Swedish weaving books, a list

... and some commentary, now on my website: here for English, here for Swedish.

If you see something wrong, or disagree with me, please send an e-mail (link on the page)

I have also some older texts for download (they are all on the page, but in the middle of the text) - collected here (English version, but there is a "button" at the upper left for toggling between languages. In fact, the button is there, same position, on all my web pages.)


To give this post some physical weaving content, here is a sample:

The warp is on the loom, the serial-to-usb works even for weaving proper, but the structure will be changed some.
Maybe the result will be called "the first daffodil".

(Sample above is hemmed but not wet finished. Once I saw the hemming idea worked, I was just interested in the float lengths vs how I think it will survive the "muggle" handling. Decided shorter are better.)

It makes me sad

to learn that the National Guild is going to abandon the Weave of the month after five years. The reason is, I heard, lack of contributions.

This idea was mine to begin with. Or, to make the story somewhat longer: in 2004, my (then) guild decided to compile a calendar. The idea was not mine to begin with, but I ended up doing most of the layout work. The calendar was a success - we (almost) sold out at the Glimåkra days when we first presented it. (It can still be read online - follow the link above, then click on the pictures to see them bigger.)
After that success, we talked about doing it again, but somehow, it never happened. (Ours was a small guild, only about 30 members, of which some were not very active.)

A little later, I suggested that the National guild should add some "weaverly" content to the new website - like, perhaps, a monthly "weave" (could be a recipe, an idea, something inspiring weavers both new and old - and, perhaps, inspire more weavers to become members.) After lots of discussion the idea was turned down, with arguments from "nobody wants to share their secrets" to "but if it is 'open', why should ppl want to become members, as they get the benefit for free". (This last is a valid argument, it is always a thin line to walk: how much do we want to give away to "anybody" as compared to our members, who, after all, pay. Not always easy, to find a balance between "inspiration" and "free learning".)

Anyway, the idea took root, and 2010 the Weave of the Month started. As it was an idea from my guild, we took it rather too seriously - we (still only 30 members) contributed 4 weaves that first year. It was an immediate success, but the willingness to contribute was rather smaller than I had anticipated. With some persuasion and some more contributions from us, 2011 went by. For 2012, we agreed to publish several weaves from a handwritten notebook one of us owned - that saved 2012. (To see all contributions from us, look here.

Since then I have left he guild (for reasons mostly personal). And now I see that W-o-t-M is going to be abandoned. Apparently that first argument ("nobody wants to share their secrets") was so much more valid than I could ever had imagined. (The National Guild has some 1600 members total.)

It makes me sad that so many weavers do not want to share... sharing does not have to mean a complete "recipe", including colour numbers.

Some inspiration:

Wristwarmers, sewn from a piece of differentially shrunk fabric with fringes:

A dräll "flower". As I only have 16 shafts, it is constructed of five blocks of 1/2 twill. Note: the repeat ends at the red line(s).

What it can be used for?
Well - by expanding the blocks, and using fat yarn, it could perhaps be made into a rug?
Or, with fine linen (and several repeats), it could make a tablecloth? Or a towel?
Or...

Visit to Husqvarna

Husqvarna weapons factory was started in the late 1600's. They have manufactured several types of high-precision (and some not-so-high, too) metal, mostly iron and steel, products over the years. Nowadays the local historical society is responsible for the factory museum.

Obviously, they are most proud of the weapons and the motorcycles. (Several rooms of them, and then there was a room for chain saws, another one for robot lawn mowers, and ..., and ..., and finally a room for the sewing machines.

I, of course, went there to find out about the Triumf sewing machine. I did not have much immediate luck - the volunteers manning the shop weren't sewing machine specialists. (The suggestions I got... Well. Of course I don't know the first things about ancient firearms, so who am I to complain?)

