Help with pattern from Knitter's Spring 1998

Aug 26, 2006 6 Replies

I'm knitting the lace doily on page 72 of the magazine.



I'm almost done, so of course, I finally hit a problem.



The Round 87 calls for a very strange combination to be knit into a double yo from the previous round.



It's not coming out right!!



from the round's instructions:



"into front of first yo, work (k1, [yo, k1] twice), then work [yo, k1] twice into front of 2nd yo"



In other lace patterns I've seen, the double yos are either knitted into backs and fronts of the double yos or knitted and purled into them.



I can't seem to get this combination to come out looking right or even. The biggest problem is with the leading yo into the second of the double yos.



Any suggestions? Anyone already work this pattern? If so, how did you handle this?



If no one has any other ideas, I may just punt and do the back-and-front knits to increase into the double yo. As long as I'm consistant, I'm wondering if it would make any practical difference as long as I end up with an extra 9 stitches for each double yo.



Nyssa, who is also running close on thread for the project, but that's another issue


On 26 Aug 2006 10:54:50 EDT, Nyssa spewed forth :

So into the first YO you're manufacturing 5 stitches:

k1, YO, k1, YO, k1

then work

Then into the very next over (I presume there are two overs on your left needle?) you're making four stitches:

yo, k1, yo, k1, yo

Same here, but this ought to work, at least from a technical standpoint.

There's no leading YO anywhere that I can see - you start with a knit stitch for the first set of increases into the first over, same for the second set into the second over.

I'm working on a Starmore sweater that has a triple increase directly in to a quadruple increase, one row after the other. I thought it would be 1. impossible and 2. look bad and 3. look REALLY bad, but it disappears into the cablework that commences on round three of the pattern. I did modify her increase METHOD in one instance because it just couldn't be physically done (vertical strand? huh?) otherwise no problem.

+++++++++++++

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...

Have you checked the Knitter's site for corrections?

formatting link

No problems with that part.

Nope, yo, k1, yo, k1 = four stitches, not five with the extra yo you added. There is a *leading* yo onto the second loop of the double of the previous round. That's what's getting gunked up (technical term :). It tends to get lost once I do the first k1. And tends to be loopy almost like a picot sometimes.

It really becomes noticable on the next round when you knit across the newly made stitches. Not neat and tidy like I'd want.

I've frogged it once, and I'm researching other approaches before I commit to another try.

See above. There is a yo that starts the series onto the second loop of the double yos.

Modification will work for me if I can't get the original instruction to behave.

Nyssa, still catching up on five days' worth of USENET since her news server was down

On 26 Aug 2006 10:54:50 EDT, Nyssa spun a fine yarn

I don't have the magazine or pattern, but I think DA's suggestion of going to knittinguniverse is a good one! Noreen

back into the darkness.... me/has a migraine.

Just to cover all possibilities, go to their site and look for corrections to their patterns for that issue.

Yep, I did that early on to double check stitch counts.

No corrections are listed for the pattern.

Nyssa, who got through the round by compromising on the stitch combination between double yos

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required