In my last little attempt (see this post), I realise I didn't do the joins properly (up joins on the front and down joins on the back, is that right?). So today, I tatted this motif by Mary Konior (who didn't do fs/bs tatting from what I can see on her pictures) which has lots of rings and chains and even rings on the backside to better test the look of fs/bs tatting.
Here we go:
This is the motif viewed front-side
And this is the motif viewed back-side
Part of the reason I was resisting using fs/bs tatting before is that I didn't like the idea of having an obvious front and back to my tatting. I thought by using traditional tatting, both sides would look similar (though not the same). But in practice, I still found that I preferred one side over the other (the side where the rings face upwards, if that makes sense). The other reasons were that I didn't enjoy making "up-joins" and that I find it harder to count the stitches on the back-side. I feel this slows me down and requires more concentration on my part. But maybe it's just a matter of what you're used to? Maybe if I used fs/bs tatting all the time, it would become a habit just like regular tatting feels comfortable to me now?
Being picky and examining everything in detail, I find the curves on the long chains are slightly less smooth (particularly at the Josephine Knot) but again that may just be because I'm less used to making them that way (i.e., 1st half, picot, 2nd half). My motif also suffers a bit from "gaposis" on the trefoils (left and right) - improvement needed there. Other small niggle, it seems to me the rings have more propensity for the last ds to roll out of place or is that my imagination?
And if I'm making JKs on the backside, should I make them with the 1st half of the double stitch? They are easier to handle and look nicer when made with the 2nd half I find.
I'm now working on the same motif with the traditional method and will post pictures soon with the two motifs side by side for you to examine and comment (yes please, do comment!).
Best wishes,
I could be wrong, but I think that Mary Konior was working before fs/bs became "a thing".
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started tatting, I just accepted that tatting had no front or back. However, the moment I first read about fs/bs, my anal retentive brain said, "Oh yes, I must start doing it that way." So I've been doing fs/bs for many years, and yes, it does get easier with time. The up joins and down joins become second nature. If I need to recount the stitches on the back side, I just angle the work toward me so that I can see the front, and count the stitches on that side.
I agree that JK's usually sit better when made with the second half. What you have to remember is that, when working on the back side, the second half is really the first half. So yes, if you're working on the back make the JK's with what would traditionally be the first half stitch; when you turn it over, it will be as if you had made them with the second half. Clear as mud?
Having said all that, I may notice whether or not somebody does fs/bs tatting, but I don't particularly judge the quality of the tatting based on that. I am more concerned with the evenness of their stitches and consistency of their tension, and in those regards, your tatting is impeccable!
I wondered if with all the chatter you would do something like this! I am so curious to hear your opinions at the end of your experiments.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of info about posting the shuttle at the end of a ring if you go to InTatters and look for the many contributions about this topic. See the comments by Suzanne on tat-ology on the post about fs/bs/for direction. You might be interested in those insights. I am still not sure how I feel about that part of it and the last rolling ds....
Fox : )
p.s. I forgot ...yes, impeccable!
ReplyDeleteFox : ))
Oh, Joëlle!
ReplyDeleteYou have just initiated the type of discussion that I adore.
First, for clarification: 'down' joins (aka the Demmer-Rice join) are made on the front, and 'up' joins on the back; except when you are trying to avoid a colour blip on the front side - in which case you reverse procedure, so that the coloured stitch cap falls on the back side.
The rolling final ds of a ring is a personal bugaboo of mine. If it never plagued you before, I would attribute its occurrence in this context to your being a little more tense about the process than usual. Tatters who are able to consistently make the transition from ring to chain without causing the final ds to roll seem to abound on the face of the earth. I am not one of them. I think I recently described the methods I use to prevent the rolling final ds in a ring - possibly in Fox's thread about fs/bs. If you want more information, please message me. Gaposis does occur more readily when a ring is initiated on the backside, and I have never taken the time to puzzle through why; just another thing about which to be vigilant.
BTW, the motif is lovely. It has always been a favorite that I intended to tat, and never got around to. Looking forward to the next one, executed in traditional tatting.
Hi, Suzanne,
DeleteI thought about you yesterday when doing joins with two colours, creating the dreaded blip and completely forgetting why... You have just clarified this issue here and I am so appreciative!
