Thank you to the two people who wrote in to report errors on wiseNeedle and String-or-Nothing associated with our port and update. We're fixing them as fast as we can. If you find bugs or strange behaviors, please send them in. I have also processed in the backlog of yarn reviews and queries that were stuck among junk entries in a gigantic queue of spam posts. My sincere apologies if you have been waiting to see a query or yarn review appear. After noting that we received over 100 ads for questionable products on just one single night you can bet that we're working on the spam prevention problem, too.

Next steps include catching up with reposting the last few String notes from July and August on Blog-City to the new String over here; beginning to answer the huge pile of backlogged questions on the Advice Board; putting basic structure into the Wiki; and getting as many of this season's yarns' basic data into wiseNeedle as I can. In my copious free time of course.

Oh. And knitting. I'm happy to report that the latest Red Doily progresses apace. My edging now marches three quarters of the way around the piece. There's no point in taking an additional picture yet. It looks pretty much the same as it has. I promise pix when the thing is done. As ever, your patience is greatly appreciated.

[Repost of materail originally appearing on 12 June 2006]

We've looked at taking a pattern that's been written for circular knitting and parsing it out for knitting in the flat. That's pretty easy, as most items knit in the round are not drafted with much complex shaping. Texture designs and colorwork do impose limitations, as does some shaping. In most cases it's a matter of identifying seamlines, then doing the math to apportion the existing stitches into pieces defined by those seams.

Going the other way is harder, mostly because of the range of complexity of shape that can be accommodated by knitting in the flat. In general, the simpler the shape, the easier a piece is to translate. Drop shoulder sweaters with backs and fronts that are nearly identical are a cinch. Stuff with waist shaping, darts, princess style seaming, or other tailoring presents special challenges. But in spite of shaping most things can be knit either whole or in part using circular technique.

Starting with something simple, the Spring '06 edition of Knitty contains Jamesey, a pattern by Mary Neal Meador. It's a nicely patterned simple men's pullover, worked flat in knit/purl combos. There's minimal shaping, and the texture pattern with no row count abberations or increases and decreases is easy to translate for in the round knitting. There's one tiny bit in her Sideways Stitch description that bears paying special attention.

To work Jamesey in the round, I'd add the total stitches front and back. I would NOT modify the pattern to substitue a full pattern repeat for theextra non-pattern-repeat stitches at the leftmost and rightmost sides of the front and back unless I were very ambitious. Doing so is a refinement to be sure, but one that's totally optional. Unless the piece was intended to be very fitted or the gauge was large, I wouldn't eliminate any stitches on the sides that in a sewn piece would be eaten up by seam allowance. BUT if I felt that four extra stitches of width at my gauge WOULD make a noticeable difference in fit, I'd take the time to refigure the stitch counts without them (remember that this would have to be done all the way around the piece, on the body and sleeves both).

In general, first I'd begin reading the pattern and noodling out how to deal with it's tougher parts. This sounds like a dumb thing to say, but I know lots of people who knit with the "headfirst off the pier" approach. They grab needles and yarn and start in without taking the time to work through the piece mentally and to make sure they understand it. While this step can be less intensive if you're knitting something verbatim as written, if you're translating between flat and circular knitting not taking the time to really understand the original can be fatal to your project. I'd also point out that if you are knitter who rarely reads ahead, you are far more trusting than I. I've found lots of patterns that were poorly written or confusing. At the very least, knowing ahead of time that rocks are in the stream makes the the rapids less of a surprise.

In this case I'd begin by casting on the stitches for the front, placing a marker, casting on the stitches for the back and working the pattern as written up to the tricky Sideways Stitch rows. I'd work the front to the marker, then the back to the second marker. Every row will be a right-side row, so the texture pattern - conveniently graphed out - would be very simple to follow. The piece would grow as a single tube until the Sideways Stitch rows.

