Sunday, December 02, 2007


It's amazing what the omission of little words will do to you. When they say "Hold to the front" ask yourself "Do they mean "hold to the front OF THE WORK" or "hold to the front OF THE GARMENT". After knitting the same blah blah twice, and frogging twice, I think that's what she meant.
Damn, wish I was clairvoyant. And this designer would stop mumbling. And I wish they hadn't thrown these in nilly-willy. This shit is exhausting.


benne said...

What the heck? I've never seen a pattern that meant "to the front of the garment." If that's what she meant, the pattern must be near impossible to follow with that kind of quirky logic. You really would need to be clairvoyant to knit by it. Sorry, kiddo. I'm thinking there's a jinx on this round.

junior_goddess said...

Oh, it's fine NOW-

The first time I knit it, I blindly followed the pattern. The SECOND time I knit it, I CAREFULLY followed the pattern.

The THIRD time I knit it, I followed my instincts and found a huge transposition error on every other row! On every odd row, the first and second crosses are swapped....there's no way to follow the pattern as written and get the project as shown. Simply does not work. So it's much better now, but who needs the aggravation. I am back in stockinette land now.

Suzann said...

Sounds like some kind of Purgatory knitting. Why can't designers use standard knitting terminology ?
It is the thing that drives me around the bend with Cat Bordni.
You have great instincts what about the rest of us?