Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.

[F.James Cripwell]

In all my years of reading rctn, I have not seen this subject
discussed in detail, and in recent days and weeks, I have seen several
allusions to it. I am referring to classifying counted cross stitch
patterns by degree of difficulty. One of the advantages of a forum
like rctn, is that it puts together all the different sorts of stitchers
and designers who can discuss these sorts of on topic threads. In
this instance, I am really talking off the top of my head, and I have
not been able to think through the problem to any sort of solution.
I think most of us would agree that, in theory, it is a good idea
to classify a pattern by the degree of difficulty one will encounter
when stitching it. Whether this can be done in any sort of practical
way, I have no idea. Different parts of the same pattern represent
completely different degrees of difficulty. With my maidens, there
are huge areas of *extremely* simple (read boring) stitching. In my
latest, there are some 125,000 stitches in total, of which about half
are black, mainly in long rows. (As an aside, how many addicted
stitchers there are around who actually *enjoy* doing this, is entirely
another subject). The easy background to the pattern must represent
something like two thirds of the total number of stitches. However,
I know when I come to the face, and other parts of the maiden's
anatomy, I will be faced with "onsies, toosies", and very complicated
stitching.
I, clearly, have not stitched patterns from the majority of designers
who are out there. There are some designs, like the latest I am
stitching from Eva Rosenstand, where the results are stunning,
and the stitching quite straightforward. Most of the time one can
thread a needle with a standard length (in my case half a meter, or
a little under 20 inches), and follow the pattern until I run out of
thread. The same is basically true for patterns I have stitched by
MLI and TW. However, you get a pattern like Sunday Best, where
the face and bouquet of flowers were filled with "onsies, toosies",
including half stitches.
To use an old army expression, I thought I would "run this one up
the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it". Anyone have ideas on
*any* aspect of this subject?
--
Jim Cripwell.
Thoughts from a confused philosopher.
If a husband speaks in a forest and his wife does not hear him,
is he still wrong?

[Angie W.]

I remember in the old Better Homes & Garden Cross Stitch & Country Crafts (I
hope I got that right). Which were the first charts I'd ever seen, besides the
little kits at Wal-Mart, there were stars for degrees of difficulty. They were
ranked something like Beginner, Experienced, Advanced, and Expert. I really
appreciated these rankings, because I felt confident that I could do the chart
labeled beginner. I don't subscribe to this magazine anymore, so I am not sure
if they still do. I did an apple marked Beginner and had a great time.

I think some kind of standard would be wonderful to have. I've gotten to where I
don't buy any chart unless I can actually look at it, as I'm not experienced
enough to really tell whats involved unless I do. I never buy colored charts or
handdrawn charts, because I've had so much trouble with them. The quality of a
charting system can make or break a design as far as I'm concerned.

Onesies and twosies are most certainly a factor, as is lots of backstitching,
which I really detest, and for some reason confuses my small brain.

Maybe there should also be a "boring" factor. I was looking at the Four Horses
of the Apocalypse, and all that black. I don't think I'd have the patience for
it, although it is absolutely stunning.

<snip>. I am referring to classifying counted cross stitch

>patterns by degree of difficulty.

Angie from Texas
WIP: Daffodil by Pam Kellogg, SC Behold the Lamb
would like to start someday - Magical Night - TW; Companions - TW
Cat Alphabet & Welcome Cats - Vermillion

[s.e.l]

Interesting subject and one that I too have thought about recently because
of various threads on this and other groups.

I unknowingly classify patterns by degree of difficulty. This was recently
pointed out to me when I was asked to stitch a "simple" picture as a gift
for a coworker. I ventured out to my LNS with my mother in tow and she
started handing me patterns and saying "look at this, would it take you long
? is it difficult?" I began to wonder how exactly it was that I was to
figure this out. Afterall, patterns are patterns, stitches are stitches.
Whether it's in dmc, silk, metallics, etc., it is still a stitch.