Those rows are written up for back and forth knitting, and need a bit of examination to translate them. Round 1 is pretty easy - it amounts to working the pattern as described, but laying the stitches so that their front legs are in the back of the needle. This twists them. (If you're unfamiliar with stitch mounting, you can pop over here.) The second row requires the knitter to work backwards the way he or she has come. In the case of knitting in the round, it would be simplest to turn the tube inside out and accomplish the directions as written, knitting counterclockwise around the piece until the starting marker was reached. BUT just before I'd do so, I'd wrap what would have been the next stitch if I were to have continued around normally. Wrapping this stitch, then when it is encountered later, working it along with its wrap will help prevent a little hole from forming. Once I'd done the second round of the sideways stitch, I'd flip my tube back out so that the public side was on the outside of the thing, then continue with the third row of the Sideways Stitch pattern.

Having accomplished the tricky bit, I'd return to plain old knitting in the round until I had gotten to the point where the sleeve would eventually be set. That point isn't marked on the schematics, but it's pretty simple to figure out in a drop shoulder piece. I'd take the measurement across the top of th the pattern's flat-knit sleeve and divide it in half. Then I'd subtract that from the height of the body. When I'd reached the point where the bottom of the sleeve was to be sewn on, I'd have a choice. The easiest way to finish off would be to split the piece front and back, and finish each piece knit flat on the circ, using a separate ball of yarn for each one. However this is a return to knitting in the flat. For some people it might smack of defeat. Others have very different gauges when they knit in the flat - enough to make a visible horizon across the sweater.

The alternative is to steek. Remember the markers indicating the "seam lines" dividing the front and back stitches? I'd work up to one, cast on three or four stitches, then continue around to the other and repeat the procedure. This will add a couple of stitches left and right to the sleeve area. The body will be just a bit wider at this point, with the extra width being clear to spot. I'd work the extra in plain stockinette. I'd continue to finish out the body, perhaps following the simple neckline shaping directions verbatim (with the introduction of that second ball again); or perhaps knitting straight across that area in anticipation of forming the shape by machine stitching and cutting later. (We'll get back to steeking in a bit).

Sleeves are easy in this piece. There's simple shaping - increases at the left and right of the pieces at regular intervals, making them into simple elongated trapezoids. Again I'd cast on and join in the round - probably starting out on DPNs. I'd introduce a stitch marker to indicate the beginning of the round, and assort my stitches so that it wasn't apt to fall off the end of a DPN. Then I'd work in the round, introducing my increases as paired increases on either side of the marker.

Once I had the sleeves and body done, if I had chosen to steek, I'd stabilize the extra stitches I introduced to the body tube. Some people do this with a line of slip stitch crochet or hand-embroidered chain stitch. I prefer to whip out my ancient Elna and run a couple lines of machine stretch stitch on either side of my intended cut line. I'd then cut carefully between the machine stitched lines to make my opening. If I were doing the stitch and cut method of making the neckline, I'd draft out the curve I wanted onto a paper template, pin it to my piece and machine stitch along its edge.

Although this sounds hard, mostly it's figuring out how wide and how deep the neck area should be, then taking a piece of paper and folding it in half - marking the width and depth on it and cutting a symmetrical curve by hand to match. Paper is cheap so if it takes several tries it's o.k. The alternative of course is to whip out the French curve or drafting program and produce a proper drafted piece. Either part of the paper can be used, although I do find using the smaller inner curve piece to be easier to pin out flat onto my knitting.




At this point finishing whether you've worked flat for the upper body or in the round for the whole thing is pretty much the same - sewing the shoulder seams and setting in the sleeves.

Now. What about pieces with complex shaping - waist nips or princess line seams?

Those features work more or less like the sleeves. I introduce a marker at the point where the seam line should be, then work the increases or decreases as directed, on either side of the marker in accordance with pattern directions. Areas where you are told to cast off can be harder. For example in the princess style schematic, at the head of the front body side panel in there's a "blind end" where the body side panels terminate short of the sleeve. I suspect I'd have to noodle on that one quite a while, and the solution would require short row shaping. Not easy. But for the determined willing to experiment and rip back - not totally impossible, either.

