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...

First honeycomb samples

So I took up Laura’s challenge to bring woven samples when I visit - .

The original Maja draft looks like this:

It calls for cotton 30/2 set at 22 ends per centimeter.

As I wanted to experiment with giving it a useable reverse side, I needed a “back” warp, which meant I had to have 44 ends per cm. (That means 44 x 2,5 = 110 ends per inch, so my american readers don’t have to convert... :-)

I wound some 800 ends (lost count somewhere after 825) to the shortest warp I dared put on the AVL – 2,5 meters, about.

Threading was ok, sort of. I made several widths of cells, from Maja’s 10 and 4, to max 40 and 40, to see if/how the width would influence the results. I ignored the selvages.
Then came the sleying... After some thinking, I decided to sley 9 ends per dent in a 50/10 (metric) reed, which would give me 45 ends per cm. With the odd number, it meant I have an average of 22,25 epcm and “layer”.

It turned out I made two sleying mistakes, but I solved them the alexandrian way: I just cut out 9 ends at each place. (It is a sample, after all, so it doesn’t really matter.)

Then I started weaving. Too soft tension. After several tries I had a tension so I almost couldn’t advance the warp, but I really would have liked i higher. (At least it is my experience that very tight cloth requires very high tension.)
It turned out I had made a couple of silly mistakes when converting the draft to dobby, but after some corrections I had it right.

The red portion is the “simple cloth” (ie the extra warp floats at the back).
Then I switched to blue weft and the double-sided (one-weft) version.

As I was very curious about how the back looked, I just pointed the camera to the underside...:

Of course, with wet finishing it may yet come out ok!

Having a backing warp also took care of the selvages – at least at the left side. Had I used two shuttles for the outlining weft I would have had two nice selvages (I think).

(Yes it is blurry)

This is the weaving draft for the double-sided – rotated to “fool” the image-viewer:

(Laura, shall I bring them unfinished? Then we both can share the excitement... or the disappointment, of course)

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?

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?