Thursday, September 14, 2006
It's been a while since my attention was caught so completely by a yarn that I spontaneously catch my breath; I'm not impressed by the new Rowan range, and there seems to be a lot of copy-catting going on amongst the B-list brands. But this did the trick: I liked it so much that I went looking for the accompanying pattern book. Ohh... well. There are a few garments in there that I would consider knitting, but I'm not sure if they're right for the yarn. Admittedly, I'm not sure what *is* right for the yarn - maybe just leaving it in skeins is enough. It doesn't help that there is no hint of lustre in the book's photographs; this is a lustrous yarn, folks; if you don't want to play to it, at least don't hide it! Nothing p!sses people off more than finding they've knit a garment that has been misrepresented in the photographs (believe me: ask about Minnie sometime. She's still awaiting surgery...). In fact, in some of the photographs, the yarn looks really tired and sad:
It's hard to believe that this yarn is from the same line as this, where even the black shines:
To me, this yarn calls for luscious, draping forms, simple stitches that will let the material speak for itself; perhaps a draping, ruffled flounce or two (think Garland from Rowan's Classic Garden, though the quantity of yarn and thus cost of knitting this garment in this yarn would be prohibitive; I only mortgage my house, thanks!) I'm sure Kim Hargreaves, with her understanding of simple form and elegant drape could come up with some fantastic ideas.
These two, I think, are not the way to use this stuff:
Can you imagine cables and bobbles in high-lustre yarn? You'd look like a disco ball...
My two favourites from the book:
though I'm still worried about expecting silk to have the kind of memory that allows ribbing not to sag out horribly after a while... And the neckline on that wrap top is already looking... odd.