duvets

in usa, we have a queen size bed which is 152x200 cm. In sweden, my wife and I have a 200x200 bed; same length as a king size but about 5in narrow.

on the bed in usa we have one duvet and cover for queen size, a little wider than bed. often it bunched in the middle as neither wants it; other times we both fuss for it to wrap us!

OTOH in sweden, we have two duvets and covers. i think those are

150x210, standard sized. there we can each pitch or keep as desired. and also the duvet cover there serves as the top sheet so it gets washed regularly.

we are discussing cutting the queen size in half and making two here. that is partially for to allow separate controls and also because each piece will weigh less. cea has a point about the weight.

[we also have a pure (gold) silk duvet and also silk duvet cover which won't get cut. actually they need a good home as we can't use both silk and poly and it is hard to store the poly one; more bulk. (no storage for exxcess in 783sqft. any slack goes to the SM and serger, cutting board, and the yarn stash for the three looms). the silk one came with us from beijing and my wife helped in pulling the silk from cocoon to make it!]

klh > snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

One of my step-daughters went to a wedding in Denmark, and stayed a week or so. She came back wanting a Scandinavian bed! She and her sweetie fight over the covers here, but in Denmark she says she got the best sleep of her life! Her plan now is to get twin beds that lock together, and to have separate duvets for each bed. She commented on how you use a bottom sheet, but the top cover is the covered duvet and nothing else.

I must say that having two covers - one for each sleeper - is very sensible. I certainly get tired of getting up to find all the covers on the floor on my DH's side of the bed.

my DW makes noises regularly about going home to Sweden to get a good nights sleep on our bed there. besides the separate duvets, since the bottom parts are separate, when one turns over, it doesn't shake the bed of the other and wake him/her!

the bottoms are separate but the 'mattress' is a three inch thick pad that goes over both lower units. but if the lower units, aka the bed, have stiff edges, when you try to roll from one side to the other, it seems like you are going uphill.

or all of them on your side and sometimes a big pile in between!

[another reason for the two units joined with a common mattress (pad) over them is the number of apartments not on the first floor. the stairs have sharp turns and the elevators hold 3 people so the american queen size mattress just would not work!]

DH and I converted from a "double" bed to a twin-king years ago. It had separate frames which locked the two together. I always used twin fitted sheets for the bottoms, and one king-sized sheet fro the top. When found it more economical, I just bought two twin sets and seamed the two top sheets together, removing just a little of the width of each one.

After I started having night sweats, he still wanted a nice warm blanket, I preferred sleeping under nothing more that an sheet. So I created a one-fits-both bedcover: I joined a cotton flat sheet (for my side) with a warm thermal blanket, (for his side) and voila! No more fussing over "too hot!" "too cold". He liked his side tucked in at the feet, I could leave my side untucked. Worked very well summer or winter.

Another advantage of joining two disparate covers is you can make them as wide as you want. ;-)

Beverly

Two separate covers works better if you have a burrito sleeper. The kind that gets the edge of the cover, then rolls up in it.

Mine was more like... hmm, can't think of a funny retort which isn't also vulgar. ;-)

Beverly

:^O

Yeah, yeah, I know, "...[you're] shocked...SHOCKED...!!!" ;->

. . . . . I watched that movie with my (ten-year-old and sixteen-year-old) grandchildren and their parents recently. My, how nice to watch an "adult" movie the whole family can watch together, without being offended by language, violence, and/or sexual display. Too bad you have to go back to 1942 for such a treat.

Beverly

It amazes me how much got past the Hayes Commission back in those days - the commissioners were not very perceptive.

I also remember unsuccessfully hunting in the unabridged dictionary for words I'd hear from my classmates -- I was a bit naive, and didn't hear those words at home. But that was closer to 1947 than 1942.

The worst movies, I think, are the Disney movies. What blatent manipulation of emotion! First they create a strong emotional attachment in the audience to an animal, then they show it being injured or killed.

I think they were probably fairly perceptive, but if the 'double entendre" was subtle enough they let it go. And compared to the "adult" fare served up today, they were still very mild, IMHO.

You too??? ;-) My family never used course language, and when I got to high school in 1953 (we lived in a smallish town, the high school drew kids from several elementary districts), I was flummoxed by some of the things kids were saying. Our unabridged didn't help much either. :-\ The movie I was referring to was Casablanca, made in 1942. I was *three* at the time. ;->

The animal movies certainly seem to have that slant. I loath "Bambi". But have you seen "Cars"??? A must see!

Beverly