new quilter Braves Fan - Pictures of 2 choices of design

.........waiting with expectation........... : )

Karen, Queen of Squishies

Ok... Here are my two choices. I really like the choice one, but something isn't quite right about it. So I think I'm going to end up going with choice 2. I just like the 4 box squares in the choice 1. If anyone can come up with a way to even it out or find out what makes it look like something is missing, I'd be so grateful!!!!

Here's the link!

Braves Fan <

Here's one idea for you! You might need a pencil and paper to sketch this out - I have mine in front of me, so it's a bit easier! I dare say it is the lack of symmetry which makes you feel something is not quite right? The problem is that with that number of four patches of the light arrangement (10), you can't make a symmetrical pattern (I don't think!) without putting two light 4-patches together at some point.

Since the dark 4-patches seem to be more of a background than the light ones, this is what you could do.

First row (top)

2-patch (vertically) of darks; 4-patch of light; 4-patch of darks; 4-patch of lights; 2-patch of darks.

Second row

2-patch of light (vertically); 4-patch of dark; 4-patch of light; 4-patch of dark; 2-patch of light.

Keep the centre as you have it now.

To the left of that centre square: going down the column:

2-patch of dark (horizontally); 4-patch of light; 2-patch of dark.

To the right of the centre square - same as left.

Under the centre square - row 5:

2-patch of light (vertically); 4-patch of dark; 4-patch of light; 4-patch of dark; 2-patch of light.

Row 6 - bottom row:

2-patch of dark (vertically); 4-patch of light; 4-patch of dark; 4-patch of light; 2-patch of dark.

That is 4-way symmetrical, so should look just fine - as long as you don't mind splitting some of the 4-patches into 2-patches?

Try it out - let us know? . In message , Braves Fan writes

I like choice 2, because it provides much more interest for the eye. The reason choice one looks like something is missing, in my opinion, is because of the large areas of sameness. In choice 2 you have broken that up, which I personally like much better. Good job!

Karen, Queen of Squishies

I'm glad you came up with something, Pat, since I really prefer #1, too. I think #2 is sort of predictable and regular. I like the groupings in #1, but it does need "something".

Pat: Sounds good. The first one has potential, but is a tad off balance. I like your ideas. I didn't sketch it out, but reading the way you suggest splitting some of the larger elements just resonates with me. Woo ... a

25 cent word! Gr> Here's one idea for you!

That makes 3 of us "Pat pluses" with some what the same idea. I agree that the reason the first example seems "off" is that there are an even number of rows/columns of 4-patches. So the corners are different. To be "balanced" the corners need to be the same, and splitting some of the 4's into 2's would do that, but keep the idea of the 4-patch blocks. Patti, on her hill said it well.

Pati, in Phx

Pat > Pat: Sounds good. The first one has potential, but is a tad off balance.

I agree with Karen. I live # 2 the best.

Sherry Starr

I liked the second one best. In the first one I found the blocks with the white background drew the eye too much and the central panel got lost.

I didn't see it at first, either, Sally; but, I think if the other blocks were made symmetrical around it, that problem would go.

In message , Sally Swindells writes