Playing with software

How did we ever manage to experiment with strange ("new") structures before there was weaving software?
The answer (true for me, anyway) is: we didn't. Or, at least, I did not do it often – or, at even lesser (probably nor correct English, but you get my drift, I hope!) I did not often experiment with several layers.

This began with Maja, again. Her honeycomb isn't very interesting, except the quality: she used cotton 30/2 for warp anf weft, doubled for the outlines. (Ok, 30/2 doubled is double the thickness, but in most examples I've seen the difference has been a lot bigger than that.)

I have never woven honeycomb. One of the reasons is that I don't like structures with a so very obvious "wrong side". So I started to speculate... what if?
What if I tried to make a "back" – would I still get the weft distorsions?

This is the original draft

First, I tried with making the cell weft make cells on the back where it would have floated (back side to the left, right side to the right):

Only one cell weft, binding either on the right side or on the wrong. I decided I would have to use double outline picks (two each side), or the outlines would never distort. (As usual, the colours are there to make the draft more readable. You may not agree, but I find it easier, anyway.

Then I thougt that perhaps the non-floating weft would prevent the distorstions. New try:

Hm. This will make two separate layers (I think). If I wished two separate layers, I could as easily sew them together.

Another try:

Here the cells occur at the same place in both layers. Both warps, and both wefts float at the same time. To make the layers connect, I used only one outline weft, picking up one end from each layer.

Dear readers, especially those of you who have woven this structure: what do you think of my chances? Will any of these drafts give me distorted weft (except the original)?

And what did they do for the selvages – were they just hemmed? As I have shafts available, I think I will try to get a small selvage. Maybe some basket weave?

Weftfaced, with 3-colours

seems not to be the answer.

At least - what I (think I) remember about the 3-colour version was that the colours should always rotate the same, 1-2-3.

Laura suggested the 3-colur version was meant to be woven weft-faced.
I took the draft from yesterday and asked for a weft-faced representation:

Hmm - but we all know that shifting the colours can make big difference. Below left started with orange, then yellow, red - below right the order is red, orange, yellow.

Apparently it is not THE solution...

Jämtlandsdräll (not-quite-crackle)

Alison gave me an idea - what if the (obviously quite often) missing treadlings in Swedish pattern books gave Davison the idea to "always" use tromp-as-writ?
(I leafed through Davison, and don't think she really does that "incorrectly" very often)

But: whence came the idea of tromp-as-literally-writ for jämtlandsdräll?

Now I have a theory: many (Swedish) books tell you something like: (usually after an explanation of how to determine the tie-up) "the treadling proceeds according to the profile threading" (trampningen följer partisolvningen)..
So, if you are not good at reading Swedish, this may look almost like "treadle as threaded" - with the little difference that we (Swedes) read it as, well, profile threading.

For jämtlandsdräll, determining the tie-up can be somewhat trícky. Below is my attempt to translate from Varp och inslag (ISBN 91-27-35226-9 B):
"   Tie-up:
Two shafts will be tied to each pattern treadle.
If two blocks weave pattern at the same time, tie the shafts that are common to both blocks. Ie: block 1 is threaded on shafts 1,2 and 4, block 2 on shafts2, 3 and 1. Shafts 1 and 2 are common to both blocks, and are tied to one pattern treadle.
If one block weaves pattern [where the others do not], then tie two shafts that do not give pattern in other blocks. Block 1, for instance, can be tied two ways: either shafts 1 and 2, or shafts 1 and 4.
If the pattern contains both "single-pattern" and "double-pattern" blocks it is easiest to start with the "double-pattern" blocks.   "
(Probably not the best of translations, but...)

After experimenting with a very typical jämtlandsdräll profile, making substitutions according to (slightly) different rules, this is what I have got:

Substituting it "our" way, we get this:

As you can see, the pattern treadling follows the profile treadling, with tabbies in between. (Of course, in this instance, the profile treadling does not follow the profile threading)

Using that same threading, but woven-as-literally-drawn-in, we get:

We will never get the correct pattern - (ie the pattern the profile shows) because the treadling order should be different.

Letting PCW do the block substitution (and then fixing the tie-up - jämtlandsdräll tie-ups should always "be determined" os of above):

But - isn't this another variant of the pattern?
Making it two repeats (and turning the picture, hoping for better visiblity in blogger's new picture-handler) shows that it is indeed so:

Letting PCW do the substitution in "twill form" gets us something very like the original profile (after fixing the tie-up, of course). The differences there are can probably be "massaged out". The reason is that this follows the original profile treadling.

(I extended the pattern repeat to two, in most figures, to get a better wiev of the overall pattern. In other pictures there is one repeat plus one block to balance.)

So, getting back to the original question - whence came the idea of tromp-as-literally-writ for jämtlandsdräll? Why are we not to follow the profile?

And, even curiouser: from where did (Tidball, I think - read it in an American book anyway) the idea of a tree-colour rotation come? (I don't remember if something was said about colour values, so I just used red-orange-yellow):

But then, on the other hand, as Atwater writes (link goes to the document on handweaving.net):

so - who am I to tell what is right or wrong...

(ETA: seems I "fooled" the picture viewer: all pics become reasonably big if clicked, even the turned one!)

But the treadlings?

Regardless of the loom type(s) used – all fabrics must have a wefting order.
All the “recipes” have a tie-up given, so, obviously, they are meant for a treadle loom.

But where are the treadling orders? Or: when no treadling order is given, which is the “obvious” choice?
To me, nowadays, tromp-as-writ is what I first try – but would it have been, 30 years ago? Probably not. And I’m not (was not) alone in this: in several (modern) texts it says “if the treadling order is not given, it is always a straight order”.

Hm – since when?

This is another of the handwritten drafts:

So – what happens if this gets treadled straight?
(I know which version I would prefer, anyway...)