I can't cover every eventuality of shaping and its implications for translation from flat to round knitting, but I hope I've given you an idea of the general process.

Yesterday's Post

I wasn't claiming that the Knitters pattern was ripped off from mine. First of all, it's not my pattern. All I did was slap a couple of ornamental stitches onto a well known published piece. I own nothing here. Plus traffic on this site is so low that it's highly unlikely that anyone who saw something on String two years ago consciously repeated it. My post was instead more of a "neeener neener neener" piece, accompanied by gloating rather than accusational finger pointing.

Technorati : knitting

[ported repost of material appearing on 12 June 2006]

My version of Joan McGowan-Michael's White Lies Shapely Tee - a semi fitted tee shape with a shaped waste and bust darts, used with the optional set-in sleeves (excellent pattern, and most graciously on Joan's part - available free). Completed April 24th, 2004 and blogged about extensively here. Berroco Suede ribbon yarn, featuring two rounds of B. Walker's Indian Cross Stitch around the gently contoured bottom hem, one turn of it around the scoop neck collar, and one at the bottom edge of the short sleeves:



Compare this from the latest issue of Knitters. Tee shape, ribbon yarn, two rounds of B. Walker's Indian Stitch around the hem, one around the crew neck, and one around the sleeve hems. Plus a texture stitch in the body that's almost invisible in the photos.

Mine fits better.

[Repost of materail appearing on 16 July 2006]

No, not a knitting-related math question (for a change), but an idle query. Check out this - a UK art student has knit hersef a car. I hope she gets a good grade on the project!

Technorati : knitting

Surprised to see this here? Don't be!

We're taking the wraps off our newest set of projects: porting over my whole String or Nothing blog over here; making various deep infrastructure changes to improve wiseNeedle's base performance; spiffing up wiseNeedle's overall look and feel; starting a knitting and embroidery Wiki; and even adding a new lace scarf knitting pattern for all to enjoy.

We're not quite done. We've got some buffing up to do - some odd formatting to fix (most notably in the new scarf pattern); some recent String posts to copy over by hand; some links that need repair; and (a big undertaking) putting the flesh-and-bones on the wiki.

In the mean time, take a stroll through and see what's here. After all, we don't do a major overhaul very often. Only about every four years, whether we need it or not.

Before I was overtaken by creeping Deadline Disease, I promised three things - some general principles on translating flat knit patterns to kntting in the round; a list of increase and decrease stitch equivalents for right and wrong side rows; and why someone would want to knit either way. That's a bit much for one day.  Even for long-winded me.  Let's start with the most subjective - why one would choose one style over the other.

To start off with I'l make some bold statements that kntting historians are welcome to debate.  Knitting garments in the round was far more prevalent during most of knitting's history.  Think of socks, hats, and traditional sweaters - most of them were worked that way.  Seamed knitting (knitting in the flat) appears to have taken off around the time that knitting made the transition from traditonal garment to fashion wear - roughly about the same time when written patterns became more prevalent.  I believe it did so in order to conform better to fashionable clothing's styles, tailoring and fit, and to allow greater reproduceability of results among an audience already familiar with sewn garment methods.

Why knit in the round?

• Simple, quick garment construction
• Simple pattern writing for boxy shapes
• Minimizes purling on stockinette pieces
• Eliminates (or minimizes) seaming
• Takes advantage of knitting's inherent elasticity for fit
• Easier production of stranded colorwork
• Easier production of texture and lace patterns that require increase/decrease manipulations on every row
• Ideology (there's a strong lobby of knitting purists that advocate it as the most natural or historically-connected way to knit)
• Fewer pieces to lose or match in gauge
• Flashing (color stacking of space dyed yarns) works better
• Easier to ravel back and add length or replace worn sections.
• If using one circ, fewer needles to use than knitting in the flat

Why knit in the flat?