There is very little information about the sewing machines. (Like the difference between chain stitch machines and machines with two threads; about the difference between shuttle machines and bobbin machines, for instance. This always disappoints me, when museums don't "give" of their special knowledge - .)
About the Triumf it was told that it was manufactured 1885 - 1931 and that it was especially popular among (itinerant) professionals.
There was one Triumf looking exactly like mine (ie no signs of a thread guide fallen off), and one specially made for the World Exhibition in Chicago 1893 (where it got a prize). (For Swedish click here.)
Why the model is called Triumf is unclear, as it differs a lot from the "ordinary".
Some pics (click to biggify):

(it sat in a glass case)

The most notable differences - the tensioning discs are on the front, and there are a couple of thread guides, too:

So the mystery is still unsolved.
With some luck, there is a manual somewhere in the archives, but the archivist was on holiday. Watch this space!

Now for the usual water spout:

The head at the spot is quite extreme (116 m), so nowadays the water is used to generate electric power - therefore the water cannot be seen. But it is there, inside the tube!

How to spin better linen yarns

Many authorities "of the time" assert that yarn spun with "the new method" (ie with a DFW of the Mager type) has a much, much better quality - as if consistent grist and twist come automatically with the wheel type. (Maybe it does... after all, I haven't got mine operational yet)

To let you all know as much as I now do, I took a stab at translating the first part of the Book with the Hopeless Title - the part that should instruct us all how to use this famous wheel.

(It can be that you, too, become a bit disappointed with the contents. But I assure you: this is all there is!)

The first part, same as the other, is now available in .pdf-form, the translated variant here with text in both Swedish and (my attempt to translate it into) English. The plate is on the very last page. (Comments on the translation(s) are most welcome!)

There is also the "original" (transcribed, some sort of Swedish) - found here. The drawing is on the last page.

For my local-ish Swedish friends: do you know anything about the Gårdsby Lin-Institut, at Gårdsby outside Växjö, that was in existence 1811-1827 (or -28)? There is a rumour that they used double flyer wheels there, too, but as the Mager type was not known until 1843, I would be very interested to know what kind of DFWs they were using.

How to build your own double (or more!) flyer spinning wheel

As told here, I have borrowed the Ekenmark book with the hopeless title (Afhandling Om Den förbättrade och förenklade Nya Magerska Linspinnings-Methoden, Jemte En wida ändamålsenligare Method, för så wäl Dubbel- som Enkelspinning, med förändring af en wanlig Spinnrock, både för en och flere personer på en och samma gång, hwarigenom den motswarar nyttan af 4 serskilta wanliga spinnrockar, Äfwensom Om bästa sättet, att få linet genom sjelfwa Rötningen mycket finare och mjukare, så att det derigenom blifwer ojemförligt ändamålsenligare till båda Spinning, garn och wäfnader, än hwad genom den wanliga Linrötningen och torkningen kan åstadkommas.
Utarbetad Af GUSTAF EKENMARK och HUSTRU
Med en större Lithografierad Planch
Stockholm Tryckt hos Lundberg & Comp. 1848)

I have also transcribed it (gothic print...), probably with some mistakes here and there.

Today I can offer anybody nerdy enough to want to know how to alter an ordinary saxony type spinning wheel to accommodate as many as 4 flyers, without "compromising" the original wheel: there is one .pdf here with text in both Swedish and (my attempt to translate it into) English - no light reading this (I doubt I have ever encountered sentences as long as in this text... hard to read in Swedish, even harder to make some sort of sense in English). This file has a couple of illustrations enlarged from the drawing (which is on the very last page).

There is also the "original" (transcribed, some sort of Swedish) - found here. No extra illustrations, but the drawing is on the last page.

If I end this post with "enjoy!" - would you think I'm having you on?!?

The profile draft challenge

The challenge in a nutshell: take this profile and "run with it" - completing, changing, interpreting, networking... and tell us what you come up with!

Some background:

A couple of years ago my local guild thought it would be nice if our national guild would present weaving ideas and/or drafts and/or complete instructions now and again.
We proposed that to the AGM, and we got very differing reactions – some thought it a great idea, others said they would never, ever "give away" their work for free. (If I tell "them", then "they" will know as much as I do – and then, where would I be?)

A year, or maybe 2, later it was decided that we should give it a try. (Now we have 26 "Månadens väv" published, all in .pdf-format. All are welcome to download and be inspired!) Me and my guild, being responisble for the idea, have taken it rather too seriously to supply drafts. (In fact, we have sent in over 30% of the drafts, having 2% of the members of Riks.)