Fox : )
P.S. Lest there be any confusion: 'up' joins are what are used in traditional tatting (yet you say you do not care for them) - a loop of the working thread is pulled 'up' through the picot before the shuttle is passed through it. In a 'down' join the same loop is pulled 'down' through the picot, which can be a little trickier because you don't have your index finger to press against and must corral the thread against your fingernail in order to pop it through.
ReplyDeleteI hope that was clearer.
Ok, it appears I got them the other way around. I thought the down join was the one where your shuttle hook went DOWN the picot to join so that's why I called it that. Does everybody agree on this definition?
DeleteYes, Frivole, Suzanne has described the joins exactly as we discussed them about 10 yrs ago on the Here-Be Tatters yahoo email group. Way back when we were figuring out fs/bs and the up/down joins.
DeleteIf you prefer the look of FS/BS then you should be able to be just as speedy with it as previously after you practice. There are teachers out there that start students doing FS/BS from the beginning, and tatters taught that way are no slower nor faster than the rest of us (it's not the FS/BS that governs their speed but their technique in manipulating the shuttle).
ReplyDeleteI too am a "convert" to FS/BS (I learned from a book written before FS/BS) but I usually only do it for gifts (to tatters who can tell) and items that will be judged in competition. But because I don't do this regularly, my speed and tension does seem to be a little different between the FS and BS, I first check over the pattern for whether there's more chains than rings - then I plan to do rings 2nd half/first half and the chains normally. If that makes any sense?
PS Down joins are worth mastering even if a bit of a pain - they help keep that annoying color blip from 2 color tatting to the back. I find the down join is faster than the others based on split chain that I've seen that avoid it altogether... again it's a matter of tradeoff: your preference in the look of the finished work and the time required to accomplish that look.
Hi Mimi,
DeleteI find your P.S. confusing. Especially as it appears to contradict the statement I made above. A down join would only keep the color blip to the back side if it were used on the back side. On the front side, a down join will place the contrast color of the picot to which the element is being joined in full view. Or have I misunderstood what you were saying?
Sorry Suzanne, and apologies to Frivole, too. I didn't mean to post misinformation. I had started composing my post when only Miranda had replied; the phone rang and by the time I finished, my comment posted after others I had not read. I wish I had had the chance as Suzanne said it so well I probably wouldn't have had to post at all - or I could have least stopped to think twice about what side of the work I was on during my recent wrestle with highly contrasting threads and very pronounced blips. When I got home this evening, I got out shuttles an retested - I was on the back side. Shall I delete my reply?
DeleteNo worries. Even when one has a firm grasp on the medium, it is good to have to stop and rethink things now and then. Those of you who teach at Shuttlebirds or Palmetto get to do this on a regular basis. After I read your post and responded, I did go dig out the shuttles and some high contrast thread, just to make sure that I wasn't mistaken.
DeleteSince you have the shuttles and high contrast thread handy, can I trouble you to try Jane Eborall's blipless join and report back? For me, it avoids the blip issue entirely, but I do not seem able to make the ds in which it is used seamlessly uniform in relation to the other stitches. There is an extra bit of thread that causes the stitch to sit slightly crooked, and it drives me nuts. I'm beginning to think that Lily Morales's lark's head picot join is the only truly blipless solution, but it is a little time consuming to be used extensively in a piece. I'd love to hear your thoughts if you have time.
Frivole: I'm not trying to hijack the discussion. All of these techniques are useful tools in the production of impeccable tatting. Would you rather that Mimi and I continue this exchange via e-mail? or perhaps in a thread at InTatters?
Suzanne, check with Krystle, she has a technique for making the LHPJ that I think is easier then Lily's I have used Lily's too, and it is fiddly, but I think Krystle's will work better. http://krystledawnetats.blogspot.com/
DeleteThanks, Ladytats. I was aware of Krystle's improvement on the technique, and was looking forward to learning it in her class at S'birds last month. Alas, life got in the way of both my attendance there, and further experimentation with blipless joins.
DeleteWhat really annoyed me was my failure to implement Jane E.'s innovation to my satisfaction. Jane's blipless joins look fine, so there is obviously a finesse to it that escapes me. Around a table with other tatters is the best place to hash these things out,but I am many miles removed from that possibility just now.
