# Mistake in pattern. Does it matter?

[color=green]This post’s Swedish word/phrase: “Jag behöver hjälp” = “I need help”

-----[/color]

So… I’m working on a wool raglan sweater with locally produced wool I bought while on vacation on the island Gotland in Sweden. I also got the pattern for the striped sweater knit in the round.

Ok… Here goes…

The pattern tells me to start out with 230 stitches for the body and increase to 254 while knitting up to where the sleeves get attached. When knitting the sleeves, I end up with 102 stitches on each of them.

I’m supposed to put six stitches on a holder for the armhole on each sleeve and on each side of the body. Then they tell me to put all the stitches on a large circular to knit together. AND they say I will end up with 96 (sleeve) + 124 (front) + 96 (sleeve) + 124 (back) on my needle. That’s a total of 440 stitches.

That can’t be right, eh?

I’m putting a total of 24 stitches on hold for later grafting and 254 + 102 + 102 - 24 = 434 and not 440… So, I end up being 6 stitches short compared to their directions.

They tell me to do raglan decreases 8 times at a certain interval. That’s loosing 64 stitches. Then they tell me to do a raglan decrease round followed by a knit round. I’m supposed to do this 18 more times. That’s 19 decrease rounds in total (after the initial 8) = 19 * 8 = 152 additional stitches lost.

They end up with 440 - 64 - 144 = 232 stitches in the pattern. (For some reason they calculate for 8 + 18 rounds of decreases instead of 8 + 19…)

If I follow their directions I’ll end up with 434 - 64 - 152 = 218 stitches.

That’s 14 fewer than they say.

The directions after this tells me how to shape for the neckline (a “fake turtleneck”?) where I put 11 stitches from the front on a holder and start knitting back and forth instead of in the round. I’ll be continuing with the raglan decreases at the same time as putting additional stitches on holders at the sides (forming the front neckline). I’ll be doing this until I have no stitches between my markers (shoulders “used up”). Then I’ll knit in the round again, forming the “turtleneck” (which in fact is only a couple of rounds)…

Now, (finally a second question!!!), how much do I have to care about the instructions being wrong? The mistakes they make have to do with the front and the back and to shape the upper part of the sweater, I use the shoulders as a reference.

Should I ignore the difference of 6 stitches when putting the pieces together and decrease down to 232 stitches (or as close as I can come) ignoring that they state something to be done 19 times but only count it as 18?

I wonder if I should give them a call? :??

To be honest, I don’t think 6 stitches is going to make any difference in the end, do you?

I’d probably go with the 18 decreases rather than 19, just because their math backs that up.

You could call or email them, but if you don’t get a response, then I’d just go with what’s on my needles rather than what they say.

[color=green]This post’s Swedish word/phrase: “Man kan alltid räkna med Ingrid!” = “One can always count on Ingrid!”

-----[/color]

You’re right, Ingrid… 6 stitches won’t matter and when doing the raglans I stop when I run out of stitches on the sleeve sections and I have the same amount of stitches there as the pattern states. So, no… It won’t matter really.

I guess I just got stuck in my head as there were mistakes in the pattern and I started questioning my own ability in counting… This is an old pattern, written on a typewriter. :teehee:

I did email the shop where I got the pattern and today I had a reply. The owner of the shop will meet with the designer this weekend and will give her my email. She also stated that they had had the pattern for 15 years and nobody had ever said anything about a mistake in it… Hmmm… :??

Thanks for calming me down… Of course 6 stitches won’t matter in a design like this… :doh:

:?? It will be interesting to see if there is a mistake in the pattern or if it was a misunderstanding on our part. At least I can say that Swedish is not my native language. I was just taking your word for it. :flirt: