HNW - more questions re: Charles' shirt
dickeney at access.digex.net
Wed Apr 29 19:54:17 PDT 1998
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Deborah Pulliam wrote:
> <<Were the shoulders grafted using one of the techniques used on
> fisherman's sweaters/jumpers/guernseys?>>
> The shirt has been mounted, so I couldn't get a good look at the inside,
> but I think the shoulders were cast off together, to the inside.
> two rows of purl/reverse stockinette at the base of the collar
> (you can see it a little more clearly in the photo in Thomas.)
> There's no gusset in the underarm, as in the main body.
I'm not clear on the last bit - do you mean there is no gusset in either
the underarm or main body, or do you mean there is not gusset in the
underarm and there _is_ one in the main body? I assume you mean no gusset
in either part.
Another bunch of questions: I've been trying to chart out exact
directions from Mary Thomas, comparing her charts to the photograph, and
I'm concluding that she got something wrong, because the math doesn't add
I can see 14 (maybe 15?) of the main motif across the front of the bottom,
just above the diamond-patterned hem. On her chart, the main motif repeat
(including the divider band) is 30 stitches; 14 x 30 = 420, so there are
840 stitches in circumference at the top of the hem. (If there are 15
repeats, then 15 x 30 = 450, x2 = 900 sts/circ.)
However, I can see only 33 diamonds across the bottom of the hem (which is
wider than the top of the hem). Her chart gives the diamonds a 12-stitch
repeat. 33 x 12 = 396, x 2 = 792 stitches circumference at the bottom of
the hem. It just doesn't work!
I also compared the photograph to the graph of the yoke border, with
respect to the relative proportions of the border pattern and the yoke
diamond pattern. That also doesn't look right. It would work very nicely
if the diamonds of the yoke border were a bit larger - putting exactly 13
of the diamonds across the front and back (total 26) - but that doesn't
look quite right either, compared to the photograph.
Has anyone published a really careful graph and count of the motifs, more
accurate than Mary Thomas's?
Has the museum carefully folded some of the skirt behind so as to make it
look neater than it really is? The decrease rate seems to be decr 4 sts
every 8 rows, but if they folded the skirt to disguise drapiness, it might
affect both the counts and the decrease rate.
The way the button front makes the front hike up is so incredibly sloppy,
it must have been a later alteration, not the way it was planned. I'll
bet it was originally knitted with a simple slit and lacing holes; maybe
the holes wore out and it was patched (with custom-ordered matched
knitting). Oh, were those buttonholes cut through or knitted into the
band? You said it was backed with (woven?) silk ribbon, which implies
something to sew onto when doing buttonhole stitch around a cut
Now I remember why I never tried to copy this thing before.
To be removed from the Historic Needlework mailing list, please send a
message to Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe
More information about the H-needlework