She was correct, however. I looked at the patterns and rate them. Typically
the first stage is the number of colour changes. With solid blocks I find
the stitching to progress quickly, obviously. Not quite the case I would
imagine if I were stitching one of your maidens, Jim - at least not with
that many rows of solid black. Secondly I look at the number of half or
quarter stitches. Some designers seem to use volumes and volumes of these to
create a fabulous effect - which I quite like on pieces I can take my time
with, but not ones that are to be "simple and relatively quick".

Perhaps one of my main classifying categories - and the one with the most
weight as far as my stitching it goes - is whether or not I like the piece.
Take Flower Power for instance. It is a large piece, and seems to be one
that people are nervous about doing. In actual fact it is quite an easy
piece to do. MLI's Summer Sampler originally fell into my classification of
"difficult" only because I had never used Watercolours before when
stitching. Now it's a "regular" piece. Right now the only "difficult"
pieces to me are ones that challenge my ability to count. Something I could
likely combat by marking up the pattern which I never do. And perhaps the
petit point work that I've started and put aside - I classify them as
challenging only because I seem to tackle them without a magnifying glass
and proper lighting. (just dumb really).

I notice now that I involve one or two patterns with non-cross-stitch
stitches into my WIPs on a regular basis. For example many of SB's
patterns, Just Nan and Charlands - each of which always seem to find
themselves in my work basket -- often have specialty stitches. They add a
bit of complexity only because I can't do them by rote yet. I still need to
remind myself exactly how they go. Now, one stitch that is guaranteed to
make ANY pattern high on the complexity scale for me ? French Knots !!!!
I'd move mountains and earth if I could figure out how to do them without
cursing. Lately I've just given up and put in beads in their places. I
think they are simply beyond my capability.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, nor even if this is on the right
track as far as the original post. But I think for myself, at this point in
my stitching life, as long as I like the pattern and I am not pressuring
myself to be completed it by some date, then nothing is too difficult, nor
too complex. Patterns become complex to me, or more challenging, when the
end result is either not something I'm interested in, or is for someone whom
I would not give up a large portion of my life for. Then even the simplest
stitch becomes somehow that much more involved.

Shannon
«»«»«» My mind works like lightning -- one brilliant flash and it's gone !
«»«»«»

[Ericka Kammerer]

Hmmm...I think there are several different aspects of
complexity. Here are the basic categories that come to my
mind:

1) Variety of stitches
- number of different types of stitches
- difficulty of the stitches themselves
- beading or other embellishments

2) Fibers & fabrics
- how fine (i.e., small) is the work?
- any recalcitrant fibers?
- dark background?
- colors close in value and therefore hard to distinguish?
- lots of blends?

3) Pattern complexity
This is probably the most difficult to assess. Qualitatively,
I think I judge it based on how much I have to go back and
forth from the pattern to the piece. So, while a band sampler
may have a lot of different stitches, some of them relatively
difficult, it's generally quite easy on this front, as you
find a starting place and do the same stitch over and over
in a row until you get to the end. The onsies and twosies
fall in this category. Lots of backstitching falls into
this category too (at least to my way of thinking--it's
not the stitch that's difficult, it's putting it all in
the right place).

4) Size
Bigger isn't always more difficult, but it's certainly
more time consuming, and the more stitches there are,
the more opportunities there are for mistakes ;-)

5) Finishing
What sort of work is involved in finishing the piece?
Lots of careful hand-sewing? Hemstitching? Machine
sewing? Framing, with all that goes along with that?

6) Motivating factors
There are other things that affect my view of how
challenging a piece will be. Huge blocks of same
stitch/same color is likely to be boring to me, which
may not be intrinsically difficult, but certainly
makes it more difficult for me to finish the piece ;-)
I also have preferences about types of fibers and
fabrics, colors, and types of stitches that affect
my motivation to work on a project. I'm not sure
that counts as difficulty, but I certainly take it
into account when assessing the costs/benefit ratio
of working on a piece ;-) For me personally, I'm
probably more sensitive to these issues than any of
the others when deciding whether to do a project.
If you love the project, you probably won't feel like
it's very difficult.

