Re: [lace] Niven Flanders Pattern 11 Observation and Question
At the risk of being shot down for advertising, I'll say: I use Lace 2000. To me, having tried the others, I find this the easiest to use - because of the amount of lacemaker input, it's the nearest thing, in my opinion, to the traditional way of doing things, by hand. Imagine the computer screen as a sheet of graph paper, and the mouse button as a pencil, to put symbols on the page, you simply click on the appropriate button according to whether you want to put dots or tallies or roseground symbols on the page, then click on the page. Minimal computer skills are needed, although there are a few little tricks, which was why I wrote a book about it. Of course, there are many extra buttons and tools you can use to make the job quicker, but if you only want to use it the basic way, you can. I once tried one of the CAD programmes, just for the fun of it. I had the 1 1/2 thick instruction book, plus a smaller book, I think written by Deborah Robinson (?) especially for lacemakers. I spent HOURS playing, and finally managed to put just *one dot* on the page! Result: I decided to stick to Lace 2000 I'll say again - I neither sell, nor do I benefit from sales of the programme - any work I do in connection with the programme is free, with the exception of the very small amount I make from the sale of my book. Ruth Budge (Sydney, Australia) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Spiders - this has made me think - how many of you who design use computer programs and which do you use Liz http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search - Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [lace] Niven Flanders Pattern 11 Observation and Question
Sorry if I mislead using the term mat. All I am doing is making a rectangle out of a pricking for a corner (using CorelDraw 10). It will have a fabric inset in the center. It has both a wavy footside and headside. You say that you have turned the pricking into a mat. On looking more closely at the pricking I think that the two-point exchange could be managed if you think of the innermost footside passive as a pseudo ring pair, but it looks to me like that might disrupt the diagonal line of the ground, so it might be best to follow the diagram and eliminate the extra pinholes in all cases. I think that I'll leave the pinholes in and try it as the pricking indicates on the first repeat and see if there is any logic to it, especially since it will be cut off anyway. Marcie - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] Niven Flanders Pattern 11 Observation and Question
Marcie I haven't got that far in Niven yet, but I looked at the book. What I would do is just omit one of the dots on the pricking, and just treat it as a printing press stutter. That seems the simplest solution. Treating it as a two point exchange would require a ring pair, which there isn't. Lorelei - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] Niven Flanders Pattern 11 Observation and Question
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:48:52 -0400, Marcie wrote: I have begun the process of turning the pricking for Pattern 11 in Niven's Flanders Lace book (pgs. 52 - 53 in the new edition) into a rectangular mat and have been going over the diagram vs. my semi-finished product. While I was at it I noticed that the diagram and the pricking don't match. Most noticeable is the inner edge of the corner which has two sets of two pinholes on the pricking but only two single pinholes on the diagram. I don't have the Niven book so I can't look at this; what follows is pure speculation. In Flanders there are two ways to work a corner. Flanders is based on a 45 degree grid. The 45 degree diagonal of the corner can either have a line of dots along it, or lie between two lines of dots. To work the diagonal with pinholes along the line, it is necessary to add 2 extra pairs of bobbins, and then having worked around the corner throw out 2 pairs (not the same ones) on the inside edge of the corner. Working the corner where the line of the diagonal does not need any extra bobbins. However, if designing a pattern oneself by fiddling around with photocopies etc, it's much easier to get the diagonal true by using the dots on the line variety. So you have a diagram for one sort of corner but a pricking for the other. You say that you have turned the pricking into a mat. I interpret this to mean that you are making a piece of lace without fabric in the middle so that it has no footside. I've never tried this in Flanders. Logic suggests that if you have pins on your diagonal there are going to be extra threads in the centre, which will need to be left out and used to work the opposite diagonal from the centre outwards. I'm none too sure whether this will be feasible. I think that a mat with a diagonal between 2 lines of pinholes would be easier to work. However I haven't tried any of this, and may be wrong. -- We are Borg of Dyslexia! Resistors are fertile. Prepare to have your ass laminated! Steph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tatting, lace stitching page http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
