That caught you out!!! No, not a moan but something very interesting - well, to me!!!
My BC3 started wondering when I saw Gail Weaver’s interpretation of a Piecework pattern which you can find here.
I was intrigued with it because to me it ‘grated’ on my poor brain cells. I contacted Gail and she gave me the piecework link that she’d worked from and it was the same.
Now why did it make my BC3 get agitated? Simply because I’ve never seen chains which don’t all face the outside of the finished piece. Gail did a SPLENDID job of drawing this pattern up but it doesn’t show that the chains vary in the directions the heads of the stitches face. Her worked up piece follows the original precisely and I know that if I ever worked this pattern I’d ‘need’ to have all the chains facing the same way with the odd SS thrown in where needed.
It’s very difficult to explain with the attached pictures but I’ve tried to put red arrows to show you the chains which annoy my BC3. Both pieces show that the chains are trying to turn on themselves too. Now I wonder if the original designer just didn’t know how to get all the chains facing outwards or whether it was deliberate. I also wonder if it was simply that designer or a ‘fashion’ of the time - or probably he/she just didn’t know about switching shuttles. I’ve never seen this before but would love to know if anybody else has.
It’s astonishing what my stupid little brain comes up with from time to time!!! I hope this will generate a discussion and would like to thank Gail for tolerating my messages and letting me bring this to your attention.
You’re brain is beautiful, to be able to detect the small details makes your work amazing!
ReplyDeleteThe piece is very pretty. Hope I can stick with it to finish. I must have missed this years ago but where does BC3 come from. I know what it stands for but just interested.
ReplyDeleteIt is a different zig zag effect for sure. I don’t mind it but probably would find it hard to remember to keep it consistent.
ReplyDeleteThat is very interesting Jane!! Thanks for pointing it out because I see it's in other rows too in the newer picture.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I would have never seen those flipped chains without the aid of your red arrows. It would be interesting to see if that was in other patterns of that time period as well.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I’d think the tatter didn’t know about swapping shuttles. Given that the chains are trying to turn.
ReplyDeletePleased you’ve all found this an interesting post. Thanks for the compliments too.
ReplyDeleteBrenda - BC3 is a reference to the fact that I seem to have only 3 brain cells - thus BC3!! It’s been a joke of mine for many years!! That’s if it is a joke!
I agree with you, Jane but isn’t it good that Gail stuck to the original text?
I believe like Jane that they just didn't know how to change shuttles. The inward chains do create an interesting look.
ReplyDeleteHi Jane, I'm guessing that whoever made the piece in the photo only used shuttle and ball. Every time they went from one set of rings (inward facing or outward facing) the chain's stitch caps are on the wrong side of the chain as it approaches the next set of rings. They did it every time, so it's a "design feature." But I agree, it's not the way I would approach doing it, either.
ReplyDeleteYes, MimiD it's an interesting design 'feature' but probably because the designer didn't realise there was another way of working it with all chains facing outwards. It'll be interesting if somebody follows it up and we can find out if it was just this designer or lots of others who used this way of working.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. Design feature? I would like to think so, but suspect it's a Happy Mistake. Which reminds me of a "mistake" I made yesterday. It was so silly I shoved the project away in disgust. Must go look at it again to see what I see now!
ReplyDeleteYes, quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn the original (b&w): In the row BEFORE this one the chains do the same thing. But in the row AFTER it the chains face the same way, which means two shuttles were being used.
Have you seen this before, Judith Connors? As you know a LOT more than me about the older patterns you might have seen this in other designs.
ReplyDelete