hot topics of the week

Hot Topics Hi! Welcome to the hot topic of the week..... What we have been discussing on TatChat was very interesting and very individual. Involving taste, habit, and some questions. I tatted three rings with two joins here to see close-up what's happening. Betsy's comment Teri's comment tatted rings and chains (front side)

Wow! Thats large I hear you say :) Well, yes, I wanna SEE. Its done in pearl 8. the pattern as *I* would write it/read it/interpret it is: R3-3-3-3-3-3., RW, CH 3-3-3-3, RW, R3+3-3-3-3-3., RW, CH 3-3-3-3, RW, R3+3-3-3-3-3., CH 3-3-3-3 What did I do? Ring A: normal Ring, I did not count the picots as stitches, they are sitting between the stitches, you can count the 3 ds between the picots (upper arrow) Chain a: normal chain, I did rw and am just tatting a chain. You can see how two ds are always visible with their little horizontal bat over the top and the picot "takes up the space, spans, another two threads, no horizontal bar" is sitting between them. I did tat however 3-3-3-3 Ring B: normal Ring, I joined to ring A with pulling the ball thread UP through the picot, I did NOT count this as a part of the next ds (see the little thread looping into the picot at the black and white arrow). Chain b: I did rw for this chain but this time I tatted starting with the second half of the ds then 2 complete ds, then first half of the ds, space for picot, second half of ds and so on. See how you can count three ds between picots here again, with three little bars over the top. Some people would say it looks as if this is the "front" of the chain. Neat trick. Ring C: joining Ring C to Ring B I this time pulled the ball thread DOWN through the picot and did count that as the first half of the following ds. See how I this way do generate the horizontal bar and combined with the next second half of the ds it takes up the space of 1 ds (of the three). Chain c: I did NOT rw for this chain, everything stayed in my hand as if for the ring. I made larks head KNOTS over the shuttle thread, starting with the second half of the stitch, then first half. Should look like chain B if my tension would have been the same.... Now, let look at the same piece from the other side: the other side of the tatted piece

Its the same little piece, just turned around to view the other side. See how now chain b and c look the same as chain a in the upper picture. The rings now look like chain a, with only 2 clearly visible bars/ds between the picots. Chain a nonetheless bears three clear ds. I hope this was interesting for you. It certainly was for me :) Maus Here is how Betsy counts picots: she made a great illustration for us and its real clear! She also adds that each person should still do it how they like it and what they are accustomed to!

Counting Picots

3 ds, 1 picot (being formed), 3 ds

3 ds, 1 picot, 3 ds

Ring of seven picots

Notice the single ds between picots.
If an additional ds were to be worked, this ring would be far too big. Betsy

Teri Dusenbury's comments to the topic "joins": Historically speaking, Riego started joining her picots after the piece was tatted with a thread and needle. Riego grew bored with that method and started using a "netting needle" so that she could a) still have a lot of excess thread and b) join her picots by sliding the netting shuttle through the picot. (Possibly what is referred to as the "lone thread" method.) Since, I can't get up close a personal to her tatting I can't tell for certain if she was joining (with the netting needle) using the "lone thread" method. I have a "gut" feeling that is what she did.

Then there came the "traditional join" of pulling the thread up through the bottom of the picot counting that loop as the first hitch and then tatting the second. Riego is not the inventor of this method but she is definitely the person who made the most use of the technique and therefore placed it on the map. Once she incorporated the use of this technique into her designs Riego
put down her netting needles and tatted with shuttles.

I've always hated the traditional join so I opted to only use the "lone thread" method until one day when two students of mine showed me that the traditional join on the wrong side of the work looked like a better alternative to the lone thread method, thus the birth of the "modern" method.
Ring A is joined by what is referred to as the "lone thread method". It never counted as anything in the knot count.

Chain B is a "directional chain". I made a big effort not to teach this method anymore because I felt it defeated the point that reversing the work to tat the chain was/is an unnecessary hand movement.

Ring C is a "modern join".