• More complex and tailored garment shapes can be achieved
• Pattern writing for complex shaping is simpler for designers trained in garment construction theory
• Easier to adjust tif you need to produce complex garments in multiple sizes
• Seams can add structure and strength to a piece
• Smaller individual units can be more convenient to produce
• Intarsia colorwork is easier to do
  
• Eliminates cast on row join challenge, especially on fine gauge garments that employ large stitch counts
• Eliminates the at-join color jog problem (to be specific it substitutes a match stripes at seam problem)
• Can be easier to measure garments in progress to determine compliance with required dimensions
• In flight modification for fit can be simpler because problems can be spotted after one piece is made, and the entire garment does not need to be ripped back to make adjustments
• Easier to add width while the garment is in progress
• No scary DPNs or circs needed.  Fewer needles to loose compared to DPNs, no DPN juncture ladder problems
• Straight needles are less expensive than circs, and multiple lengths needn't be purchased.  No need to have multiple diameters of the same size needle on hand to accommodate tubes of various diameters (required unless many DPNs, a two-circ or the oversized circ method is used)
• Easier to block pieces before final finishing stage.

I've probably left the reason why you chose one method or the other off these lists.  Feel free to add it in a comment.

Each method has its own strengths and shortcomings.  Each has styles for which it is particularly suited.  And each can be manipulated to do most of what the other style is better suited to do.  You can make faux seams on something knitted in the round. You can do stranded colorwork on something knitted in the flat.  You can add shaping to an in the round piece through planned and judicious use of increases and decreases to mimic the fabric manipulations of darts or tailored seaming. 

n many cases there's logic in the choice of one method over another.  Dale's Norwegian stranded pieces are perfectly suited for knitting in the round.  They employ strategies like steeking to place shaped collars or introduce other construction features.  I'm sure people have done it, but I wouldn't want to translate one of them for knitting in the flat - there's nothing to be gained by doing so.  Complex tailoring like this from a discontinued Berroco pattern would be a headache to render in circular knitting.  BUT logic doesn't always prevail.  I have seen commercial patterns for stranded sweaters that ARE knitted in the flat.  I'd take a hard look at them to see if I could produce them in the round.   Likewise, I've seen all sorts of contortions and cutting done to circular knit patterns in the name of making them less boxy. Again I'd have to take a closer look to see if using an alternate approach was better.

While you're far more likely to see in-the-round direction today than you were 25 years ago when I started knitting, you'll still find that many fashion oriented magazines and yarn manufacturers booklets offer up more patterns for knitting in the flat than they do the other method.  I'm thinking pubs like Vogue Knitting, Adriafil's Dritto& Rovescio and most of the modern European books, plus the old Phildar, Aarlan, and Pingouin books. 

As in so many things, ideology does play a part.  You can find books written in the 1940s through 1960s that sniff at knitting in the round, calling it "peasant work" or noting it in passing as the dreary ancestor of  more modern applications.  And you can find books written by knitting revivalists that excoriate the torture of imposing tailored seamed construction on a medium that has so many virtues in its most simple form.  I'm dogma-agnostic.  I use whichever method is best for me to produce the project at hand.  Which brings me to the real reason why I think patterns are written one way or the other:

• It's what the pattern's author/designer is most comfortable with

Overall though, the motivation to change something from flat to circular knitting is far more common than yesterday's case.  Anything with a rectangular construction and minimal shaping  is a natural - especially sweaters with drop shoulders.  The exceptions might be sweaters in yarns that are prone to biasing or stretching, or ones in particularly flimsy yarns or knit in very open textures.  In those cases the structural integrity imposed by firm seams might be crucial to garment drape and longevity.  I'll look at this in more detail in the next overly long post.

Life in the form of work has attacked.  Today's post postponed due to total chaos.  Apologies if you've checked back because of my promise to post more yesterday.

HolidayInnEloise saw yesterday's post and sent in a question via eMail.  She's not a fan of knitting in the round and wants to know if the Cabin Fever pattern I am using can be worked flat back and forth on two needles.  She's a bit confused by how to change a top down in the round sweater into a more standard format.  I'll try to answer.

