Computer failure at this end. Please bear with me. I'll return to offering up tangled knitting thoughts ASAP.

A person left a comment on one of the counterpane pages here, asking for help identifying the technique or stitches used in blanket she owns. She neglected to leave an eMail address. I'd be interested in seeing a photo and possibly posting it here for discussion, but without contact info not much can be done.

Yes, in the midst of all the charting stuff I was knitting. I finished up the Harvey Kombu, and I did a pair of plain toe-up socks from Lana Gross Meilenweit. I'm not sure which color variety it is, as I lost the label in an airport. It's not Fantasy, the repeat is too short. It' s not Multieffect, or any of the MultiRingel colors, either. It's possible it was part of last winter's Jacquard color crop.



You'll notice ends dangling off both pieces. I really can't say why I do this (perhaps it's a personal superstition, perhaps it's a reminder not to use the item myself), but when I make gifts in advance, I don't darn in the final ends until I have decided whom the recipient will be. I'm not quite sure who will be receiving these, so the ends are still there. Go figure.

The socks were done on US #0s (2mm) needles - 72 stitches around. That makes them rather large in gauge for me. I used the standard figure-8 toe and short-row heel I use in all the sock patterns on the wiseNeedle pattern page. Nothing fancy here, just miles and miles of plain old stockinette, finished off with a K2P2 ribbing at the top. The pattern for the Kombu scarf is also there. In this case, I used a US #6 (4mm), and used just under two full balls of my ancient stash-aged Lang Harvey yarn.

Finally, one other person asked about how I construct my charts. As I've described at length before, I use Microsoft Visio. I'm sharing my Visio stencils. If you've tried graphing knitting or stitching patterns using them and have feedback or questions, please let me know.

To recover from the charting series, I present tiny mental vacation in the past. 1972 to be exact. That was the year I embroidered this jacket.



It was well before The Warner Brothers Store and WB characters being available on licensed merchandise. I drew my Roadrunner freehand from cartoons on TV. As you can see by the variant color (the official Roadrunner is blue), my Looney Tunes years were spent in front of a black and white TV.

I had a lot of embroidered clothing back then - a pair of jeans with large phoenix that wound up one leg, starting in flames at the cuff and finishing with a peacock-frilled head on the hip pocket; a blue workshirt covered with wildflowers copied from herbals; and a denim vest done in Shisha mirrorwork. Except for the denim jacket all are long gone, sold while I was in college to pay for books. You might have seen the other pieces if you wandered past the window of the Red Dog second hand clothing boutique in Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA, sometime between '75 and '78 (back when the Square was more edgy and gritty than it is in its current Urban Redevelopment/Mall of America glory). I've always wondered who bought my pieces.



My Roadrunner is done in plain old 6-strand cotton floss, mostly in chain stitch. The two-tone tail happened when the store that sold Coats & Clarks embroidery thread dropped it in favor of the DMC line. I ran out of my original stock and had to do the closest color match I could. You can barely make out the blue sig block below the front foot. When I stitched this, the denim ground was the same color blue as that block.

Elder Daughter wears this now (fraying and all), and would kill for the other pieces. They may be long gone, probably discarded from the homes of others, but I still have some of the Medieval history textbooks they funded.

Here's the last item in the chart series. Thank you for all the kind words. I'm delighted that people are finding this useful.

I have gotten some questions about why I am not using the standard Japanese symbol set. That set is quite broad compared to most of the sets in Western books. My answer is that it's relatively unknown in the US and Europe. Perhaps I'll add a symbol glossary that equates its symbols to notations used by other more commonly available sources. That's a big project though, and might be better suited for wiseNeedle than for this blog.

Barbara Walker's Starlight Lace, Second Treasury of Knitting Patterns, p.288

I will use this last Walker pattern to show some more complications to charting life. This time, the pattern's stitch count varies in a couple of rows, plus there is a large number of edge stitches. My method is to graph out everything verbatim row to row, then (if needed) introduce no-stitch boxes for clarity. Again, all quotations from Walker are in bold. Here goes...

Multiple of 6 st plus 5
Row 1 (wrong side): and all other wrong-side rows - Purl.
Row 2: K2 *yo, ssk, k1, yo, ssk, k1-b; rep from *; end yo, ssk, k1.