Best wishes,
Ericka

--
The return address on this message works, but it goes to an
account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to
my first name dot my last name at home dot com
and watch the spelling ;-)

[Sabo Family]

I have seen in some magazines (New Stitches, Classic Stitches)
that patterns are classified. Beginning, Intermediate, Challenging and then
the hours is "should" take based on Whole, Half, Backstitching etc.
However as the slowest stitcher in the world the time aspect is very
off for me.

Any type of pattern which has Specialty Stitches (read anything
not typical cross stitch) automatically jumps in difficulty. I like
Queen Stitch and Rhodes Hearts though.

Sharon in So. Il. (rambling because my 7 month old can operate
on 10 fifteen minute naps a day for the past
week, I however lost it on day 3!)

[ROLLAND_...@stna.dgac.fr]

I'm impressed by your technical and detailed reply!
I just would like to add :

2) - number of colors used in the pattern
- type of fabric (aida, evenweave or linen)
a question : is using overdyed threads a part of the complexity if
you want to take the best advantage of the changes of shades ?

3) - parts of the design done 1 over 1 (usually for the face and the
hands)

4) - the size is to counterbalance with the density of the stitches
(if the fabric is totally covered with stitches or not).

Fabienne
Toulouse - France

*******************************************************************

[Elbg23]

<< In all my years of reading rctn, I have not seen this subject
discussed in detail, and in recent days and weeks, I have seen several
allusions to it. I am referring to classifying counted cross stitch
patterns by degree of difficulty >>

I like to work reproductions of old samplers and frequently they are rated as
to difficulty. I pay little attention to the classifying unless it is "very
difficult" or "for expert stitcher". Then I check to see what the difficulty
is and generally get the kit or chart. I would like to see some type of
classification on charts based on frequent color changes, and difficult
stitches. For example certain types of fabric are best for 1/2 and 1/4
stitches, and it would be nice to know that a charts has tons of these before
getting the wrong fabric. Betty

[Jamie Quiroga]

A pattern's "difficulty rating" would have to be based upon the overall
level of experience, skill or "ability" to complete the design, therefore,
in the case of Jim's Maiden, for example, the presence of the very simple
background would be outweighed by the more difficult, detailed areas, making
it an intermediate, or even advanced project. Also, in most cases, needing
to take care with several different aspects of a piece at once makes the
difficulty cumulative. (For instance, adding metallics and partial stitches
to fussy counting and backstitching makes a piece more advanced than for
instance, a band sampler with easily counted, symmetrical rows of specialty
stitches.)

I think it would be interesting to see some sort of "standardized" rating
system with checkboxes for the factors that make the individual piece Very
Easy, Easy, Intermediate, Advanced or even Very Advanced. For example:

Very Easy
Full Cross Stitch Only
Little or No Backstitching

Easy
Some partial Cross Stitch
Some Backstitching

Intermediate
Extensive or frequent partial cross stitch
Fully Diagrammed Specialty stitching based upon cross stitches (Smyrna,
Rice, etc.)
Frequent Color changes
Color Blending or thread tweeding
Synthetic Metallics, Rayons or "fussy" specialty threads (Whisper, etc.)
Extensive Backstitching (or even ALL backstitching such as Blackwork)
Beading
French Knots
More than 30 colors of floss
Designs over a certain size.
Extensive, close value shading
Uneven borders or repeat motifs that don't *really* repeat (but look like
they do;)

Advanced
Complex specialty stitches (such as designer stitches like weird Rhodes
"thingies" or curved specialty stitches such as Queen and Buttonhole)
Combinations of free-form stitching and counted work
Any combination of 4 factors rating Intermediate (from above)
Isolated stitches
"Over-1" stitching
Stitches requiring special handling such as Satin, couching or whipped
stitches or stitches using two or more colors in the same stitch
Special Fabric handling such as drawing and cutting threads, pulled
stitches, bleach discharging or dying, applique, complex or unique finishing
techniques, cutting fabric completely (such as Insertion stitching).