"The usual" did happen: "oh, what a good idea – I love to see all the new weaves!" "What? Me contribute? But I’m not good enough/have only 4 shafts/only weave on a drawloom/..." (Note: nobody says, to my face, anyway, that they don't want to share.)

So I decided it was time to do something – and, in the last guild mag, I issued The Profile Draft Challenge (or click here for Swedish.)

I hope we can get at least 12 Månadens väv out of it!!!

After thinking a bit further, I decided to extend the challenge/invite to weavers from all over the world. (I may not be authorized to promise a publication as a Månadens väv, but as I am webmaster for the local pages, I can do what I want with them, right?)
To make the challenge even more open/accessible, I started a group on Weavolution, too.

So now I invite those of my readers who are neither members of Riksföreningen för handvävning nor members of Weavolution to at least read about it – and then maybe to become members of one or the other (or both!) – and join the challenge!

To get a .wif, you have to go either to the guild page(s) or to Weavolution.

Crackle – corrections

Thanks to Laura, I now have re-read the Tidball book.
What I remembered was wrong (or came from another book altogether).

Tidball does indeed advocate three colours, but in a way different than I thought:
(easier to scan than to type it...)

A bit later she also writes that she uses "a heavy dark and two fine light colors".

So let’s go back some. Here is the profile, again:

Here it is, the threading again converted according to Tidball’s system. I don’t know what she means with “follow the rythm”, but this is a guess.

Using Tidball’s treadling system (as above – assuming that "block A" is the leftmost), and the recommendations to use one dark heavy weft and two fine light wefts, it looks like this:

(Again, I rotated to make it bigger in the picture-wiever)
Note that, according to the treadling specifications, there is one extra light-coloured pick "for the transition", which means there are two same-coloured picks at the block changes.
(But why the two light colours?)

For truth’s sake, I should also quote another sentence: "Weaving as drawn in is not commonly attemped in crackle, though the Swedish books contain many crackle (called Jämtlandsvaev) drafts for elaborate symmetrical patterns, symmetrically woven." (Me, the dumb Swede, can’t se any obvious relation between symmetric draft, symmetrically woven, and "as drawn in"... And I still haven’t seen any Swedish jämtlandsdräll woven any other way than "as overshot".)

However. Several of the (north american) weaving softwares often want to use tromp-as-writ, if left to their “automatic” preferences. So the mystery still remains: why tromp-as-writ?

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...

London: fibres, fabrics and...

fancy dress (NO! But how to allitterate? F...f... fanatics? no, that's even worse... ah: 'ficionados, that will do it!)
So: London: fibres, fabrics and 'ficionados.

Fibres: for the first time, I visited Handweaver's studio, a place full of fibres

"ordinary" yarns, more unusual yarns

glitter yarns

There are also spinning tools, looms, books, magazines... However, having baggage restrictions, I didn't buy much.

Fabrics: there is a small stretch of road having more fabric shops than anywhere else I have ever seen, on Goldhawk road (between Shepherd's bush market and the common). Silks, silks, silks, worsteds, fancy fabrics, fashion fabrics... Did I mention silks? (To make it even better, there is also a pub called The stinging nettle - not quite fibres, but almost...)

As this whole block is threatened with demolition, here are many pictures:

(Should you happen to pass by in the near future, please go in and sign the petition!!!)

'ficionados: as my specific reason for going to London was the Congregation of the Burgon Society, here are a couple of pictures:

"All about weaving"

In January I wrote about the myth about "there is no handweaving on the 'net" (here is the post). Among other things I told about the New Important Project aiming to create a 'net portal to contain "everything about handweaving".

That portal is now here. (Oh, it contains, presumably, "all" about several other textile art forms, too: embroidery, knitting, crochet, bobbin lace...).

I suppose it is A Good Thing that there is another weaving "portal" out there, to point aspiring weavers to many resources. So - why am I so obviously miffed? Well, to tell the truth, I am disappointed about not having been consulted. Oh, not me, personally, but, for instance, our local guild works near, or so we thought, the local craft association. We could have got a link, perhaps? Or we could have been invited to participate in the pattern-making ("weaving for all" - a collection of patterns "from north to south")... or: the collection of patterns could have had more than one (ok, two) projects that are not rugs, towels and tablecloths. After all, from the first I heard of the project, it was meant to inspire/convince "youngsters" that weaving is not just boring old things like rugs and tablecloths...

