Should I? or shouldn't I?

[Tarie]

So I've been working on a pattern from Tatting doilies and edgings edited by Rita Weiss. It is called Lavender and Lace and is on page 43.

I started another thread dealing with problems getting the pattern to lay flat. You can find that here:
http://www.intatters.com/showthread....desired-result.

I have found a solution I like but now I am presented with a new dilema. The outer rings of the clover leaf are now close enough to each other that I need to decide if I want to add a picot and join them to each other. I haven't blocked it yet but I scanned my trial piece and you can see it in my random album here:
http://www.intatters.com/attachment....achmentid=3931

My concern is that if they aren't really close enough as they appear that when I add the picot and join them that they will pull the whole square out of wack and it won't lie flat and straight anymore. Keep in mind I prefer tiny picots. But if they are close enough it would help with stability if I did join them. What do you think? I suppose I could tat another 2x2 trial block before I launch into my 22x11 final piece but I've been working on this project for 3 years and I'm anxious to finally start making some real progress.
What do you think?

[BlueDode]

This is a dilemma. Some thoughts:

1. When you tat motifs together as you go, the weight of the piece builds up and can pull the joining picots longer. You can also "miss" joins and end up doing alot of untatting and retatting. What I've done: Imagine a checkerboard (red and black alternating squares). I would tat all the motifs represented by the red squares individually; then I would tat all the motifs represented by the black squares and use these to join all the individual motifs represented by the red squares together. I know you don't have red and black squares -- your motifs are identical, I think -- but the alternating pattern of colors illustrates the idea.

2. I'VE NOT TRIED THIS: I've wondered about blocking/starching each motif "as you go" and wondered if this would stop the picots from elongating. There's a photo on the cover of "Tatted Fashion" by Teiko Fujito (name from memory) that shows a woman who appears to be tatting on a piece that is already blocked and starched. I wondered if one was supposed to "block and starch" at the end of every round, or if this was done for appearances sake for the cover of the book? Does anybody do this?

2.a. If I'm interpreting your image correctly, it looks like you tat two rounds for each motif. I would evaluate how many motifs are involved corresponding to "red squares" and tat the motifs individually. Then, I would tat all the initial rosettes corresponding to the first rounds of the "black squares". Next, I would tat all the 2nd rounds of the black squares and do all the joining.

3. There are some patterns I've seen that use a more or less linear tatting pattern to join the motifs together: this way you would tat all your motifs individually, then tat them together, much like when crocheting granny squares together to make an afghan. In your situation you would need to design such a joining pattern, which can be a challenge.

Don't you love dilemmas?

[Mogs]

I am not if I am interpreting you correctly, but I think if you join the other picots on the clovers they will pull-imagine joing one to its neighbour, then the 3rd ring picot would have a long way to stretch to reach its partner. I think it looks lovely as it is!
Carole x

[Tarie]

This is a dilemma. Some thoughts:

1. When you tat motifs together as you go, the weight of the piece builds up and can pull the joining picots longer. You can also "miss" joins and end up doing alot of untatting and retatting. What I've done: Imagine a checkerboard (red and black alternating squares). I would tat all the motifs represented by the red squares individually; then I would tat all the motifs represented by the black squares and use these to join all the individual motifs represented by the red squares together. I know you don't have red and black squares -- your motifs are identical, I think -- but the alternating pattern of colors illustrates the idea.

2. I'VE NOT TRIED THIS: I've wondered about blocking/starching each motif "as you go" and wondered if this would stop the picots from elongating. There's a photo on the cover of "Tatted Fashion" by Teiko Fujito (name from memory) that shows a woman who appears to be tatting on a piece that is already blocked and starched. I wondered if one was supposed to "block and starch" at the end of every round, or if this was done for appearances sake for the cover of the book? Does anybody do this?

2.a. If I'm interpreting your image correctly, it looks like you tat two rounds for each motif. I would evaluate how many motifs are involved corresponding to "red squares" and tat the motifs individually. Then, I would tat all the initial rosettes corresponding to the first rounds of the "black squares". Next, I would tat all the 2nd rounds of the black squares and do all the joining.

3. There are some patterns I've seen that use a more or less linear tatting pattern to join the motifs together: this way you would tat all your motifs individually, then tat them together, much like when crocheting granny squares together to make an afghan. In your situation you would need to design such a joining pattern, which can be a challenge.

Don't you love dilemmas?

Thank you to you both for replying. Blue Dode I found your reply especially interesting even though it didn't speak to my actual question. Your method had occured to me years ago but I had initially rejected it because the pattern called for the motifs to share a ring at the center of the sides. But in my attempts to make it all lay flat I have eliminated that ring so now my squares are all identical and could be tatted individually as you say like a checkerboard. The only reservation I have is that I was planning to eliminate all the extra joining picots along the outer rows of motifs so I wouldn't have any extra unused picots. Ok I admit it I'm a picot hater. LOL This pattern initially called for a picot every 3 ds but I removed all the extra ones. I will be doing a 11x22 grid of squares and that will mean 242 motifs. YIKES!!!