No problem Suzanne, I'm enjoying reading what people have to say. I will look again at Jane's blip less join. I have tried finding Krystledawn but it seems her video is unavailable yet?
DeleteI'm always interested in learning new techniques if I think they will benefit the look of my tatting.
Thanks for all the responses.
Frivole, I don't believe there is a video, but she has very good pictures on an easy to understand handout. if you contact her she will email it out.
DeleteSuzanne, I didn't have a chance to try Jane's version yet (monthly knitter's guild n ight) but I was in Krystal's necklace class with the LHPJ (would have liked to have seen you there, sorry you missed it). Her method of doing it seemed totally counter-intuitive to me at first. But once I mastered it, I found it not much slower than a regular join (particularly including the time of the 1/2 stich that has to follow), and much faster than what I had to do for the original LHPJ (which I still think was a brilliant invention - 1 stitch split chain, why didn't I think of that?). Eventually I figured out why Krystle's works, I think it was probably around #20 of the 34 in the pattern! I did not find that this one sat off kilter at all, but sits straight (or I'm cockeyed to offset it?) Since you're a technician, I want to point out that the LHPJ occupies a full ds, so you may need to adjust stitch counts around it if you find the result is off center for a pattern written for a standard join.
DeleteHi Mimi,
DeleteThanks for the feedback on Krystledawne's LHPJ - I'll try it just as soon as I can get my hands on a copy of the PDF. Given that it is a LHPJ, I would not have expected it to sit any other way than pretty and straight. My problems with Jane's method are probably unique to me, but I would love to have some feedback from others who have used it at some point. If Krystledawne's LHPJ works for me, I will probably use that 'blipless' method from now on.
P.S. Thanks for the added note 'to the technician' - I sure don't feel like one these days!
Suzanne, I did Jane's blipless join tonight with my rattail cord and tatsy's (aka training wheels shuttles) so I could see what was going on.
DeleteThe join does have a bit of a torque to it. The join results in what functions as a single thread through the picot (there are 2 threads through, but they are twisted together). But with small thread and finger pressing or blocking, no one will be able to tell.
It is indeed truly blipless on both sides, a great advantage when making something from contrasting colors that is likely to be viewed from both sides (bookmarks, pendants). So many inventive tatters and ways to solve these problems!
It was the "with small thread and finger pressing or blocking" part that, for me, did not lead to "no one will be able to tell". I used the join in a couple of bookmarks I made back in January (in size 20), interspersed with the more usual placement of the blip on the back side, and, after blocking, I can still see the blipless joins at arm's length. There is a little 'shoulder' (don't know how else to describe it) of thread that sits up from the right side of the stitch (a byproduct of the twist). If I had photo handling capability here, I could make a sample and show you. Alas, I never got around to adding photo handling software to my new computer - been too busy trying to keep my life from imploding.
DeleteI am very grateful to you for having taken the time to play with this variation on the blipless join and report back. I'll have to give it another go. At the time, I simply was not able to make this join sit right, no matter how much tugging and massaging I did. Perhaps it will go better when I revisit it. Or, I can use Krystle's LHPJ...
Thank you for participating in a discussion that is helping to distract me from my woes!
I am sticking to what you initially said, Suzanne, as I think that is the general understanding... Fox
ReplyDeleteThis type of discussion is what I learn from. Karen in OR who will now try the down join
ReplyDeleteyour tatting looks very nice.
ReplyDeleteI learned about fs/bs about 10 yrs ago, and have been tatting that way ever since. I can not switch back and forth, it is the only way I tat now, and that is the way I teach as well. well.... after they get the flip and understand the differences.
the only reason I ever have gaposis is not paying attention, I don't recall noticing any difference in the front or the back being difficult. starting a chain with the 2nd half ds is automatic and often end up tatting the rings on the backside as well. when elements reverse.
I have heard of tatting an additional 2nd half ds at the end of the ring to avoid the tendency to turn in, it doesn't seem to create any distortion having that extra half stitch there, but I almost never use it. If I hold the ring snug enough in the pinch as I close the ring, I can usually avoid the twist.
Your motif looks very nice!!! :)
ReplyDelete