Finished honeycomb samples

I wove the three samples from here – that is, I omitted the one that would result in two separate layers.

This is what they look like, unfinished (scanned):

the original Maja draft (and a correction to last post – it calls for *22* ends per centimetre, which is why a doubled warp means 44 epcm).

the double-sided, with just one "cell" weft.

and the third, which has 2 cell wefts, the layers being connected by the outlines.

We abused them as best we could – hot water, vigorous washing, more hot water, wringing, drying in dryer… the lot.
Nothing very exciting happened… here they are, finished and scanned:

reacted as predicted. Obviously the widths of the cells (warpwise) are important, as is the depth (number of picks). Comparing the results to some old-ish pieces I have met, I can see that, if the cells are small enough, there is no need for the thicker outline weft.

did not really develop any “cells” (also more or less as predicted). However, if we adopt the old name “bed cover weave”, I would say this is better than the original. After all, it has a serviceable wrong side.

was more of a disappointment to me. I had thought there would be more distortions - . Perhaps “longer”cells (more picks) would have made a difference? Longer cells would have meant more space for the floats (but would of course have generated more floating yarns, too).

Will I ever try the more complex (and even thinner) Hulda Peter’s honeycomb? No, probably not... Would I try a double-sided with somewhat thicker yarn? Well – perhaps it would make a sturdy draft-breaking door drapery - which could be made in several other more interesting structures, instead...