![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I returned home from vacation (woe) to find an e-mail from the chair: when can I come in to let her know how my work went this summer? So naturally I am doing something quite different.
I've started knitting again, and I really want to make this sweater ( giant image behind cut )
I've gone through the pattern (from the Antique Pattern Library), which is quite straightforward for a 1917 pattern and the measurements are almost exactly those of a sweater coat that I own (if the pattern's gauge is correct (121 sts = 20"), the given size (36) measures about 38.5" around the bust, whereas the larger size (38-40) measures 45" -- while 38" is a little bit narrow for a sweater that I'm planning to wear over something, I'm closer to the 36 than I am to the 38-40, interestingly enough, since one tends to think that vintage patterns are a lot smaller than modern sizing (where I'm usually a 42-4, as it happens)). I think I'm going to start from the larger size to get a fuller hem at the bottom, then add a few more decreases before the waistline, follow the smaller pattern for a bit, and add increases after the belt if necessary (they happen on the sides, so as long as they happen two at a time, it shouldn't be hard).
Which means that the real dilemma now is color. The pattern instructs me to use "old rose" with white contrast, which I am definitely not going to do. First I thought maybe a richer color like this, with maybe a pale gray contrast. But maybe I should stay with more muted, '20's-esque colors? Like this dusty green? (The latter yarn is slightly heavier modern "worsted weight", which might be the right yarn. "Knitting worsted" used to mean lighter, sportweight yarn, but maybe "Scotch" is an indication that its more heavy duty? ARGH. Someone has put this pattern up on Ravelry, where they recommend modern worsted weight. But they also say that you have to take into account the fact that people were still wearing corsets in the 1910's -- true enough, except that this pattern does not do any waist shaping: the circumference at the bust and the circumference at the waist are exactly the same. So I'm not exactly inclined to trust that they really looked into how this pattern is supposed to work.) What should I do?
I've started knitting again, and I really want to make this sweater ( giant image behind cut )
I've gone through the pattern (from the Antique Pattern Library), which is quite straightforward for a 1917 pattern and the measurements are almost exactly those of a sweater coat that I own (if the pattern's gauge is correct (121 sts = 20"), the given size (36) measures about 38.5" around the bust, whereas the larger size (38-40) measures 45" -- while 38" is a little bit narrow for a sweater that I'm planning to wear over something, I'm closer to the 36 than I am to the 38-40, interestingly enough, since one tends to think that vintage patterns are a lot smaller than modern sizing (where I'm usually a 42-4, as it happens)). I think I'm going to start from the larger size to get a fuller hem at the bottom, then add a few more decreases before the waistline, follow the smaller pattern for a bit, and add increases after the belt if necessary (they happen on the sides, so as long as they happen two at a time, it shouldn't be hard).
Which means that the real dilemma now is color. The pattern instructs me to use "old rose" with white contrast, which I am definitely not going to do. First I thought maybe a richer color like this, with maybe a pale gray contrast. But maybe I should stay with more muted, '20's-esque colors? Like this dusty green? (The latter yarn is slightly heavier modern "worsted weight", which might be the right yarn. "Knitting worsted" used to mean lighter, sportweight yarn, but maybe "Scotch" is an indication that its more heavy duty? ARGH. Someone has put this pattern up on Ravelry, where they recommend modern worsted weight. But they also say that you have to take into account the fact that people were still wearing corsets in the 1910's -- true enough, except that this pattern does not do any waist shaping: the circumference at the bust and the circumference at the waist are exactly the same. So I'm not exactly inclined to trust that they really looked into how this pattern is supposed to work.) What should I do?