First, while there are exceptions, most things that are knit in the round can be parsed to knit in the flat either in part or in their entirety.  Many but not all things that are knit flat can be knit in the round.  Like with everything in knitting, knowing the logic behind the design can help you make the transition.

To go from round to flat, there are two big things to take into consideration - the garment shape and the knitting texture or colorwork pattern used.  In order to transform a seamless thing into a knit-flat thing, seams must be introduced.  Sometimes figuring out where to put them can be a challenge.  The sweater I'm working on now is of very simple construction, but even it presents a challenge.

Following the original pattern, I started by making a tube for the collar.  After that there was a row of increases to add a bit more scope for the next step - symmetrical increases on either side of four diagonal lines from collar to armpit (the raglan lines).  The piece proceeded more or less like a poncho or capelet until the depth of the raglan increase lines accommodates a loose shoulder toarmpit fit (along the way one is directed to stop making increases otherwise the piece would grow too wide, but that's a minor quibble).  After the capelet type shoulder yoke was done, the sleeve stitches were slipped off onto holders, and with the addition of a few extra stitches under each arm, the remaining stitches for front and back were worked as a big tube.  After the body tube was completed, the sleeve stitches were retrieved from their holders and worked out to the cuff, with some decreases at the bottom center to remove bulk.

Thinking through the logic top down we've got a challenge right off the bat.  To me, the turtleneck collar is a lost cause.  No one wants seams on the inside of an already bulky turtleneck.  That feature will probably need to be knitted in the round on DPNs.  After that we've got the capelet yoke area, formed by the faux raglan style increases.  The most obvious choice to flat-ify this part is to turn the unibody capelet back into four pieces - a front, a back and two sleeves - to be seamed together along the raglan lines as real raglans are. 

To do this, I'd probably take the stitch count from the after-collar increase row just before the faux-raglan feature starts, and deconstruct it back into those four pieces.  For example, I'd take the recommended stitch count for the front and add two selvedge stitches.  These will be eated up as seam allowance when the garment is sewn together.  Then I'd follow the instructions for the front area, working my increases as directed, but doing them TWO stitches in from the edge (one stitch to make the decorative line, plus the selvedge stitch for sewing up later).  At the post-raglan point where the piece is long enough according to the original pattern, (when the sleeve stitches were slipped onto holders), I'd cast on one quarter of the total stitches that are to be added at the left edge of my piece and half at the right, then continue knitting to the specified total length. (Remember the original just gives one number to be added between what is the front and back.  I need to divide that by four and put one quarter at each edge of my front.  The remaining stitches would be added to the back.)  I'd end up with an object shaped like a house with a Mansard roof.  The other pieces would be made the same way.   The back would be identical to the front.  The sleeves would be similar but predicated on a smaller initial cast-on.  I'd assemble the thing by first sewing the raglan seams, then the seam from lower hem to cuff.  Finally I'd pick up my provisional stitches at the neck and add the collar.

But I'm not bound to do this piece top-down.  I could also knit it in the flat bottom-up.  I could divide the ending body stitch count in half (adding a selvedge stitch at either side to make up for a seam allowance) and working on half the stitches - knit the front and back flat up to the undearm.  At that point, I'd cast off the stitches that were added in the original just after the sleeves were slipped off, removing one quarter at each edge.  Then I'd start the raglan shaping.  But in a bottom-up piece, that shaping will be formed by decreases rather than increases.  To preserve the simple yarn over detail of the original I'd need to do a bit of playing.  First I'd work an inch or two plain (in the original the raglan area ended before the piece was long enough to reach the underarm).  Then I'd work the left edge of my piece K1, SSK, YO, SSK; and the right edge K2tog, YO, K2tog, K1.  The K1s are the selvedge stitches.  The [decrease] YO [decrease} unit adds up to a net loss of one stitch, with one of the decreases making up for the decorative YO. This won't be exactly analagous to the original because the stitches framing the YOs will be heavier, but it will be close enough to preseve the general appearance.  When I had the requisite number of YOs and my stitch count was equal to the post-collar neckline count (plus two for the selvedge stitches), I'd slip everything onto a holder and begin the next piece.  The back would be made the same way. 

