if you were reading a pattern intended for magic loop in the round, would you be put off it you had to re-arrange the stitches once per 8-row repeat in order to accommodate a pattern, for instance, like a 4+1 repeat where on the first pattern row, you need 64 sts on one needle and 65 on the other to accommodate the +1, but on the next pattern row, you need the 65 to be on the first needle and 64 on the other because the +1 is in the beginning.
if this is offputting to you, would you rather see 65 on both sides so that way the 4+1 works on each needle individually, but then creates a barely-noticeable-because-of-the-pattern (but I notice it) extra stitch in between needles?
Okay, I wondered if that was the actual stitch number, or if you were just giving an example. Have you searched to see if others have done the same pattern to see what they did?
it’s actually my pattern i’m submitting for publication. however, during sock wars, the magic loopers had to adjust stitches once per repeat and no one seemed to mind. a friend of mine suggested it might be too much…
I wouldn’t mind rearranging the stitches because it is so easy to do on magic loop, that is if the rearrangement happens where the cable is looped. It would seem easier on ML then on any other method. Good luck on your design.
Well, with ML you are actually working with two needles that are connected by a cable. He’s talking about changing the stitch count back and forth between those two needles to maintain the pattern repeats.
Even knitting in the round that “+” will still be there to maintain a pattern. I’ve done several “+ x” patterns in the round and if you don’t have that '+ x" there you’ll wind up with a spot at the beginning of the round where the pattern repeat isn’t right.
thanks everyone! i personally don’t think it’s a big deal, like some of you mentioned, pretty easy on magic loop, but my sample knitter was questioning it and it got me wondering. aside from it not being bothersome to me, i think since i’ll be addressing it in the pattern instead of allowing ML’ers to try to figure it out on their own and potentially get irritated, that might be better too. i will make mention of it in the pattern notes.
the pattern is such that it is not TOO terribly noticeable if you do the 4+1 on both sides, but it bugs me anyway.
I don’t find a problem with re-arranging stitches. I think it would be well worthwhile writing an explanatory note on the pattern, pointing out the + and the shuffle - could save some angst.
