I’d been squirrelling along on my Odilon for days, struggling myopically on the confusing, convoluted and somewhat unclear short row instructions when it struck me that the increases looked odd.
As my first time doing M1P increases, and maybe 4th time doing increases at all, it didn’t occur to me until I was well past the image above and almost at the armpit that one side of the increase looked different than the other. Can you see it below on the left?
I contacted the designer to make sure that the pattern hadn’t been updated to show mirroring increases since my version was purchased, but she said the pucker ‘should even out with blocking’.
Um. The image above is blocked.
Those of you following this blog will already know that I am a little obsessive (ok. maybe a LOT obsessive) about ridiculously small details…so…
Frogging commenced.
Back down to the collar and through the fecking short rows again – which no matter how many times I execute (3), or draw them out (2), can’t seem to get a matching number stitches on the arms and end up having to fudge – and then MIRRORING the damn increases this time – cursing all the while. Deep breath.
(Feeling my irk?)
Here is the difference:
See how the stitch on the left now goes UNDER, mirroring the right side? Yeah. That is why mirrored increases/decreases were created!
This is the first purchased pattern that I have had gotten seriously irritated with and have to remind myself that different people/designers have differing levels of things that they are willing to live with whilst knitting. That said, I guess I expected that a long running publication like Twist Collective to have better tech editing.
Overly critical for a Tues morning?
From the Purl Side 
I don’t think it’s too critical. Your concern is observable and you’ve done all of your homework – what a waste of time! I will say that it’s possible the puckering would block out of certain fibres and not others (I don’t know this, I’m just suggesting it as a possibility.) Still, it’s not a good pattern if it doesn’t reference that potentiality. You really do have a lot of fortitude. I don’t know if I’d bother to rip back and start again.
Sadly frogging has become a HUGE part of my process! I try to remind myself of the ‘zen’ of it as I am f’ing and blinding. And remember the point is to do the best I can – that whole ‘artisanal’ thing that is so hot all of a sudden – not how quickly I can knit things. (A sentiment partially fuelled by the fear I have of running out of what small storage space we have in this tiny victorian! Especially as nook of a closet is already maxed out.)
It is a hard battle at times, though.
Maybe the ridges would come out with yarns that bloom more and hide the ridges? But why not just write the pattern properly? Just seems a bit…sloppy. I thought that was what tech editing was for – to catch these kinds of things? Overall the pattern could definitely be clearer.
I don’t think you’re overly critical! I would also expect mirrored increases on a raglan pattern. I like things neat and symmetrical, and this is such an easy fix – the puckering would have annoyed me, too.
I love the color, by the way!
Thanks Alina! I am pretty happy with how the colour turned out. Shockingly there having been any glaring colour changes between skeins, which is a relief as I haven’t had to alternate! What a fluke.
Thought I might be pulling the ‘too picky’ card there for a bit! But it does make such a difference when you mirror, doesn’t it?
At first I was all, “I don’t see the problem here…” and then you showed the redone version and I was like, “Yup. Yup, you are right and you are smart”. Disappointing that a designer would neglect a small but important detail like that.
So what were the increases the pattern had, and what did you end up using? (Trying to learn from your hardship, lol.)
Commiserations on your backtracking!
He he he…you made me giggle with this one!!!
I can see how you might miss something like this if you were the type of person who doesn’t notice small details, but the thing that got me was when I messaged her to try and tactfully point out that it was mistyped (‘benefit of the doubting’ that it was just an editing slip), she just sent a message back saying I could mirror them if I wanted to! Um. Ok. Too bad for all those other people that are going to get pissed off with the same issue, then. Sloppy.
The pattern reads m1p slip marker m1p. It should read m1pr sm m1pl (or other way around). I ended up just doing the increases on the wrong side as am more comfy with m1l and m1r.
There is another annoying thing about the pattern regarding increases. About to post to see if anyone can give me a good reason for this, as I can’t think of one!!