Very Advanced
Significant free-form or non-countable stitching such as raised and padded
work, needlelace, or other "non-chartable" stitching.
Drawn thread with fillings.
Real Metal threads
Combination of 4 "Intermediate" level skills plus at least one other
"advanced" skill listed.
Other _____________ (Fill in)

The problem with just "rating" a pattern is that while stitchers know what
they are familiar and comfortable with doing, most have learned in isolation
and don't know what the REST of the stitching world knows how to do. People
tend to assume they automatically know LESS than a designer so tend to go
for things rated "easier" than their actual skill level. Perhaps instead of
ratings relating to "ease," ratings could be based upon specific skills or
something else more descriptive. It would also be nice to know, for
instance, that even as I considered myself an "advanced" stitcher, a piece
had fussy counting or a bunch of French knots or something else I just might
not WANT to have to mess with.

Very Easy- No previous experience with hand stitching required. Suitable for
Aida-weave fabrics as well as line and other evenweaves.

Easy- Can be successfully completed by anyone who can read a chart and
thread a needle.

Intermediate- Can be successfully completed with a bit of patience and care
by anyone who can do basic cross stitch. Nothing done here can't be remedied
by taking the stitching out and trying again.

Advanced- Can be successfully completed by an adventurous, patient soul who
has experience reading stitch diagrams. The stitcher will need to be
confident enough to use their own judgement as far as the placement of some
stitches. Some techniques used MAY run the risk of ruining the piece so
practice cloth is advisable.

Very Advanced- Special practice or experience in certain techniques as
listed is advisable before beginning. If you have chosen this sort of
pattern, you know how to manipulate threads and are self-assured in your
abilities.

Of course, these divisions wouldn't apply to "free-embroidery" but to what
people expect to be "counted thread" work. What is "easy" when you KNOW
you're doing free embroidery becomes daunting to some when faced with what
they expect to be a "counted" ground.

Just my 2 cents. I'm wondering who here agrees/disagrees with what I
consider intermediate and advanced. I guess my whole point is that ANYONE
can do up to Intermediate level things without "ruining" a piece. To me, the
division between Intermediate and Advanced is the "leap of faith" one has to
take that they are doing it "right."

Oh and, anything with specialty stitches that are NOT diagrammed in the
pattern itself falls into "advanced" by default. (Which would put some old
reprints of Victorian patterns and such into Advanced as they assume a LOT
of knowledge on the part of the stitcher.)

-Jamie
Wondering if she needs the flameproof undies now.

[Sally]

in article 3b0bd...@newsa.ev1.net, Jamie Quiroga at mae...@ev1.net wrote
on 5/23/01 9:53 AM:

>

> Very Easy- No previous experience with hand stitching required. Suitable for
> Aida-weave fabrics as well as line and other evenweaves.
>
> Easy- Can be successfully completed by anyone who can read a chart and
> thread a needle.
>
> Intermediate- Can be successfully completed with a bit of patience and care
> by anyone who can do basic cross stitch. Nothing done here can't be remedied
> by taking the stitching out and trying again.
>
> Advanced- Can be successfully completed by an adventurous, patient soul who
> has experience reading stitch diagrams. The stitcher will need to be
> confident enough to use their own judgement as far as the placement of some
> stitches. Some techniques used MAY run the risk of ruining the piece so
> practice cloth is advisable.
>
> Very Advanced- Special practice or experience in certain techniques as
> listed is advisable before beginning. If you have chosen this sort of
> pattern, you know how to manipulate threads and are self-assured in your
> abilities.

>

> -Jamie
> Wondering if she needs the flameproof undies now.

Hiya Jamie...

I don't think you're gonna have a need for any flameproof undies <G>.

Your post is very well thought out... you put a lot of thinking into this
one!

The only thing I probably disagree with is the backstitching.. I have never
considered that difficult at all...

I know some people complain about doing it (because it just isn't fun, I
guess for some people).. but is there anyone that really
considers/considered it difficult?

To me, even an easy pattern could have backstitching.

