch of my bootie ankle using a SSK. On the second bootie-out and all subsequent bootie-out rows, I flipped the thing over and knit back to the outer edge. On the next and edge-in subsequent rows, I knit until just before the last stitch, finishing out the row with a YO, SSK incorporating one stitch from the bootie ankle. After I'd "eaten" up four stitches of the bootie ankle and was ready for the fifth edge in row, I bound off until I had one stitch on the right hand needle and one stitch on the left. This last stitch I worked together with the fifth bootie ankle stitch. Voila!? A very simple 10-row petal edging custom-matched to the stitch count of the piece being trimmed. I did seven more points (eight in all - two per bootie ankle needle) and grafted the last two stitches to the cast on row. Bootie done, and neither seaming nor casting off was required.

Neither knitting an edging onto live stitches nor creating a very simple edging in this manner are new ideas, but both evoke a bit of "How did you do that" when seen outside of lace knitting circles.

I would improve this a bit were I to do it again. Instead of each point "eating" five ankle stitches and taking 10 rows to complete, I'd cheat a bit. I'd do an 8-row repeat, working my bind off on the fourth edge in row instead of the fifth, BUT instead of working a SSK with one edging stitch and one bootie stitch to conclude the bind-off row, I'd work a SSSK, fusing together one edging stitch and TWO bootie ankle stitches. In effect, I'd be working an 8-row repeat attached to five ankle stitches. This will draw in just a bit and counter the tendency for the edging to stretch the live stitches, and be wider than the tube of the item it completes. Most lace projects that? are ended off with an edging knit perpendicular to the body and don't exploit this natural tendency to ruffle do vary the stitch attachment count in a ratio closer to 3:2 than 1:1.

So, the next time you do a top-down hat, a tubular iPod case, or even a toe-up sock, think of finishing it off with a bunch of slightly silly, fluttery petals instead of the standard bind-off row. Or if you feel really ambitious - thumb through the lace edging section of your stitch dictionary, pick one with an appropriate row count and try it out out to put a crowning touch on your piece.

I'm still sweeping out mental cobwebs, occupying my fingers with interim quickie projects. Saturday's was another pair of booties, in the bootie pattern I've blogged about before:



This pair is in lime green Dale Baby Ull, and the leftover of some tweed sock yarn long since separated from its label of origin. It just takes a couple of yards to do one of the purl welts. I've worked them in contrast (as shown here), even working each welt in a different color yarn. Sometimes I do the ties in the same color as the contrast, sometimes not. It all depends on how much I've got. This is why I never throw away sock yarn leftovers. The smallest bit is enough to accent a pair of these booties.

I'm still repacking my stash after our near escape from a basement flood. In doing so I'm running across all sorts of goodies I had forgotten about. In the same box as my Kureopatora leftovers, I found about seven or eight balls of Harvey. Lang Harvey was a wool blend salad with a boucl? finish - 40% wool, 32% acrylic, 15% polyamide nylon, 10% alpaca, and 3% viscose. I'm pretty sure I scavenged it from a bargain bin at a (long gone) yarn shop I used to frequent in College Park, Maryland. And I'm also pretty sure that I bought it circa 1990 or so. Possibly earlier, so the chance of anyone finding more outside their own stash is slim to none. The original intent was to make a vest, but although I liked the yarn I didn't like the way it worked with my chosen pattern, so I stashed it.

What's boucl? you ask? It's a style of yarn that has fallen out of favor. You don't see that many of them around any more, the textured yarn niche having been consumed entirely by the fluttery fur monster.

Boucl?s have an airy hand. If you think of classic finish multi-strand yarns (like Cascade 220) as dense cream cheese, boucl?s would be the whipped variety. Unlike chenille where the fluffiness is made by little strands that are bound by some kind of "keeper thread," boucl?s have no fuzz to come unbound. The yarn's structure is of one or more two-ply strands. One ply is relatively taught, usually a very fine nylon thread. The other ply is looser spun, almost slubby, and is under far less tension. The looser strand is sort of gathered and lumped around the nylon base thread, resulting in something that has more loft and that has higher yardage per unit weight.

Here's Harvey:



Harvey has two two-ply strands. You can see how nubbly and slubby it looks. While it reminds me in color and visual appearance of the iron-upholstered sofa in my grandmother's apartment (the one that would sand your thighs off if you sat on it while wearing a skirt in the summer), it is in fact an exceptionally luxurious feeling, soft and easy to wear yarn.

Some boucl?s are even more fluffy or bumpy than this. Some have a loopy construction (I'm not sure at what exact point something stops being a boucl? and becomes - for example - a mohair loop, but I'm sure one of the spinning folk who read here will enlighten us.)?? My Harvey is marked at worsted gauge (20 st x 34 rows = 4 inches or 10cm) . It's about 126 meters or about 138 yards. A classic worsted like Cascade 220 is about 110 yards for 50 grams. Even taking the fiber salad composition of Harvey into consideration, 28 yards in 50 grams is a major difference in yardage.

Now. How does Harvey knit up??

The first time I tried it out I was disappointed, but I had picked a pattern for which it wasn't suited at all. I tried it out using a knit/purl texture pattern that was totally eaten by the yarn's texture and dark color. While it isn't optimal for showing detail on something like my Kombu, I thought it might be fun to try out in that pattern:



Again, the ribbed detail is partially obscured, although it shows up better in person than it does in a photo. But the softness and drape can't be topped. I'll be finishing out my Harvey Kombu and stowing it for the upcoming gift season. I'll probably have enough to do a matching hat, too.

Oh, and for an exceptional Kombu that really shows off the pattern's texture better than my own attempts at both knitting and photography (and not to mention her superior execution of the idea) check out Kerstin's Strickforum. Beautiful!