7 February 2008

The answer

It's a split SCMR? At least I think that's what I'd call it.
I found myself in the situation the other day when I needed a split SCMR!! Now we all go through phases, I'm sure, when we really, really, really need a split SCMR!! I wondered if this was feasible and it certainly is.
This is how it would work.
You make the SCMR as you would normally but when you come to close it you pull the loop up as usual BUT leave a gap at the base. You need to be sure to hide the loop back near the base of the left hand side but this is really easy.
Next you work back over the space you've left using a split chain. Is this a new idea or am I re-inventing the wheel once more!!!
Below are two drawings that I've done to show what I'm talking about!!!!
I know this isn't 'rocket science' but I think it may come in useful - one day!!

6 February 2008

Another suggestion!!

This is from 'Dani the geek'.

It looks like the eyes on the face and the top bead on the middle motif were done the same way. I'm suggesting that first you made a split ring with a bead on the core thread. then you took your core thread and (taking it off the shuttle, if, indeed, you had a shuttle to begin with) pulled it through the bead again in order to make a second split ring. I tried to make it look like a more complicated technique, but this brute-force ways seems the most fitting. (bigger pictures would help!) Thanks for the brain food, I need all I can get about now!

Tomorrow I will 'tell all'.

5 February 2008

Babette's way of working the doodle

The following is how Babette worked the little doodle on the left. It's not the way I did it but it's another way. Thanks for taking up the challenge Babette. Anybody else got any ideas?

Using your colour scheme: Started first green chain using a safetypin to leave vsp made chain of 3ds p 3ds, then turned and made white chain with picots and the centre thrown ring. Joined white chain to starting vsp of green chain. The rest was straightforward chains, split rings and normal rings, making sure the lower two rings were joined to the same picot. Perhaps you could put these notes into a more comprehensible set of instructions.

Once I had enlarged the picture of your doodle enough to see exactly where the picots joined the rest was quite simple, only the actual stitch count eluded me as the picture was not clear enough for an accurate count.

Another message from Babette on the third one (the face). She says -

Bearing in mind it’s 35deg C outside, England v NZ 20/20 is on television and we are almost through the 2nd bottle of wine (a woman after my own heart!) and supper has not even begun yet.

I roughly made motif in two parts. The first with two colours, the split ring, four small rings and 5 downward picots, the 5th also the join/finish. Second part with two shuttles wound with pink thread, joined at finish of first part, then chains and joins up to the first two small rings. Then split chain with split ring joining next split ring and split chain before finishing second side to match first, joining beads where shown. Very rough and ready description of method and probably more complicated than your original but it worked. The motif is not worth scanning in primarily because I was not particularly accurate on stitch count, picot size, tension and finishing off the threads.

4 February 2008

Some ideas about how I did tat!

This is what Babette Garman sent me.


I'm waiting to hear from her again to find out how she did hers as it looks so very close. It must be remembered that there are always many ways to 'skin a rabbit' and that sometimes the same results can be achieved by other methods.

There have been lots of suggestions about how I did it and the only one to get it right so far has been Sharren Morgan. She's already played with this idea before and I'm hoping she'll send me copies of what she's done.

3 February 2008

How did I do tat?

Three examples of something I've been playing with.
Challenge - how did I do tat?!?

1 February 2008

Riet's comments on red and italics

The following is from Riet but there are also two comments on yesterday's post which I'll copy and paste into today's blog too.

Hi Jane,
Just something we had a discussion about , not only the frontside backside, but what had to be in a pattern and in the diagram.

Well I think when you write a pattern just like you did it is the best way, everything you had to know is in the notation, when you wouldn't use the frontside/backside no problem just ignore the red colour or the italics.
The same if you don't want to tat SR or SCh just ignore it and cut and tie.

A pattern is a good pattern when it gave you everything there is. Honestly I wrote in my workshops until now: For those who want to tat frontside/backside they know where to change the ds. I will from now on use the italics and red tekst even while I know that some of the members off our guild say I dont need all this horns and bells (a Dutch saying for all the extra's in not such a nice way), ok ignore them, others want them and you are not alone in the tatting world.

When you gave a workshio you have the responsibility that every tatter can do your pattern. So Jane thanks for the Italics and the red text my 2 cents

Riet the B-engel

This is the comment from wickedtats.

When I first learnt to tat, my teacher taught me the difference between F and B tatting. It does make a difference especially with the larger patterns like doilies. However most patterns don't differentiate and it gets quite confusing and extremely saddening when there's only 1 row that done wrongly- I thank Ms Eborall for her extra effort in differentiating!

Lastly the one from Tattycats

Jane, I am glad that you posted this. It reminded me that I did not tell you how much your notations helped me with the back-side front-side instructions. It was great! I think this is a perfect way to highlight it and yes, we do need it. In fact, I need to do more of my tatting this way. It looks so nice. Thanks for all that you do.

Creative Commons Licence

Happy Beaks

Happy Beaks
I beg your pardon? I didn't quite catch what you said.