The Knitters Thread

blueberrypie

funkymonkey849 wrote: »

Does anyone use magic loop to knit socks or sleeves?

I use DPNs at the moment but find that I don't enjoy knitting these items because of the stress of trying not to pull stitches inbetween joins

Is it easier magic loop style?

I heard a rumour you can knit two socks at once!! Is this true!

I use Magic Loop quite a lot, and yes, you can knit two socks (or sleeves, or gloves, or whatever else you can think of that you want a pair of) at once.

Easier? Well, yes and no. It's easier in that you don't have to keep track of how many rows you did on the first sock, or count them and try to match up, and that you get both finished at once. And yes, I think that you're less likely to get "ladders" at the ends of needles - and of course the stitches are much less likely to fall off the needles too. It does take a little bit more thought to get started though, and to keep patterns straight if one of the pair of items is the "reflection" of the other (e.g if you'd cables on socks, you'd want them going in opposite directions, or if you've thumbs on gloves, you don't want to end up with two for the left hand and none for the right).

Once you get your head around the concept though, it's not difficult - why not give it a try? :-)

OrkneyStar

blueberrypie wrote: »

I use Magic Loop quite a lot, and yes, you can knit two socks (or sleeves, or gloves, or whatever else you can think of that you want a pair of) at once.

Easier? Well, yes and no. It's easier in that you don't have to keep track of how many rows you did on the first sock, or count them and try to match up, and that you get both finished at once. And yes, I think that you're less likely to get "ladders" at the ends of needles - and of course the stitches are much less likely to fall off the needles too. It does take a little bit more thought to get started though, and to keep patterns straight if one of the pair of items is the "reflection" of the other (e.g if you'd cables on socks, you'd want them going in opposite directions, or if you've thumbs on gloves, you don't want to end up with two for the left hand and none for the right).

Once you get your head around the concept though, it's not difficult - why not give it a try? :-)

I fancy trying this . Wonder where one can purchase such an implement ? Hmmmm ebay ? x
ETA have just shared a pic of the wool and pattern I am starting for DS, on ravelry (yes I like several things on the go lol!)

lambanana

I've knit with snowflake wool once and it was a nightmare, I dropped a stitch and couldn't find it at all! It's so fluffy. It looked and felt nice knit up though.

I'm still working away at my Christmas gifts so nothing new to show at the moment

blueberrypie

OrkneyStar wrote: »

I fancy trying this . Wonder where one can purchase such an implement ? Hmmmm ebay ? x

It's not an implement, it's a technique. It's just a different way of using a circular needle. You do need a reasonably long cable on the needle, and it's easiest if the cables are very flexible.

Description and some good links to video tutorials etc here: http://www.knitting-and.com/wiki/Magic_Loop

OrkneyStar

blueberrypie wrote: »

It's not an implement, it's a technique. It's just a different way of using a circular needle. You do need a reasonably long cable on the needle, and it's easiest if the cables are very flexible.

Description and some good links to video tutorials etc here: http://www.knitting-and.com/wiki/Magic_Loop

Yeah lol, I googled it after I posted on here and had not edited yet!
(:o). Do have some long circulars so will look into this. I do love my dpn's but get annoyed when 'ladders' appear (and I don't like shifting stitches from needle to needle to avoid it- confuses me lol!).x
PS I love your adipose!!!

blueberrypie

OrkneyStar wrote: »

PS I love your adipose!!!

Oooh er missus! :rotfl:

OrkneyStar

blueberrypie wrote: »

Oooh er missus! :rotfl:

Should say 'I love your knitted adipose!'

misskool

can someone help please? the pattern is below and I'm not sure about the increases, the rest of the pattern is fine. Does this mean I increase 3 stitches in the first increase?

Left front: (#8 needles)
CO 21(24) sts, work in stockinette stitch;
Inc in every second row (right side of work) : 1x 3sts, 2x 1 st; then in every 4. row: 3x 1 st;
Work the waist dec and inc and the armholes as above ( for the back), but begin the v-neck shaping at the same time you begin with the armholes: dec 1 in every 2. row for 13 times; work until the left front meas the same as the back, BO
Right front:
Work mirror-inverted

blueberrypie

misskool wrote: »

can someone help please? the pattern is below and I'm not sure about the increases, the rest of the pattern is fine. Does this mean I increase 3 stitches in the first increase?

Left front: (#8 needles)
CO 21(24) sts, work in stockinette stitch;
Inc in every second row (right side of work) : 1x 3sts, 2x 1 st; then in every 4. row: 3x 1 st;
Work the waist dec and inc and the armholes as above ( for the back), but begin the v-neck shaping at the same time you begin with the armholes: dec 1 in every 2. row for 13 times; work until the left front meas the same as the back, BO
Right front:
Work mirror-inverted

Yes, your understanding is correct - assuming your first row is a wrong-side row, you're increasing in the following rows:
2nd row: 3 sts
4th row and 6th row: 1 st
10th row, 14th row and 18th row: 1 st

lambanana

I finally have a finished project to show! Some socks knit for my friend at work's daughter. She gave me the money for the wool and I did the knitting. Normally I say no to knitting requests, particularly socks as it's a lot of time and I'm a bit of a selfish knitter and if I'm spending so much time knitting something I want it for myself I agreed though as the daughter is lovely and my friend is retiring soon so it's not going to become a regular request. Also her daughter only has small feet so they didn't take too much work!!

The wool is XXL Trekking in Pink Vanilla socks weer 60 stitches on 2.5mm needles just plain old stockinette simplicity.