The repeat is only 6 stitches, but I think I'll chart out three repeats plus edge stitches. That should give me enough room to see the play of the edge stitches, and the staggered effect of the offset design itself. Row 1 is plain old purl, but it's a wrong side row, so it graphs out as shown below, with the "1" on the left hand edge rather than the right hand edge. Remember, I'm just graphing verbatim at this point. I'm making no effort to read ahead. I just want to get the stitches down on my chart.


We've got 23 stitches [(6x3) + 5]. Note that the k1-b (knit one stitch through the back of the loop to twist it) has its own symbol. All wrong side rows in this pattern are plain - worked as purls if the thing is knit flat, and as knits if it's worked in the round.

Digression: Most modern texture patterns alternate rows with something happening on them (cable crossings, decreases, increases, etc.) with plain rows, and many pattern authors don't bother graphing the alternate rows if they're all plain. This can cause a bit of confusion. I got tripped up recently by Hazel Carter's Spider Queen shawl. It's a masterful bit of charting, but the first chart is stripped of those plain wrong-side rows. The later charts include them. I wasn't paying attention, and didn't notice that the numbering on that first chart labeled every row, but counted by twos. I ended up having to rip back a bit when I noticed that my piece didn't looklike the project photo. So be warned. Look at the numbering. If it begins with "1" on the left, and you're knitting flat you start off with a wrong-side row. If the "1" is on the right and you're knitting flat, you start off with a right-side row. If every other number is missing, you've got a pattern with the plain rows left out. Look elsewhere in the write-up to find out if those plain rows are to be knit or purled.

I'll skip writing up the plain rows, but I will include them in my growing graph:

Row 4: K3, *k2tog, yo, k1-b, yo, ssk, k1-b, rep from *; end k2


Again, no problems here. Everything graphs out nicely and stitch count is constant. There are equal numbers of stitches increased (the yos) and stitches decreased (the ssks and k2togs).

Sometimes if I'm having problems with a repeat, even if it's charted, I'll grab a piece of graph paper and draw out my stitches. Sometimes I catch an error in my knitting using my pencil that went totally unnoticed on my needles.

Row 6: k2, k2tog * yo, sl2-k1-p2sso, yo, sl1-k2tog-psso; rep from * end yo, sl2-k1-p2sso, yo ssk, k2.

This is where that "off to hell in a handbasket" feeling begins to creep in. We've got double decreases, both with the rightmost leg on top (sl1-k2tog-psso), and with the centermost stitch on top (sl2-k1-p2sso). We've also got a number of yarn overs, and just for fun - a couple of plain old decreases, and an unknown number of times to do the ** repeat between the k2, k2tog opening unit, and the end yo, sl2-k1-p2sso, yo, ssk, k2 closing unit.

To figure this out, we need to remember that we've got 23 base stitches on the previous row. That's 23 stitches to play with. All of the plain knits plus the stitches in the decreases on Row 6 must add up to 23. Let's look at the math:

• One ** repeat on this row adds up to six stitches (the two double decreases).
• The pre-** opening row unit is four stitches (k2 plus one k2tog)
• The after-** closing row unit is seven stitches (one double decrease plus one ssk and k2)

If you add up our fixed numbers (the pre- and post-** stitches) you get 11 stitches. The previous row contained 23, and we subtract those 11 from the total. We get 12, which (serendipity) is a multiple of our ** unit. We graph out the pre-* stitches (shown in blue) plus two repeats of the ** unit, followed by the post-** unit (also shown in blue.


We're out of that handbasket, even though our graph is showing a very short row. Not to worry. Going through and counting stitches confirms that we've got the correct number here. We'll worry about neatening everything up and inserting those no-stitch boxes after we get all the rows charted. So let's move on.

Row 8: K3, *k1-b, yo, k1, yo, k1-b, k1; rep from*, end k2.
This row is also problematic. How many times to repeat the stuff between the **s? Again , stitch count comes to our rescue. Evil Row 6 brought the stitch count down to 17. Row 7 (worked plain) preserved that count. Now on Row 8, there are increases, and "as-is" stitches but no decreases. There should be 17 stitches on this row EXCLUSIVE of the YOs. Again we do the math. We start with 17 stitches, then account for the three before the *, and the 2 after - that's 12 stitches left. NOT counting YOs, each between the ** repeat contains 4 stitches. We need to graph out three iterations of the stuff between the **s. Happily once we graph in these instructions (including the 6 YOs) that restores us to the original stitch count of 23.