So, again, I asked my guildmates. They were all, at first, convinced that “straight” is the way to go, if no order is given. Until... vivid discussion followed. After a while, the prevailing ideas were that, for 4-shaft threadings the treadlings were probably straight, but for more shafts, and/or “complicated” threadings tromp-as-writ was probably where to start.

But, again: this is now.

Earlier this year, I was looking into Hulda Peters Vävbok, printed in 1925 – a slim volume with 90 threadings/tie-ups, but nearly no treadlings. (That resulted in an article on my website – found here) Many of her treadlings were tromp-as-writ, or slightly modified, without mentioning that “little” fact.
It turns out that many (most?) old-ish “pattern books” that I have lack treadlings, but most “real” books (hardbound and more pages) include them.
Isn’t that odd?
Especially as the older (pre-1900) books I have usually have treadlings...

Thoughts about looms

No weaving going on hereabouts, but lots of weaving-related tinking.
I have spent some time deciphering old-ish handwritten drafts. This has made me wonder about lots of things...

One of them is: can we draw any conclusions about looms used from drafts/tie-up used?

The most standard of all Swedish looms is the 4-shaft counterbalance, with one pulley and two horses (on each side of the loom, of course!). (Horses - in Swedish those are often called "nicke-pinnar", "nodding dowels". I don't know any other English word than horse - pls help?) Lamms have been used for a relatively long time. No lamms did not necessarily mean "direct tie-up" - it was pefectly possible to tie more than one shaft to one treadle. To prevent the shafts from moving sideways, one could use a ring of some sort (a piece of cow's horn, it says in one book) to keep the treadle cords together.

Countermarches were is use in the early 1800s, but how common were they?

The most common (I think) way to add more shafts was to use "lunor" - ie two-level pulleys (left) or dräll-pulleys:

From all the extras that came with my loom I think that, maybe, a 3-level pulley was used with horses, thus giving the loom a capacity to use 12 shafts, like this:

(Seen from the side: 2 shafts connected by horses to one cord that goes over the pulley and down on the other side - thus 6 shafts on the back of the pulley-contraption, 6 (not pictured) in front of it)

I have used such a set-up a couple of times, and it is... - well, let's say it can be done, but it takes lots of patience to get the whole thing balanced. However, I fully inderstand why one can prefer to use dräll pulleys (or countermarche) instead.
Dräll pulleys have one drawback: the tie-up has to be on opposites: what goes down in the one end must come up in the other:

So: can I draw any conclusions as to the type of loom was used, when I find several 8-shaft "not-opposite" tieups in one manuscript? As the majority of weaves are 4-shaft and of many different types, I'm not seeing the legacy of a specialist weaver (I think). There are a couple of opposite tie-ups, and as many not-opposites.
Am I seeing a weaver with lots of patience, or one with a countermarche? (From all the extras that came with my loom: maybe I'm seeing a weaver with a loom that is on its way to be upgraded?)

I asked my guildmates, some of whom have learned to weave 50 years ago, (then) using their (grand-)mother's loom. They all believed in the two-or-more-level pulleys, possibly with elastics to help balancing.

Any thoughts?

Double the fun?

When reading Andrew's musings about double layers and colour, I remembered some ideas I had many years ago. I think I did weave samples, but I can't find them - so maybe I never did?

Anyway, as you may have noticed, I like playing with colour... :) The basic idea was to have two separate layers, one colour per layer, and then slowly changing the appearence of the colours, and in the end getting the the opposite.

So I started to play.... here are some ideas:

These are threaded on 8 shafts, with every other end blue, the other red. The weft order is the same, but, as the weaving progresses, the wefts not always alternate in the layers.
Both start with bringing one end of the other colour to the top, then one pick, next part takes 2 ends to the top etc. Which ends/pick are brought up differs in the two examples. (And yes, I think it would be better with less contrast - gold and yellow, perhaps?) - click to enlarge:

Another approach: here, just the warps that change place - threaded on 16 shafts.
To the left (but needs, obviously, some more work) "going both ways", to the right are both faces of the first half.

(The left needed a lot more contrast to even show at this size...)

Hmmm - perhaps: two warp colours, but only one weft? Would make it a tube, of sorts - but that would, perhaps, make it more useable? Hmm... perhaps I should try it IRW (In Real Weave) too?

???

It has happened again. It has been quite a long time, but now it has happened twice in one month.

I am, as you know, a little old lady having a small business (and a weavery, to boot) out in the rural back-and-beyond.
Now and again, the "state" (or county, or the local something-or-other, or, sometimes, EU) decides to spend some money "helping" such small businesses. Especially if owned by women.
So they device some courses, especially tailored to little old ladies out in the boondocks. "Hmmm – what is it they really really need? Hmmm... ah, of course: they need to be "brought into the 21st century" – let’s teach them how to use a computer. Well, that is, perhaps, a bit too ambitious... but we can teach them how to use a small portion of it: e-mail!"

I guess this is (sort of) ok. (I think I know about 2 little old ladies that do not use e-mail, after all.) However: the invitation to such classes is sent out ... by e-mail.
Thus: in the last month I have had two different e-mails inviting me to a class in how to use e-mail. (And they want me to pay for them, too.)

What to do? Laugh, cry or perhaps start spamming all organisations doing things like that? Just sigh? I find it extremely insulting to get invitations sent out like that.

(But I do remember, after the hurricane, when all 'phone lines had come down. After a couple of weeks the 'phone company started telephoning their customers, to see if their 'phones were working. We had no 'phone for 6 weeks, that time. And the company did not want to compensate us, as we had not ('phoned) to tell them we had problems... Same thinking?)

As I am so very computer savvy (I may have worked computers before some of the "teachers" were born - ), here is a picture, too: