Two Sleeves in Two Days

Now that my Dad has opened his Christmas present (my parents are going away this year), I can safely reveal that it has taken three weeks to knit a single glove for him. It was ribbed, it was fiddly, and it was in DK, which is the thinnest yarn I have ever used.

Now that I don't need to have the second glove finished until he comes back from his travels (oops...), I decided to give my fingers a bit of a break, and go back to the Nicky Epstein Cardigan with Cabled Points. I knew that knitting with chunky wool on 7½mm needles would be much faster than ribbing in DK, but I wasn't expecting to complete both of the sleeves in just two days!

I'd completely lost track of where I was up to on the first sleeve, so I decided to bite the bullet, unravel what I'd done, and start again. I'm really not having very much luck with this pattern.

This time the mistake genuinely wasn't mine, but a printing error. The row numbers for the sleeve had been printed wrongly, and before I knew it I had three fewer stitches than I needed. I made an executive decision not to undo the sleeve again, but instead to make some cunningly disguised increases on the next row. Thankfully, this worked really well.

I also made an executive decision to change the increases on the sleeves. As you may have noticed on my previous encounter with this cardigan, my maths really isn't up to much, and I couldn't cope with cabling on every sixth row and increasing on every eighth. My decision was to make the increases on the same rows as the cables, which made for less counting, which is fine by me!

As it happened, by the time I'd finished the correct number of increases the sleeve was already at the exact length I was supposed to keep knitting to, so if I'd been increasing every eight rows instead of every six, it would actually have been several inches too long!

If you click through to the larger picture of the single sleeve, you can get a much better indication of how this will look once it's finished. You can really see the bright flecks of blue, and the occasional spot of red, scattered across the sleeve.

It seems I owe Nicky Epstein an apology.

In the greatest tradition of these things, it's not her, it's me.

I did say that I was mathematically challenged, when I was complaining about this cardigan pattern being all wrong. As it turns out, I am also challenged in the department of being able to read a knitting pattern. Oops.

What I was trying to do was:
k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog, k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog, k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog...

and what I should I have been doing was this:

k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog k12, k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog k12, k12 sl1 k1 psso k1 k2tog k12...

Spot the extra "k12" in the second line, which makes all the difference.


Anyway, I have now finished the back, and aside from my own stupidity, it was extremely easy to knit.

The waist shaping at the back is achieved entirely by the cables pulling the knitting in - there's no shaping in the back at all, apart from the armholes.

The last photo is probably the most accurate in terms of the colour. The wool is Rowanspun Chunky, which I bought in the sale at Cucumberpatch

The only change I've made so far is that I'm knitting it on 7.5mm needles instead of 8mm. The smallest size given in the pattern was 38" and I wanted mine to be a little tighter than that, so hopefully the slightly smaller gauge will make just enough difference.

(You watch the damn thing turn out too small now!)

Nicky Epstein's Cardigan with Cabled Points

Has anybody ever successfully knit Nicky Epstein's Cardigan with Cabled Points?

The pattern is in a supplement with this month's Knitting magazine (UK). I find it suspicious that I've just trawled through fifty-four pages of Google images and the whole of Flickr, and I can't find a single photograph of the finished garment. (I'd try Ravelry, but I'm still 31,783rd in the queue to join!)

I'm asking because I spent the whole of yesterday afternoon unravelling the damn thing. I am amazed at how utterly wrong a pattern can be, and still make it through to publication!

I was making the smallest size, for which the instructions are:

Cast on 116.
Row 1: K12, skp, k1, k2tog, k12 - rep to end.

Except that first row only adds up to 114 stitches.

I decided to persevere, pulling the two extra stitches off the needle, carefully unpicking the slip knot and unravelling them, in order not to have to unravel the entire thing straight away.

Row 2: p. Not much that can go wrong there.

Row 3: k11, skp, k1, k2tog, k11 - rep to end.

Uh-oh. These decreases don't line up neatly with the ones below. (Which is what we want if we're making points.) I persevere, and reach the end of my last k11 with a mere seven stitches left over.

This is not going well.

I break out the calculator.

Anyone who knows me will be aware that my maths skills are pretty much non-existent, so there may have been a certain amount of swearing involved at this point. I carefully work out the new repeats, unravel the whole thing, and start again with 114 stitches. Unfortunately my carefully worked out maths is completely wrong, and I have to unravel the first three rows and start again for the third time.

Third time lucky - I put in lots and lots of stitch markers where I want the decreases for the points to be. It's like knitting a porcupine, but at least I now have clues as to what I'm supposed to be doing. I decrease away happily.

Unfortunately, by row 9 I already have fewer stitches than I'm supposed to have at the end of row 13, and my points aren't coming out the right shape (according to the picture) at all. I've checked the internet for corrections, and all I can find is something relating to the numbering of rows on the sleeves. Nothing at all which mentions the maths for the points is all wrong.

It's at this point that I give up, unravel the entire thing again, and start knitting a nice simple cardigan from Simply Knitting March 2007. I'm adding some shaping to the back to make it a bit less like a giant rectangle with two cables down the front, but so far it's knitting up beautifully and I can't fault the pattern at all.



I'd be quite interested to know whether anybody at Knitting actually had to knit the cardigan that's shown in the picture, or whether it was a stock photo from one of Nicky Epstein's books. Either way, I'd be interested to know how a pattern which is so completely wrong can make it through to publication without anybody apparently having knitted it! The mistakes are obvious by the second row, so you'd be aware of the problem straight away.



If anybody does actually have a list of errata for this pattern, I'd really like to see it. I really want to knit it, as it's a beautiful cardigan, but I'm damned if I can figure out how to fix the pattern by myself!