Remember, we're not worrying about lining stitches up right now, our only concern is getting the correct number of them on the chart. We'll think about how to represent those low-count rows 6 and 7 later.

Row 10: K2, *yo, ssk, k1-b, yo, ssk,k1; rep from * end yo, ssk, k1
We're back to a stable stitch count, with the same number of increases and decreases per row. Graphing it up is easy. I notice something here though:



See those two blue units? They're identical. It looks like this pattern is formed by an exact duplicate of rows 1-6, offset by three stitches (one half of the repeat). While you can see it (sort of) in the prose directions, the duplication leaps out in the charted ones. I find this sort of half-drop duplication and charting makes the pattern really easy to memorize. More on this later, after we've charted some more rows.

Row 12: *K2tog, yo, k1-b, yo, ssk, k1-b; rep from *, end k2 tog, yo, k1-b, yo, ssk.
Again this looks veeerrrryyyy familiar! I've highlighted the repeat (in fact I just cut and pasted those boxes).



Row 14: K1, *yo, sl2-k1-p2sso, yo, sl1-k2tog-psso; rep from *, end yo, sl2-k1-p2sso, yo, k1.
Remember Evil Row 6, with all those double decreases? It's back! Offset three stitches, but otherwise the same. We start with 23 stitches on the previous row, then subtract the 1 before the **, and the 4 after the **, leaving 18 stitches - so we do the 6-stitch bit between the **s three times.



Row 16: K1, k1-b, *k1, yo, k1-b, k1, k1-b, yo; rep from * end k1, k1-b, k1.
Just like row 8, offset again by three stitches. Again we've got 17 stitches on the previous row to account for. Not counting the YOs, we've got 2 stitches before and 3 stitches after the ** accounted for, leaving 12 - so we do the 4-stitch ** unit three times. One you add in the YOs, we're back up to to the 23 stitches of our original count.



Now to add the finishing touches. It looks like each of the decrease units on Rows 6 and 14 visually caps off the clusters of decreases on the rows below. So I'll spread them out across the row, adding in my no-stitch boxes as best I can to maximize the read of the pattern compared to the photo of the worked swatch.

I'll also add in my stitch key, header and footer info at this point. Remember that there are NO increases or decreases on alternate rows. Therefore I don't need to include that second column of "if it's a right-side/wrong-side row" instructions that I had to include in yesterday's write-up.

One final note, there is one small bit of strangeness here. Because of the way that the repeat works out, and the way that edge stitches are handled, the last decrease on Row 6 is handled differently if it is the final stitch of an "inside repeat" or if it is the final stitch of the last repeat on the row. Since this isn't easy to graph, I've added a special note about it, and made it blue on the chart.



The memorization thing?? This pattern looks complicated at first glance. Especially if you just look at the prose directions. However it's not that tough. There are only four substantive rows - 2, 4, 6, and 8. The entire pattern repeat is only six stitches wide. Everything else is a repeat, either straight on the same row, or (in the case of rows 10-16) offset by three stitches (one half the width of the repeat). ? I can't remember the prose directions verbatim, but I can and do memorize the pattern in its visual representation. Not everyone can memorize a nonverbal visual representation (and it's no shame not to have that bit of wiring) but many people can, and have surprised themselves by being able to do so after becoming comfortable with charts.

This concludes my mini-series on graphing - how to read them, how to build them, and how to solve common problems translating prose directions to charts. Please feel free to post additional questions about graphing and reinterpreting prose instructions as charts, but please know I will not be offering a graphing service here. My goal is to show others how to do it for themselves, not do it for them.

One last tech note - the visual presentation of the charts changes mid-way through this note because I experienced a massive computer failure. I ended up finishing this post on a different machine using a different version of MS Visio. The later version has a slightly different GIF translator than the earlier version I normally use. So it's not your monitor - it's me. Apologies for the visual confusion.

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.