Craftree Forum Tree > InTatters Forums for Shuttle and Needle Tatting > Pattern Notes and Help > Lost in Translation - Julia E. Sanders errata
Thread created on 1339510110 by wodentoad.
Status: Open thread, open to all.
Yikes! You'll want to compare your balls to the work already done. No two dye lots of thread are exactly the same. Since you're working in black-and-white it hopefully won't be a problem, but it would be very disheartening if you got done with another ball, happened to see the whole thing out in strong sunlight, and realized that you can tell where you started the next ball of thread because of a dye lot difference... Because I have never done that (cough), um, yeah, got to go...
I don't have a chance of matching the dyelot on the original thread, but in rough comparison, they are similar enough. I will check them in the sunlight today to see what the difference is. I only have two rows and the final 24 motifs around the outside. If there is much of a difference, it shouldn't be too crazy.
I am also looking at Fig 1. In the Priscilla book 2 as my next major project, though I may take a little time off for some little projects. I have been wanting to do this handkerchief border in one of my other books for ages.
in reply to Lynn's post:
That is a touching story Lynn - I love the idea that we are part of a conservation effort :)
Just a quick fly-by, I am half-way through the row that connects all the outside triangles together, having just passed triangle 4. When this is re-done as a pattern, I will reverse this row with the last one I will do, but I have to do it in reverse order because otherwise I have gone blind and confused trying to count.
This is actually going pretty fast considering the connections have to be checked and rechecked, but those twelve clovers across the top zip by. I hope my American friends have a great Thanksgiving, and try not to eat too much!
I'm starting to think I may have made a mistake on this row. In the little picture (fig 64), it shows that the single ring is joined by picots 2 and 4 to the second and second to last picots of the cloverleaf. On the large, complete photo, it seems that the single ring is joined to the side picots, the third and second to last picots, of the cloverleaf. So far this hasn't been a problem as it seems that the row fits in correctly when I lay it out. The chains, also, appear to be different. either joined at the first and last picots of each chain, or joined only at the picot under the cloverleaf.
Unfortunately, I have been looking at what is the first row in the pattern, but will be the second row in mine (it just makes more sense). What I am seeing is that in Fig 64, there are three rings attached to the chains between each cloverleaf, but in the large picture, I am seeing four rings, or two on each chain. The written directions agree with the inset picture, for what that matters.
Having cogitated on this, I think what I might do is make a mock-up of the the two alternate versions. I am hoping against hope that the written pattern holds because that's where I went with it when I started. Well, I have more tatting to do...
in reply to wodentoad's post:
Erin, your dedication to this project and your tenacity to see it through is inspiring, and daunting. But that future tatter who stumbles across this pattern is going to bless your name many times.
Well... I have a sad story to tell: as usual it turns out that the truth of these rows is somewhere between the written instructions (for the inset fig. 58), the photo on the full page, and the product of my shuttles.
These are the tests that I should have done before I started. In order to fit together, the chains on the second row (the one with cloverleafs) need to have 2ds between picots, rather than 3ds. The rings on the first row must have 3ds between picots, and the chains are 4-4. This is the only way this works without boogering up. And lastly, the inset calls for three rings for each repeat of the cloverleaf row (cloverleaf and ring), when the big picture shows four rings per repeat, and the four looks better anyway. And it seems that the only way it does all that and attaches correctly to the triangles is to attach cloverleafs at the side picots to the 2nd and 4th picots of the lone ring.
I have MORE tatting to do. Though I think I am gonna start with the corrections where I am, or at least cut the old part out bit by bit because of the complexity of the joins to the triangles.
Alternately, and I think I will do this... I am going to count out the rings for what should be row 1, then I will attach the triangles with the corrected row 2.
Edited to add: There are 128 rings between cloverleafs (Ch 5-3, Cl 3xR 3-3-3-3, ch 3-5) that attach to the body of the tea cloth. 42 go up the sides to the corners, then 44 go across the top.
Victory or death!
I admire your persistence, @wodentoad. 
Old patterns can be frustrating.
Oh for a clear diagram with stitch counts on it.. Clearly no-one test-tatted it. I'm wondering if Sanders herself ever did it. Perhaps she designed "on the fly" and had a crew tatting for her. I echo Judith and Lynn's comments, too.
@Judy, I think we decided long ago that this must have been done by committee. There are just too many inexplicable glitches in the thing for any one person to have done it start to finish.
This time, it is being done by one person with steely determination, a good camera, photo manipulation tools to make diagrams, and the support of a committee. 
To be fair to myself, this setback is my own fault, as I should not have trusted the inset or the written pattern, but it did give me data which helped with the count of rings that has been bothering me since the early days.
And as a fun side note, the number of rings from the cloverleaf to the turn at the top is 42. So this tea cloth at least has one answer in it.
in reply to wodentoad's post:
I spilled me tea laughing at that one, @wodentoad
"...And as a fun side note, the number of rings from the cloverleaf to the turn at the top is 42. So this tea cloth at least has one answer in it."
LOL, I didnt' catch the significance of the 42 the first time I read it.
in reply to GraceT's post:
Sorry, there's a series of books called the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In it, an important question is asked, and the answer turns out to be 42 - the number of pips on 2 six-sided dice. It's an ironic answer to a big question we have all asked at one point or another in our lives. Douglas Adams is the author, and enjoyed employing humor to poke holes in a lot of life's idiosyncrasies. That he used a cast of the dice as an answer for the human condition was just how he rolled...
in reply to moraih's post:
42 is the meaning of life. Since you know its the count on dice, does that mean anything to you? Adams was saying the meaning of life is a crap-shoot. It is all chance.
Ah, I see. I never did get round to reading "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Thanks for explaining!
in reply to GraceT's post:
Then you have missed one of the funniest books ever written. If you do read it, then the next things I would recommend are the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett. Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett were friends and complement each other's style.
His Dirk Gently series is also pretty good, but I much prefer his Hitchhiker series. Just don't read the last book that was compiled from his files after his death. It made me understand why Terry Pratchett left instructions for his hard drive to be destroyed by a steamroller.
Erin, you are an inspiration to tatters everywhere. 