The sleeves would start off with the final stitch count for the cuff, and along the way add a stitch at either edge right or left (I'd probably do M1 increases two stitches in from the edge at the ends of a row just to keep things neat when I seamed).  I'd knit the same length below the raglan line that I did on the front and back, then plunge into the same logic to make the decorative raglan line itself.  Once there were the same number of YOs in the raglan line of the sleeve I would guess that the sleeve's upper dimension matched that of the front and back exactly (the open holes are more than decorative, they make the thing easier to count and measure).  I'd slip the remaining stitches onto a holder and seam all the raglan lines.  After that I'd sew the side seams and pick up and knit the collar in the round on DPNs.

Another alternate method would be a hybrid between flat and circular knitting.  I'd work the front and back up to the point where the extra stitches are cast off, and the sleeves until they met the body to cuff measurement.  Then I'd arrange them all on a circular needle, and finish out the couple inches of plain work followed by the raglan capelet yoke part in one big knit in the round piece.  I'd still have seams to sew under the arms and from the armpit to the hem, but that would be it.  (To do this, I'd eliminate the selvedge stitch that I added to the raglan edges in my first all flat knit alternative.

The second factor that might affect the transition from round to flat knitting is texture.  In this particular sweater it's not an issue.  I've got miles of stockinette, a couple of rows of purl welting, and some K2, P2 rib.  That's it.  In the round stockinette is "never stop knitting."  Flat stockinette is alternate rows of knit and purl.  No big translation problem there.  However, if I had a texture pattern and the original was knit in the round I'd need to do the mental shuffle, turning knits to purls and vice versa for the odd numbered wrong-side rows. Having a texture pattern in chart format makes the right-side/wrong-side translation easier.   I might even need to adjust the row on which the pattern starts so that the bulk of my increases and decreases end up on an easy-to-manipulate right side (knit) row.  Yes, they can be done on a wrong side (purl) row, but then the problem of which increase or decrease when done on the purl side mimics standard right side row stitches intrudes.  All exist, but many are puppy awkward to do (more on this tomorrow). 

Colorwork in the original can also present a challenge.  Many people find stranding easier in the round.  You always have a right-side row facing you, and it's very simple to see the design build as you knit.  Stranding can be worked flat too, with every other row a purl row.  It's harder to see the pattern on the purl side, and some folks don't enjoy manipulating multiple strands while making purls.

So there you have it.  The first thing to do is to examine the original in the round pattern and see where seams would go.  The second is to look at the texture or color pattern used to see if it can be comfortably translated.  Once the individual pieces are determined, the cast on numbers can be derived from the original pattern (half for the front, half for the back, plus an optional selvedge stitch).  Then it's just a matter of knitting and seaming.

Tomorrow I'll look at going in the other direction, what the equivalents of standard increases/decreases are if you do them on the wrong side, translating flat knitting into circular knitting and why one might want to work in one style or the other. 

With great joy I announce the end of my most recent death-march deadline at work.  The one that has eaten up nearly every day since Halloween (including weekends).  I spent this past weekend catching up on a belated birthday celebration, exhuming some parts of my house from clutter, and returning at last to knitting.

One half of the birthday was a memorable dinner with The Resident Male at Blue Ginger restaurant in Wellsley, MA.  Not being as eloquent on the subject as Chocolate and Zucchini (one of my favorite reads) I won't bore you with a dissection of the meal beyond saying it was a leisurely evening of fine food and wine.  The company wasn't bad, either.

The other half of my celebration was a day of personal indulgence, including a visit to the local yarn shop to take advantage of their semi-annual clearance sale.  I bought some Encore and a pattern (see below), a couple skeins of sock yarn, a kit to make Dovetail Design's Rainbow Hat and Scarf (with a full spectrum of Frog Tree alpaca) and two full bags of Jaeger Matchmaker DK in an intense charcoal gray heather.  The Matchmaker is destined to become the Sarah James Ribbed Leaf pullover.