Now... if we were to judge on how "fast" a chart should be, then
backstitching is definitely an issue <G>.

Just my penny's worth. <G>

Sally

[B&Y Mc Bride]

Hi all

We had a similar thread to this when a designer asked what stitchers would
like to see on a chart a little while back. I personally would like to see

1, number of colours
2, whether there are any blended needles
3, fractional stitches
4, a rough skill level would be great.

Ideally we would like to see the chart but many come packaged and we can
understand the reasons for this. So how about a sort of pattern preview
printed on the outside maybe 15 stitches square that would be useless for
illegal copying but would be part of the actual pattern. We could see ones
and twos, fractional stitches etc and then where necessary an arrow pointing
to which part of the design it is that way we could be our own judge.

Regards
Yve
"F.James Cripwell" <bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9ege5m$3kp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[Michael F. Parenteau]

Everyone has some excellent thoughts on this subject. My thoughts are that
there definitely does exist various levels of difficulty and for all of the
various reasons that have been previously mentioned. However, I think that
classifying any given pattern would be really difficult since this REALLY
depends on the individuals ability. What may be "easy" for me, may be "very
difficult" for my wife (yes, this has happened). On one occasion, my wife
had found a pattern in a magazine that she really liked, but it was rated
"difficult". I looked at it and determined that I didn't think it was all
that difficult and finally convinced her to do it. Much to her amazement,
she had no real problems with it at all.
The real laugh I get is when a pattern lists an "estimated" time to
complete. I don't even have to go down that road since we have had numerous
discussions on "stitching speed". My wife tried one of those "weekend"
projects and was wondering if their concept of a "weekend" was 7 days long
<VBG>.

Thanks Jim for starting an interesting and thought provoking thread.

Michael F. Parenteau

[Velvet]

You know ... I've never really thought about it. The only things I
condsider "difficult" are certain specialty stitches (french knots,
embroidery stitches), because I can't embroider worth squat. Heck, it
was DH who figured out French Knots before I did. But I'm weird. I
just picked up a pattern and started stitching. I don't consider the
Mirabilia pieces I've done to be difficult at all - even with the
metallics, partial-stitches, beads, etc - frustrating at times, but not
difficult.

So really, the only thing I look for are how many specialty stitches I
have to figure out, and what they are.

--
.|.
- * - Jen Persinger
(\o /|` ** mom to Alyxa Brianna (21 Sept 1997)
(VXV E-Mail: vel...@rootaction.net ICQ: 35217570
/| URL: http://cainan.shutdown.com/~velvet

[Liz / Cozit]

All I know is that this silly Disney Cinderella's dress is driving me nearly as
nuts as the TW Wedding Sampler I was working on a few years ago.... Talk about
extremes of thought necessary for working colors in x-stitch.

Turn the brain off for Disney, Make sure you're not brain dead for TW.... the
color changes in the TWs (and a few other designers I've come across) provided
the huge learning experience for me that "simple" cross stitch can prove to be
more challenging than some of the many multiple stitch type sampler pieces...
well, as long as you're trying to avoid having backs layered an inch deep with
threads....

-Liz

[KDLark]

I think there are two different issues in the "complexity" question.

One kind of "difficult" is a picture with lots of color changes (flower
garlands come to mind), many partial crosses, tweeding, beading, and lots of
back-stitching. Such a chart will take a lot of time, and it will probably
impress people who don't do a lot of stitching, but such projects are "do-able"
by anyone who can make an "X" and a lot of patience. You might not start a
child on one, but they can be done. One of my first projects was an intricate
knotwork design with metallic thread on 18 count Aida...I didn't know it was
going to be a pain, so I did it. It was a pain.

The other kind of "difficult" includes speciality stitches. Most people seem
to have specialty stitches they particularly dislike, and since any of these
stitches is probably used less frequently, it takes more thought to work them.
I would include things that require you to draw threads in this category, also.
These charts would take more work, because the stitcher would have to learn,
practice and perfect the specialty stitches. My daughter bought a sampler
chart recently, and when she received it she was upset -- the bottom of it had
some strange drawn-thread thing going on that she didn't understand at all!
After a few more projects with hardanger, though, she looked at this chart
again and pronounced it "do-able," when it hadn't been before.

