
Yarn: Sirdar Tropicana, cotton effect dk
Wraps Per Inch: 10 wpi
Needles: 3mm aluminium (prym)
Gauge: 34 st and 38 rows to 10cm/4 inches in pattern
Pattern: Reverse Gnarled Wave Cable
Stitch Count Repeat: Multiple of 12 stitches
Book: Charted Knitting Designs – A Third Treasury of Knitting Patterns
Page: 71
Comments: The swatch was 2 repeats wide and 2.5 high. Lightly blocked, it measured 2.75in wide by 5.25in high.
There looks like there is a problem with the chart in the 1998 Schoolhouse Press edition of the book. See below for reasoning.
Knit by: zeph
Why there may be a problem with the chart
1. It doesn’t match the other charts: There are 4 charts on page 71 o f the 3rd treasury, each of which shows a different variation of a ‘gnarled cable’. Three of the charts show the relevant cable on a purely reverse stockinette background. The fourth chart, for this version ‘Reverse Gnarled Wave Cable’, deviates from the standard set by the other three. The difference stops the cable standing out from the background as well as the other 3 do.
2. The cable in the book photo is different to that in the chart. In the ‘Reverse Gnarled Wave Cable’ chart the 2 stitches on the righthand edge on rows 1-8, and the 2 stitches on the left edge on rows 7-9 are marked to be knit on the RS and purled on the WS. They are highlighted in green in the left hand image below. Compare these stitches with the same ones in the book photo. The book photo shows them as having been purled on the RS and knit on the WS – the opposite of what the chart suggests, but identical to the backgrounds in the other three gnarled cable variations.
The right hand image below is a mockup of how the cable looks with a pure reverse stockinette backgound – this looks like the book photo and the cable stands out much better.
|
Version as per the chart: |
‘Corrected’ version: |
All Four Cables Compared
Left to right:
1. Front-Cross Gnarled Cable
2. Gnarled Wave Cable
3. Back-Cross Gnarled Cable
4. Reverse Gnarled Wave Cable














April 9, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Thanks for the analysis – that does make a lot more sense.