Lost in Translation - Julia E. Sanders errata

Thanks, @JudithConnors! It's on my list of things to learn, but it's a little late on this project to be changing my joins, so I'm using them as a design element. Besides, I wouldn't be able to change the black ones white again. ^{_^} I'll just carry on and use them decoratively. It will certainly help when I do other projects.

I agree with @GraceT on this one. As massive as this project is, those tiny joining blips definitely will not be what catches peoples attention.

"Gasp! You made this? Yourself? You're amazing!"
"I could never do anything like that."
"You must have the patience of Job!"
"How much would you charge to make one for me? I'd like it in forest green and chocolate brown."

That's what you're going to hear. No one is going to say, "Well, gee, why are there little black and white dots all over your tablecloth?" Nope - no one is ever going to say or even think that. You're perfectly safe.

And just for future reference, JaneE's blipless join is really a chinch to do. I figured it out on a moving bus using my phone while juggling small children. You've got this.

Ah, the old "I don't have the patience..." one. That one kills me every time. I do handcrafts, especially needle/shuttle laces because I don't have patience. And yes, they think I whipped this up on a weekend. But those colors! Ack!

Okay, here's number five, and I've ironed it to block it and give a better view of the joins. It's easy to lose them even in an HD color photo, but I've got pretty high confidence that this is correct.

Next come the two on the top of the triangle, which appear to only be connected at two points.

Looking good!

Erin, it will come together beautifully. I do admire your persistence.

Okay, I have two ovals left, but I have a problem that is going to drive me crazy: The inner triangle. I have been turning the problem over and over in my mind and I need a second set of tatting hands. I'm going to continue on the tack that I am on because it blocks correctly, however, I think that the triangle is wrong again.

The directions, as we know them, are, of course, already proven wrong. The cut away is wrong. But when I tatted it and began to attach the ovals I noticed scrunching of the chains in the center triangle and I am starting to wonder if the problem is that the chains on the second row are THREE picots rather than five with 3 ds between, or 5 p with only ONE DS between, possibly joined at the first and last picots to their neighbors. This is really bumming me out, guys.

Oh, here's the latest picture. I've had to iron it to get it to keep it's shape.

@wodentoad I think you are doing awesome with this pattern. Wish I could help you figure it out. Hang in there.

As usual, I am in awe! You deserve an Olympic gold medal!
Very hard for us to figure this out with you. I think if the pattern is wrong, you'll have to improvise something that LOOKS right and fits well. Never mind what it actually was in the original.

Thanks guys. The current plan is to re-tat only the outer row of the triangles so that it fits. But what I may do before I write this down is re-tat a new triangle with the edited directions to see if I am correct. I've got plenty of size 10 white just waiting to go! Or I have some pastel rainbow. Equilateral triangles have all sorts of uses, and I don't want to leave another mistake for future tatters.

in reply to wodentoad's post:

Go for it! And I'm curious to see your pastel rainbow...

Finished the first one! I may not be happy with how it lays, but it irons flat so I soldier on.

This is increasing my thoughts of doing the second row first, but alternately, I may see if I can't blow up a different section of the full picture to count again.

Okay, through test tatting, I came up with what should be the correct numbers.

R1: R 3-3-3-3-3-3, C3-3-3-3 joining rings at picots 2 and 4.

R2: R3-3+3-3, C3-3-3-3, joining all rings at side picots.

R3: Rings (R2-2-2-2-2-2) attatched in groups of three by the middle picots of the outside rings to middle picots of adjacent chains of previous row, and linked by chains (C2-2-2-2-2-2). C4, then our 4ds cloverleaf, joined by the first and last picots to the last P of the previous chain. C4, then another group as above joined to the next two adjacent chains of the previous row. Chain as with previous group but with 7p, skipping one chain of the previous row.

It should look like this if you use pretty pastel in your shuttle, white ball thread, and don't care about hiding your ends because you are being a rebel!

And a test tat doesn't really matter so the ends don't need to be hidden. Like your pastels, though. But I bet you're glad you're not doing the whole table cloth in that. The pattern gets overwhelmed by the colours. Your black and white choice works very well indeed.

I would go blind doing the whole thing in that. Even doing it all in white would be difficult to look at. If I ever do another, it will likely be with bright colors to enhance the flower look of it, but I have so many things to tat between now and then.

That's cute! But would the clover points need to stick out a bit further to join to the other elements?

BTW, did you notice the triangular red medallion over in the Medallion or Motif thread? (http://www.craftree.com/forum/threadfs/36264?page=2#225259) It might be worth comparing stitch counts with @JudithConnors.

I did not see that! That's very cool, and exactly right!

Yes, I'm thinking those short chains may be 6 to 8, but NOT what is listed in the pattern in the book which is C8-4, then C4+8.

@JudithConnors Where did you find it?!

@wodentoad, it's in 'Tatting Patterns' by Julia Sanders, page 26, fig. 61.

My 'everything-old-is-new-again' book.

That's strange as that is not the pattern listed in the dover reprint of Priscilla #2, 1915. Interesting.

@JudithConnors, @wodentoad - so that is the same motif, right? At least it seems to be, in my copy of "Tatting Patterns" by Julia Sanders. Probably different editions of the book...

You're so right about "everything-old-is-new-again". None of the other old tatting books and pamphlets has stood up to the test of time so well.

That's the same motif alright, but it's not what appears in the tablecloth, which my re-tat copies. I'm going ahead with the motif as I have it, but I'm writing down the corrected version that I used in the pastel piece above, though I will have to further correct the short chains to 9ds, which I re-read for the fifth or sixth time today having somehow got it wrong in the previous readings. (I'm also using the Dover reprint everything-old-is-new-again version).

Ah well, fixed now. Thanks as always for all the help!

Ha, weird. I just looked at my copy of "Tatting Patterns", p. 24-25. I hadn't looked closely before. So four of the triangular inserts are composed of ten circular medallions, and four of the inserts are made up of nine oval pieces (medallions or motifs?) rather badly fitted around the said triangular medallion. Why couldn't Julia Sanders (or the unknown tatter she edited) have made them all the same?

Because she hates me, that's why.