I just found this old draft of a blog post that I never got around to "publishing". I was probably waiting to publish until after I'd taken photos, but by the time there were pictures, I'd forgotten about it. I guess today is its lucky day. ;o)
Scratch another one off the list! I've finished the "Lotus Bloom" doily!
Pattern:
"Pretty Baby" by Elizabeth Hiddleson
Thread:
Circulo Clea, white
Apparently, Doris Chan revised this pattern for a publication that was printed in late 2012 (months after I started crocheting it).
There were definitely things about this pattern in need of revision. My own project notes on Ravelry indicate a couple of instances of possible errors. (I say "possible" because there's a chance I was confused/missing something, but I'm pretty sure they were mistakes.)
Then there were at least a couple of times when I saw how the pattern could be improved (imho) and did so. (I reduced the stitch-count in a repeat by one so that an element on the next round could be centered. Seven trc instead of eight in the middle section of the "fans", round 28. A couple of rounds later, I increased the middle section of the fan from six trc to seven-- again, to make the numbers better for the next round.)
Beyond that, the pattern was written in what was either Hiddleson's own style or the style of the time-- I'm not sure which. To the modern crocheter, spoiled by (ideally, errata aside) precise directions, standardized abbreviations, and having everything spelled out plainly-- the quirks of Hiddleson's pattern-writing may be confusing, at times. There are places where she essentially tells the crocheter to read the pattern from her photos (kind of a "primitive" version of reading a charted pattern). That might be okay for an experienced crocheter with a large, crisp photo, but it's not ideal.
...Personally, if I'm following a written pattern, I prefer having it all spelled out-- word for word, step by step. There's less room for confusion, that way. I often end up assuming I know what the pattern "means" without reading it all that carefully, but I like knowing that if I run into trouble, I can go back and actually read it. ;o)
I might try another Hiddleson pattern, at some point, if I find one that is particularly appealing, but until that happens, I'll be happy to return to clearly charted or fully detailed written patterns.
As for the thread, I've written about that already in a recent post. (December2015me, here... I did? I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it. That would've been several months ago, if ever, by the way. "Recent" is relative when the blog post has been delayed for this long.)
Basically, it seems like a decent thread, but it's only 2-ply, and I don't like that it has less sheen than some of the other threads I'm used to. It feels like it might be less durable than some other threads, so I wouldn't recommend it for an "important" or special doily. (And honestly, considering how much time they usually take, aren't they all?! (g))
On the plus side, it's very reasonably priced (or at least it was when I bought mine, years ago), and the large balls offer excellent yardage.
- - - - - - -
Scratch another one off the list! I've finished the "Lotus Bloom" doily!
Pattern:
"Pretty Baby" by Elizabeth Hiddleson
Thread:
Circulo Clea, white
Apparently, Doris Chan revised this pattern for a publication that was printed in late 2012 (months after I started crocheting it).
There were definitely things about this pattern in need of revision. My own project notes on Ravelry indicate a couple of instances of possible errors. (I say "possible" because there's a chance I was confused/missing something, but I'm pretty sure they were mistakes.)
Then there were at least a couple of times when I saw how the pattern could be improved (imho) and did so. (I reduced the stitch-count in a repeat by one so that an element on the next round could be centered. Seven trc instead of eight in the middle section of the "fans", round 28. A couple of rounds later, I increased the middle section of the fan from six trc to seven-- again, to make the numbers better for the next round.)
Beyond that, the pattern was written in what was either Hiddleson's own style or the style of the time-- I'm not sure which. To the modern crocheter, spoiled by (ideally, errata aside) precise directions, standardized abbreviations, and having everything spelled out plainly-- the quirks of Hiddleson's pattern-writing may be confusing, at times. There are places where she essentially tells the crocheter to read the pattern from her photos (kind of a "primitive" version of reading a charted pattern). That might be okay for an experienced crocheter with a large, crisp photo, but it's not ideal.
...Personally, if I'm following a written pattern, I prefer having it all spelled out-- word for word, step by step. There's less room for confusion, that way. I often end up assuming I know what the pattern "means" without reading it all that carefully, but I like knowing that if I run into trouble, I can go back and actually read it. ;o)
I might try another Hiddleson pattern, at some point, if I find one that is particularly appealing, but until that happens, I'll be happy to return to clearly charted or fully detailed written patterns.
- - - - - - -
As for the thread, I've written about that already in a recent post. (December2015me, here... I did? I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it. That would've been several months ago, if ever, by the way. "Recent" is relative when the blog post has been delayed for this long.)
Basically, it seems like a decent thread, but it's only 2-ply, and I don't like that it has less sheen than some of the other threads I'm used to. It feels like it might be less durable than some other threads, so I wouldn't recommend it for an "important" or special doily. (And honestly, considering how much time they usually take, aren't they all?! (g))
On the plus side, it's very reasonably priced (or at least it was when I bought mine, years ago), and the large balls offer excellent yardage.