On the knitting front, I've started winding the tie-dyed cotton.  I made the mistake of washing and drying it in the machine.  While in concept doing so wasn't particularly wrong, I could have used more ties to secure the yarn.  I ended up with quite a tangle which I am slowly deconstructing back into a ball.  It's not difficult or knotted, but it is tedious.  I'm very pleased however with the result.  Knitting it however will have to wait for another time, as I am wildly behind on other projects and need to finish them first.

On that Encore - I've got a pal at work who has two little girls, with a third on the way.  Everyone always knits for the new baby, so I decided to do something different.  I'm making two "Big Sister" sweaters in the girls' two favorite colors for the older two.   Since there will be ample laundry in that household, I've chosen an easy-care acrylic wool blend.  The two sweaters will be identical except for color.  One is kid's size 6 in screaming pink, the other is a size 4 in eggplant purple. 

As I mentioned before, I'm woefully behind in knitting so I am using the short-cut of a purchased pattern. A quick to knit, ultra-simple purchased pattern.   I'm working Cabin Fever's 1,2,3, Top Down (#609).  It's a unisex simple knitting pullover, worked top down.  The pattern covers kids' sizes 4-8, and is worked in standard worsted.  As you can see, having started on Saturday, I've gotten about a quarter of the way through the larger size.  I'm past the point where the sleeves split off, and am now well into the body tube.   The pattern itself is quite simple and easy to follow.  I'd recommend this as being a design that a newer knitter would enjoy.  So far the skills needed to accomplish it have been casting on, knitting in the round, and yarn overs.  A small bit of purling is introduced in the ribbing and (optional) welt at the base of the collar. 

As you can see, the first of the two sweaters I'm making for my friend's kids is more than half-way done.  I've got only a couple more rows of the body ribbing to go before doing the rolled lower edge, then I get to do the sleeves.



Of course, anything in a kids' size 6 knitted at 5 stitches per inch goes quickly, especially when it's just miles of stockinette.  There's just two more skills needed in this pattern - k2tog, and casting off.  I'd rate this a solid beginner's hit.

Now, about those sleeves...

My bugbear of the knit-in-the-round genre has always been making the sleeves even.  I am a lazy knitter.  I hate counting rows.  Being the largest idiot in my universe, I try to idiot-proof my knitting whenever possible.  I am not a big fan of two-circ technique for things like socks (I'm much faster on DPNs), but I think for these sleeves, I'll give that method I try.  I'll use a pair of longish ones, and work both sleeves side by side, each from its own ball of yarn.  I've discussed both alternate circular needle methods and  side-by-side knitting of two items before.   More on this tomorrow after I've gotten enough done to photograph.

In other blather, I'm annoyed with Knitters Magazine.  This isn't an unusual occurrence, but it does have other root causes.  Most recently I've been annoyed because of their overall lackluster patterns - the sad, baggy, unflattering things; the unnecessarily tarted up,overembellished items; the ill fitting pieces in flash-in-the-pan novelty yarns that look stupid even on the svelte; and the parade of useless accessories that look more like hand-knitted fungus than anything else.  Then there's magazine format, use of ill considered yarn description standards, and the treasure hunt to determine the basic info needed to actually work the patterns.  To be sure, the latest issue has its share of those, but it also has one item that looks to be worth knitting - the first one I've been tempted to make from Knitters in about five years.  It's the lace stole on the cover.  I'd show you the thing, but as usual the Knitters site is throwing errors.

Why am I annoyed when the rag has finally presented something other than rags?

Because the issue appears to be in yarn shops and book stores, but not in my mailbox.  My issue has either gone astray, or is lurking somewhere in the post office.  I know several other subscribers here in Massachusetts.  Their issues are also late.  I suspect the magazine's excellent standard of professionalism is to blame.  The same one that is responsible for the buggy website, poor subscription management/customer service, lousy pattern choices, and severely flawed published instructions.