Well.
Perhaps it is just a case of sour grapes. (Age, perhaps? "grumpy old woman"?)
But I wander how one gets to be on the links list, or on the book list...
On the knitting pages, Ravelry has got a link. But Weavolution is not on the weaving pages - nor is handweaving.net.

Some hard facts to contemplate:

Another solution / en annan lösning

Laura's soultion is the right-hand one (right, Laura?) - slightly different look, but sooo much easier...
(why didn't *I* think of that??? ;-)

En annan lösning, från Laura (till höger ovan). Lite annorlunda ser den ut, men bara lite ;-)
(Varför kom inte *jag* på den...?)

How to fly carpets

I have been asked how the flying carpets (now taken down) were mounted to fly.

I had a theory:

The idea was: route the rug as shown, between two rigid sticks. Put a "string" with a stopping knot under the lower stick, through the hole in the upper, and down the other end.
Hopefully the weight of the rug would press the upper stick down on to the lower stick, and lock the rug in place.

It did not work. So... plan B: put a screw through the holes, and a wingnut under the lower stick. (The rug is still routed the same way.)

This worked perfectly!
For "sticks" we used shaft bars (as they already have convenient holes...), and put a big washer on each "outside" to protect the wood from marks.
The only annoyance was that the hardware store did not have shorter "eyed" screws...

(I still think the theory could work with, say, shawls)

Netiquette?

I've been hanging out on the 'net since '96 (I think). A lot has happened since then, especially to the discussion lists. Then, everything was strictly text-based, and, as most of us were on dial-up and had to pay per minute and/or byte, postings were often well thought-through.
Now, it is easy to add pictures, broadband often (but not always!) means no restrictions on bytes. There are more "lists", more "forums", more "communities". Blogging is free and easy to manage. It has become cheaper to own websites.
But. It seems to me that at the same time words have become less... important? On some communities where I participate, nowadays it is quite normal that commenters have not really read the question, and thus answers/comments on something else entirely.

Let me fabricate an exaggerated example:
Q: "Anybody knows how to define 'houndstooth' pattern?"
A: "Use one light-one dark in both warp and weft and you get 'log cabin'"

Yes, but... that wasn't the question?

Or, another one:
1:st post: "I found this interesting article (link provided)"
1:st comment: "Very interesting, esp the discussion on ..."
2:nd comment: "Where can I find the article?"

?

I suppose the above is a cousin to what I wrote in january.
Except... these (albeit fabricated) examples are from within a forum. That is: the participant(s) has 1) managed to find the forum, 2) managed to sign in and 3) has had enough interest to read the first part of the thread (well, obviously not - but open the page in question).

OK, everyone of us has "senior moments", whether we are old or young. But I think this is getting more and more common?

I have read articles saying that elderly people get "smarter" when they start using the 'net (whatever that means - and, question is: if you already were a 'net user, are you already "smarter" than you would have been, without the 'net?). I have also read articles saying that surfing/gaming children lose reading ability - but also articles that state that children having access to a computer read better than children without.

Whatever. But: shouldn't we all be courteous enough to try to understand the question(s) before we answer/comment?

Some textile content from our co-op, now open seven days/week:

Hålkrus?

Evelyn posted a question over at Weavolution. She asked how to treadle pattern no 44 (Hålkrus) in Vävbok by Hulda Peters.

The book in question is but one of many - in the early 1900s there were several small books containing "simple" (or perhaps "traditional"?) weaving patterns. They were often thin pamphlets (the Peters book is, in fact, unusually thick - all of 96 pages), often claiming they are describing "local" weaves.
This, I suspect, was the time when Daldräll ("overshot") was associated with Dalarna, when Jämtlandsdräll became "typical" of Jämtland, when Gagnefkrus was attributed to Gagnef, Östgötadräll to Östergötland, Rovadräll to Rova... and Smålandsväv to Småland.

