The designer states specifically that the sole and instep are deliberately worked with an uneven amount of stitches so that the pattern remains symmetrical, but I don’t see where that extra stitch is addressed in the pattern. It states just to work the chart on the instep. I realize I could just knit or purl the first or last stitch and call it a day, but since it’s explicitly mentioned in the pattern, I am afraid I’m missing something.
Thanks!
The designer takes the imbalance in sts between the instep and the sole of the sock into account in the directions. At the end of the gusset decreases and before the directions for the foot, the pattern says,
"Repeat the above two rounds 11[12, 12, 12] more times until 60[66, 72, 80] sts rem total – 31[34, 37, 41] on instep, 29[32, 35, 39] on sole."
You’ll be doing the 31 instep sts in rounds of the chart pattern and the 29 sole sts in knit rounds.
Yes, I understand that, but I can’t find where that extra stitch is accounted for, is what I’m saying. In your example of 31 instep stitches, the pattern is still only 30. In the XL, it’s 41, but the pattern is only 40. That’s my problem. I can throw a knit stitch on the end of the pattern repeat, but then why bother having 41 and 39, that would be the same as having 40 and 40.
Thanks!
Actually, the quote that I gave is from the pattern itself. The pattern calls for 60 sts total for size small, 31 on the instep and 29 of the sole. This is to allow the patterning on the instep to be symmetrical. It’s the pattern repeat that causes this asymmetry and that’s why you don’t divide the sts evenly between sole and instep. You could try this on 60 sts in the round before you start the sock in whatever size you will use.
Right, I totally get that, I’ve re-read the pattern many times. What I’m saying is, she says explicitly, using the large for example, you will wind up with 41 instep stitches and 39 sole stitches, no problem, but the instruction for the foot is,
Work across 31[34, 37, 41] instep sts following next row of appropriate chart for size being made and place a second marker for end of instep.
(emphasis mine) but the chart only has 30 [33, 36, 40] stitches on it, NOT 31 [34, 37, 41], so how is this extra stitch accounted for, that’s what I’m saying.
If you are saying just to start another chart repeat, that’s basically saying throw a purl as the last stitch of the instep every single round, and that’s why I say it’s no different than working 40 and 40, the symmetry isn’t going to be altered by one extra knit or purl stitch on the end, unless it’s specifically to start and end the instep with a purl? But even if that is the case, it’s still not accounted for in the pattern, unless, again, I’m just missing something.
Am I just overanalyzing here or missing something obvious? Thanks!
ETA: The starting and ending each instep repeat with a purl does make sense to me, now that I’ve re-read it, but I still don’t feel like that was explained properly in the pattern LOL. I’ve never seen a pattern that says “work the chart” when there’s not the correct amount of chart stitches on the needle, that’s the whole thing that’s throwing me off here. If I was writing the pattern, I would have written it something more like Instep: Work chart over 30, [33, 36, 40] sts, p1, know what I mean? Is that all it is? LOL. Thanks again!
The intent of the extra st is to make the instep symmetrical. You’ll start and end with a purl st. You don’t need to add in an extra st, the pattern has accounted for that already by asking you to do a 10st pattern repeat on 41 sts (4 repeats plus 1 st) for example for the size L.
So, yes, totally me over-analyzing LOL I just don’t think I’ve seen that remainder stitch before in charted lace. I appreciate you explaining it for me!
I looked at this problem the first night it was on. I started an answer and then decided I’d better forget it because my thinking was off or something. I thought the number stayed the same and you just moved a stitch from one section to another. Like if you had 60, divided 30/30 you would move 1 over so you had 31 and 29. But her comment:
The patterning on the foot is worked in a slightly unusual manner – instead of dividing the stitches evenly, there is one more stitch in the instep than in the sole – this allows the patterning on the foot to be symmetrical.
messed up my thinking. (and it was late)
She says there is one stitch more in the instep than the sole, moving 1 stitch makes them 2 different, so I decided I was wrong. But there is no way to move 1 stitch and have them one different, they are two different. DH and I were discussing this in the car yesterday on the way to town. :lol:
Salmonmac understands it all perfectly. And it works out two different not one. A slight but confusing oversight on the pattern writers part.
Good luck on your socks boyforpele13. They are pretty cool looking.
I’m glad it wasn’t just me. 
It totally makes sense now but I still think it could have been written a little bit differently, although that is no intended offense to the designer. I think it’s a fantastic and lovely pattern, it’s just a preference thing.
All that being said, I frogged due to yarn hatred LOL. I need something subtly variegated like she used in the Knitty photos, I was using a solid in a yarn that I rejected after attempting a lace shawl with it and hated working with it. I decided I’d give it a chance with socks, but after near finishing one sock, I just couldn’t take it anymore LOL I will definitely be making these, though, just with a better yarn choice. 
The directions you quote MerigoldinWA are the critical ones and you’re absolutely right, no way you can move 1 st and not make a two st difference. I think ‘the offset of sole vs instep’ got in the way of the extra purl on the instep’ direction. I certainly misunderstood the question but boyforpele was kind enough to persist until the end. Well, agreed, very good looking sock pattern.