[Kersti]

I'm thinking leave as is - the extra gap seems to me to add something to add something to the design that I think would be lost otherwise

[carolivy]

I think your piece looks great just like it is. I wouldn't mess with perfection! ;-)

This is a dilemma. Some thoughts:

2. I'VE NOT TRIED THIS: I've wondered about blocking/starching each motif "as you go" and wondered if this would stop the picots from elongating. There's a photo on the cover of "Tatted Fashion" by Teiko Fujito (name from memory) that shows a woman who appears to be tatting on a piece that is already blocked and starched. I wondered if one was supposed to "block and starch" at the end of every round, or if this was done for appearances sake for the cover of the book? Does anybody do this?

I did this on one Round Robin Doily that I worked on because I was having problems getting the rows to lay flat. I just lay the peice on my ironing board after each row, stretched it to where it should go, then steamed it and pressed it with my hand. After it was cool, I just pick it up and went back to tatting the next row. Worked a dream when it came time to block and starch the whole piece!

[xstchntat]

I think it looks great the way it is. I think that an extra picot to join at the corners would detract from the piece not add to it. But that is my newbies opinion. If fact I like it so much I think I must go find this book LOL.

[Tarie]

Thank you all for your opinions. I think I agree. Plus I think it would be hard for me to remember to add the picot there since I've been working with this pattern for so long I know it by heart.

I think it looks great the way it is. I think that an extra picot to join at the corners would detract from the piece not add to it. But that is my newbies opinion. If fact I like it so much I think I must go find this book LOL.

xstchntat it is a lovely pattern and I'm sure you will like it. I'm not sure if you do tiny picots like I do or if you have a more traditionally sized picot. If you do use tiny picots you might have some of the same problems I did. TO fix the problem I altered the center ring so the rings are 3 p 5 p 3 and the chains are 5 p 5 p 5. this is different from the original to make it smaller. then the place where I alter the pattern for the square is along the side instead of having 3 individual rings I do 2 thusly. r 6 p 6 p 6 cl rw, ch 6 rw, r 6 p 6 p 6 cl rw. Aside from removeing all the decorative picots I do the rest of the pattern as is in the book.

[Judy]

I've forgotten which author it was, but one of them recommended ironing after each round. I did it on a piece by the author, and it helped immensely. However, after that was over, I went back to my old slovenly habit of going straight into the next round. On your picot issue, I agree. It looks very nice the way it is. I would leave the pattern alone.

[BlueDode]

Tarie:

Sorry I missed your point. I'm very guilty of skimming for a "gist" and taking off on a tangent. And, I think I took your thread on a bit of a tangent, too -- again, sorry about that.

Often I test a pattern then make changes so that it lies flat, so I understand your process, and I have found it is a good idea.

Sometimes those outer picots are useful for pins when blocking, but not absolutely necessary: you can pin at the joins, too.

I'm working on a "joining picots only" pattern from the book: TATTING PATTERNS AND DESIGNS, Gun Blomqvist and Elyn Persson
...the authors see "clovers" in the pattern, but I see grapes, and I'm trying to work out a revision to the "spokes" in the center. A couple problems I've avoided with the testing approach you describe on this pattern:
...1. Some errors in the pattern directions -- which the clear photo makes it easy to identify and correct: I'll rewrite the pattern and "fix" them before starting on the final project
...2. I needed 10 repeats instead of 8 to get the first round "flat": I also tried the "balanced double stitch" described by Ruth Perry ( http://www.georgiaseitz.com/2008/rut...ringchains.pdf ) for the straight spokes, but it didn't seem to improve the appearance/straightness. My test thread is crochet cotton, which results in more uneven tatting for me, so I'll check it out with tatting thread later, and maybe use MORE joining picots on those spokes...or redesign and add a center motif...
...3. The second round appears to fit in a flat way to the first, even with the extra reps in the first: I've tatted part of the 2nd round, and folded it into a pie slice shape to see that it isn't obviously too big or too small: I'll tat part of the 3rd round on top of it (I won't complete either round on my test piece), just enough to judge "flatness" for obvious problems.
.......3.a. In a previous thread on Intatters, someone (I forget who: if I can find the post I'll put a link here later if I find it) suggested folding round doilies that don't lie flat in half and you can tell by its deviation from a semicircle which round is too tight or too loose: I'm extending this idea to quarter circles and "pie slices". Using square motifs you won't have this problem with round doilies that "ripple" or won't lie flat.

I'm probably guilty of "overjoining" tatting because of all those pictures I've seen of old/antique tatting that has fallen apart: but, none of my extra joins will ever put those old pieces back together ;) . Yet, reading the book: Tatting, Technique and History, by Elgiva Nicholls, I read that originally tatted pieces were tied together with separate pieces of thread, BEFORE joining techniques "on the fly" were invented. That could easily explain things falling apart and requiring maintenance. Today's thread and fiber processes, including mercerization, tend to make stronger threads, so it is not that big of a deal these days I'd guess.

If single picots seem to fragile, a couple of things come to mind (not tried, just ideas): double picots, possibly twisted (or just formed untwisted) into one "thick" picot; Dora Young Knot joins (you'd need to use two shuttles, instead of a shuttle and a ball thread probably) -- there's another type of double thread join I can't think of right now, too (will post it if I can find it); two sequential picots, with two sequential joins (I've done these); and maybe others.

So, kudos to your process -- it will pay off! And, I'll try to pay more attention.