let's make it difficult, shall we?

attached are two charts - one of a pattern as found in written instructions, the second re-written to make a lot more sense to me.

I swear sometimes thnigs get written up in the most difficult way possible - on purpose!

AttachmentSize
22_3_PrintOWave.jpg39.9 KB
22_3_PrintOWaveRevamp.jpg40.14 KB

Actually, these charts

Actually, these charts represent the same design. They both are a repeat of a pattern; there is no beginning, no ending. One chart starts on row 1, the other on row 7, I think. You can start anywhere, and just keep repeating it over and over.

This happens a lot with many patterns: where do you start? Sometimes there are a couple of rows to "set it up" and then the repeat, and then some rows to "end it". It all depends on how the pattern needs to be written to make it clear. If in words, it's often easier one way, while in a chart, it helps to visually see it in another. This is a prime example. Which is correct? I guess whatever makes the most sense to YOU.

Because I am more visual, I like to actually SEE the pattern, so tend to use charts more often. If need be, I will chart out a pattern if there isn’t one. I read my knitting, so I know where I am, and what I need to do on this row to accomplish what I need to. This is most often in lace, since there is a logical sequence to each row, with each row following what is built up in the row(s) before and where I need to end up. It would apply to Fair Isle as well, or intarsia. Text doesn’t give me that picture, and I don’t know where I am going, or what it should look like, if done correctly.

Again, does it work for YOU?

Not knowing the source or

Not knowing the source or use of the chart makes we wonder how many sts are on the needles when the lace pattern begins. The major difference (obviously) is that there are 21 sts in row 1 of the orig and 18 sts on your row 1. Maybe the pattern writer thought it would be too confusing to have row 1 of the pattern actually be row 7 of the chart so shifted it up to stop confusion? Just my guess as to why it would be written that way. We all know that a lace guru like yourself would not be thrown off track by doing this but a new lace knitter might. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic either, so hope it does not come across that way :). Hell maybe i don't know what I'm talking about at all LOL. But at least he/she put in the dark spaces and the double lined spaces, unlike the last lace chart I looked at for the 24K shawl!

There are actually 22

There are actually 22 stitches in both rows ones;(in all rows, as a matter of fact) plus conditional stitches which brings the total up to 25 . It just doesn't look like it.

I am the source of both charts - both derived from the same written instructions on a 22 + 3 repeat - just listed as "traditional print of the wave"

What really bothers me in the first chart is that seven stitch jog in the middle, which seems very counter-intuitive

MMario - ambiguity is cultivated, it doesn't happen in a vacuum!

Silly, silly me...I realized

Silly, silly me...I realized about an hour ago what I had written and kicked myself! Of course, I was not counting the double boxed sts at the end or the "don't do on last repeat" sts in my counting. For some reason I was thinking of increasing lace and not "straight" lace knitting, as Print O' the Wave is. Ok, I'm crawling back under my rock to do some more self berating. LOL.

hey - Ive been trying to

hey - Ive been trying to analyze this b*gger for a long time - I've only recently become comfortable enough with charting to chart it out and try to figure out what was going on. That's when I began to understand the pattern - but got frustrated with the layout.

MMario - ambiguity is cultivated, it doesn't happen in a vacuum!

Even a Chartard like me can

Even a Chartard like me can see yours makes more sense. I believe that some patterns are written as a joke.

MWK's Token Estrogen-American