Peters is, at the time, manager of the local Craft society shop in Skara. She is quite unique in that not one of her threadings has a geographical name.
She is also unique in that she does not give any treadlings... The detailed threadings are there, the tie-ups are there, and occasionally she gives some off-hand treadling instruction ("treadled back-and-forth").

The hålkrus, #44, has the threding and the tie-up. It also has a picture - (click to biggify):

As hålkrus usually has well-defined "holes", it is easy to doubt the name. Or, at least, to be confused...

(This picture from the book Varp och inslag, ISBN 91-27-35226-9.)

As I don't like to be confused, I did some research. It resulted in a new article on my web site - read it here.

I also wanted to know what you called it in English, I tried googling.
At handweaving.net I found an excerpt from Master weaver from 1954, titled "Hålkrus, or Gagnefkrus, or Spetsväv, or Lacey Weave, or Honeycomb". It says: " Strangely enough this weave with so many names, has none in English. In colonial times it has been called Honey Comb. Since then however the industrial weaving adopted Honeycomb as a synonym of Waffle. So if we want to call Hålkrus by the name of honeycomb, we must add Colonial, or nobody will know what we are talking about."
So, I googled honeycomb +weave - and, sure enough - most hits I got depicted what I would call waffle - this (scroll down a bit), and this - in fact, there are several waffles on this site, all labelled honeycomb.

Conclusion: the more you know, the more you know that you don't know...

(Please, can I have all possible names for the technique? Don't mind the language!)

About rules, written and un-

Many years ago I went to Svensk Hemslöjd to ask if they would like to sell my scarves/shawls.
They did not, for two reasons: 1. I used colours (colours, not dyes!) that did not "exist in nature" and 2. they were not brushed, which made them "feel like fabric".

(I have a problem, here - can some native speaker pls help? "Fabric", above: she meant they felt like material used to sew garmants. What is the most correct word to use for this?)

The shawls I had brought were woven of the most soft and nice worsted (2/2/32 worsted count, spun in Scotland - I still have some of the yarn, but the labels are long gone), had a lace pattern that I also don't know in English (see below), but that Cyrus translates as "mosquito netting", and were (of course!) not brushed.
I had a couple of colour "lines" - I remember one warp was from several shades of burnt orange, with a different orange weft for each - another was turquoise (again several shades). I believe there were two more colur combos - all long gone, no pictures, but this was the idea:

Not even then I was naive enough not to know that there were unwritten rules for what would pass as "hemslöjd", but I had never thought the choice of colour would be one of them. After all, I had used a traditional Swedish weave structure, a traditional, um, "layout" (ordinary straight shawl, with traditional fringes, "ordinary" length and width). And to my mind, they were not "fabric", as they were far too open to sew with...

But - some people never learn... A couple of years later, I came back with different shawls. This time I had some V-shawls, and some I had sewn into a moebius shape. (This wasn't one of them - this was the sample. It is a lot "worse for wear", but it must be over 20 years old now)

In the moebiuses (??) I had experimented with warp face -> even-sided -> weft face structures, for a) more visual interest than plain weave or 2/2 twill and b) to make the join visually seamless. Something along these lines (though I believe it was slightly more complex):

Yes. Or, rather, no. These were not "traditional", so: no thanks.

That was the last time I tried to sell anything through Hemslöjden.

(- I have sold many Moebiuses over the years. It is a very good shape: with the right length it can be worn several ways, according to temperature: One turn over the head and the second turn around the neck; two turns around the neck; when you get warm, use only one turn and you get cooler without risking to drop it. Or it can be hung as a sash - over one shoulder and diagonally down to the waist.)

The next time I had problems with unwritten rules was when I decided to enter a flax spinning contest.
It appeared as if there were no rules - on asking, I was told "there are so many points to consider". After I had won, one of the judges told me that, "properly", I should not have - but the nominal winner had used a spinning wheel that was not traditional. (She had a Louet, with a big orifice, and everybody "knows" it is
"impossible" to spin fine on one of those - thus, her result was a pure fluke. I had an antique Swedish wheel.)
Several years later, after moving down here, I entered another flax spinning contest. The idea, said the invitation/rule sheet, was to educate the public. Good, I thought - looking forward to some kind of open judging, or at least some explanation afterwards. It would be nice to know what constitutes a good linen yarn.
But... not. Even though I came second, I still don't know what flax spinning judges look for in a spinning contest, or a linen yarn. On asking, I was told that I should be happy I had got good points.
(Having a background including dressage riding, I know it it perfectly possible to have judging protocols broken down into several smaller steps, with the possibility for judges to write comments. Which they often do.)

Now, we have the Handwoven/Väv Garment Challenge. Apparently, if one asks Handwoven, one will be told that weaves of more than 8 shafts will not be considered. Note: I have NO problem with that! But: why is this not in the rules?!? Considering the rules already are almost two screens long, one line more would not make that much of a difference.

To search the web / att söka på nätet

Till alla er som kommit hit för att ni sökt på "gratis vävmönster": välkomna!
Här finns inga "mönster" - om ni med mönster menar "vävbeskrivning". Det absolut bästa sättet att finna gratis vävbeskrivningar är att gå till biblioteket och låna vävböcker.

Naturligtvis finns många websidor med vävmönster - en av dem finns på Riksföreningen för handvävning, där vi sedan drygt ett år publicerar en vävbeskrivning per månad.

På Vi Kronobergsvävares sidor finns många vävtekniker beskrivna, vi har många solvnotor som vi bjuder på - men regelrätta "beskrivningar" finns inte så många. Vi vill snarare inspirera än uppmuntra till att "göra efter".
Vår registersida hittar du här.

På min egen "stora" sida finns ett antal artiklar om hur man analyserar en väv (så att man kan "göra efter"), om hur man konstruerar dubbelvävar, om hur man förstår ett partimönster mm. Samlingssidan hittar du här.
På denhär bloggen finns en del småsaker - sök "weave constrution".

Läser du engelska finns den (tror jag) absolut största samlingen av "gratis vävmönster" på handweaving.net.
Under fliken "drafts" kan du söka på många olika sätt - efter antal skaft, efter teknik, efter källa (oftast mycket gamla böcker). Inte heller här finns regelrätta "beskrivningar". Däremot finns (under fliken "archive") ett stort antal gratis vävböcker, alla copyrightfria (alltså mestadels gamla) att ladda ned. De flesta är inte svenska - franska, engelska, amerikanska, ryska, tyska...

På Weavolution kan man ta del av andras mönster (och bidra med egna, förståss!)

Till sist ett söktips: skippa "gratis", och försök att söka på något mer specifikt: solvnota daldräll, kypert, trasvävar...

(To all of you who have arrived here after searching for "free weaving pattern": welcome!
Here you will not find "patterns" - if by that you mean a complete weaving recipe. The best way to find free weaving "recipes" is to go to the the library and borrow their weaving books. This might not work all over the world - .

Of course there are many websites out there with weaving patterns - one of them found on the site of Riksföreningen för handvävning. We have published a monthly pattern for more than a year, now.

On the site of Vi KronobergsVävare (my local guild) we are offering many drafts - but most of them are without detailed information. We believe in trying to inspire, more than offering instructions on "how to make *this*".
Our index page can be found here. (English version)

On my own "real" site there are a number of articles about analyzing a fabric (to be able to weave it), about constructing a double weave, how to understand a block draft... To find them, go here.
On this blog you can search for "weave construction".

For those of you who read English, the biggest (I think) site to find weaving drafts is handweaving.net. Under the "draft" tab you can search for drafts according to number of shafts, tecknique or source. There are no "recipes" to be found here, either - but there is a big number of old books to be downloaded for free.

There is also Weavolution, where many drafts contributed by others can be found - and you could contribute, too!

Lastly: a tip for searching the 'net: try searching for something more specific - overshot, twill... )

Some random thoughts

At the beginning of the new year, it is time to study the statistics from the old.

But first a short story:
in the middle of the autumn, I went to a weavers' meeting. There, we were, among other things, introduced to a New Important Project: a national crafts assoc has decided to promote handweaving.
They had several reasons for this - the first mentioned was that there is nothing about weaving to be found on the 'net ("If you search for weaving, you get no hits").
Another reason mentioned was that there are no weavers in Sweden anymore, and, after all, Sweden was once famous for its weaving and weavers.
Also several techniques (among them trensaflossa) were "dead", and needed published instructions.
So, the proposed main goal of this New Project was (among other, smaller, goals) was to create a 'net portal to contain "everything" about handweaving - .

At that very moment I searched (Google) for "vävning", with no qualifications, and got about 63000 hits. Among the first 50 hits about 4 were about other things than loom weaving (weaving intrigues, weaving horses, which probably is called something else in English, and two hits for dictionaries).
"Handvävning" only yielded about 1600 hits, of which about 30 of the first 50 were about weaving, the other 20 were from yarn sellers.
As it happened, my guild had had a program about trensaflossa just a week earlier - and, lo and behold, our page about trensaflossa was already to be found - on 3.rd place among about 850 hits. (Ok - our page wasn't there when she prepared her talk...)

Sigh.

Now I have been looking at 'net statistics from 2010.
I have my own web page, but I am also responsible for my guild's page.
Vi KronobergsVävare has had web presence since late 2003. We have accumulated about 100 different pages, of which maybe 10 has a content other than weaving (a few annual meetings and so on), but I really try to make sure that there is some weaving content on every page. We have an index page (in English - for Swedish, go "home" and choose "register") which lists content sorted into weave techniques, material, dyeing, ergonomics, theory, ideas, guild projects and exhibitions, curiosities. (Granted, some of the pages/meetings fall under more than one category.)
We also have a fairly large links page, linking to many "foreign" organisations.
A number of our pages are also translated to English.

So, what did I find in the statistics?
We had 2300 Swedish visitors, 470 from the US, 380 from the rest of the world, making up a total of about 3150 visitors. That makes an average of between 8 and 9 visitors per day. Those visitors viewed a total of 13150 pages, which gives an average of 4 pages per visit.
We had a total of 100 (clicked) outgoing links (I have no idea of how many links there are on the whole site), of which only 35 had more than 10 clicks. 35 had less than 5 clicks - of which 18 were to foreign organisations/resources (such as Weavolution, Complex Weavers, HGA, GCW, Atasda, Italian and French sites... AND handweaving.net). (No, no links here. You are all invited to use our links page, to better the statistics for next year... ;-)

The pages in English (about 20) all have more than 15 hits. Of the 8 outgoing links (from pages in English), 6 have more than 10 clicks.

What can I conclude from that?

Combining the "information" from the Project Person above with the fact that only 1/3 of our links have been popular, perhaps I can say that Swedish weavers don't care about a) information available on the 'net and b) weaving in other countries.
(Yes, I know: English is a foreign language to us, and the study of English hasn't been mandatory in Swedish schools for more than about 50 years...)


Combining the above with the fact that my own site has had 3600 Swedish visitors and almost the same number from the "rest of the world" - well... that was the reason why I decided to write my blog in English. And, in fact - this blog has had more than twice the numbers of visits from the US (only) than from Sweden (1550 and 650, respectively).

So, again: who is interested? And of what?
... looking at keyword statistics for the guild site, the vast majority is after free weaving patterns/instructions.
Most just search for vävmönster, vävnotor (patterns, drafts) but several add "gratis" (free of charge).


There has been several discussions here in Sweden over the last couple of years about the "fact" that there is no handweaving information to be had on the 'net. And that that is especially unfortunate, as all "youngsters" are supposed to search facts on the 'net only (supposedly they can't read books?). Said youngsters have complained that us "oldsters" (if it isn't a word, then it ought to be!) do hoard our information/knowledge, and besides, we only weave boring things like tablecloths.
What I'm wondering is: HOW can us oldsters "share" - if a) books are "out" and b) the 'net is "out", too?

To add some weaving to this (over)long post, here is a boring old thing (sunscreen?), woven on a boring old countermarche, using 4 shafts (but could have been only two...):

Mercerized cotton 50/3 and fishing line for warp, white horeshair for weft; tabby, but woven with a fan reed (sorry, I won't disclose the sett :-) - there is a limit to what I want to share...)
And: no, on account of the fishing line, it could never be used as a tablecloth.