What we need are larger pictures of the finished project! Some of the leaflets
and packs I've seen have such small pictures.

Katrina L.

[Seanette Blaylock]

Michael F. Parenteau had some very interesting things to say about
"Re: Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":

>The real laugh I get is when a pattern lists an "estimated" time to
>complete. I don't even have to go down that road since we have had numerous
>discussions on "stitching speed". My wife tried one of those "weekend"
>projects and was wondering if their concept of a "weekend" was 7 days long
><VBG>.

I have that problem with one afghan pattern book I have [crochet].
This claims you can finish any project therein in a weekend. I don't
think I'm *that* slow, but the two I've done so far were ca. 35 work
hours and over 50 work hours. At the rate the current one is going, an
"eight hour" project is going to be over 30 work hours.

Wonder what planet's days and hours those time estimates are based on?
;-)
--
Seanette Blaylock
X/USA/H+(Bob)/-/-/1C(HFM Felix)/1F/"Magic in Motion", Laine Gordon/Dimensions /
XNCrTK/A/D/-/SF/-/-/b++/R-/S-/K+/-/P/G/W+/Patrick Stewart, James Earl Jones/Stephen King, Scott
Adams, Erma Bombeck, Jeff Foxworthy/CHOCOLATE! :-)

[Seanette Blaylock]

B&Y Mc Bride had some very interesting things to say about "Re: Degree

of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":

>2, whether there are any blended needles

Dumb beginner question: why would blends be any harder than "regular"
needles, for people who don't loop start? [I know they'll be more of
a pain for loop-starters, since you can't DO that with blended.]

[Ericka Kammerer]

Seanette Blaylock wrote:
>
> B&Y Mc Bride had some very interesting things to say about "Re: Degree
> of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":
>
> >2, whether there are any blended needles
>
> Dumb beginner question: why would blends be any harder than "regular"
> needles, for people who don't loop start? [I know they'll be more of
> a pain for loop-starters, since you can't DO that with blended.]

They're not, really, in terms of the stitching. What
I find, however, is that if there are a zillion different
blends, it can be hard to identify which colors have been
stiched so you can figure out where to put the next stitches.
I.e., it's hard to tell if that particular stitch over there
is blend A or blend B when there are a whole bunch of blends
and many are similar. (Same problem without blends if there
are many shades very close together.) So, if there's a lot
of that, I usually resort to gridding so I can figure things
out based on absolute location rather than location relative
to other stitches. Thus, if you're not careful, lots of
blends raises the odds of having to frog, which is pretty
much my operational definition of complexity ;-)

Ericka

[Seanette Blaylock]

Ericka Kammerer had some very interesting things to say about "Re:

Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":

>> Dumb beginner question: why would blends be any harder than "regular"
>> needles, for people who don't loop start? [I know they'll be more of
>> a pain for loop-starters, since you can't DO that with blended.]
> They're not, really, in terms of the stitching. What
>I find, however, is that if there are a zillion different
>blends, it can be hard to identify which colors have been
>stiched so you can figure out where to put the next stitches.
>I.e., it's hard to tell if that particular stitch over there
>is blend A or blend B when there are a whole bunch of blends
>and many are similar. (Same problem without blends if there
>are many shades very close together.) So, if there's a lot
>of that, I usually resort to gridding so I can figure things
>out based on absolute location rather than location relative
>to other stitches. Thus, if you're not careful, lots of
>blends raises the odds of having to frog, which is pretty
>much my operational definition of complexity ;-)

:-). Reasonable definition.

For someone like me who works color-by-color, seems like that problem
would be drastically reduced, or did I miss something?

[Ericka Kammerer]

Seanette Blaylock wrote:
>
> Ericka Kammerer had some very interesting things to say about "Re:
> Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":
> >> Dumb beginner question: why would blends be any harder than "regular"
> >> needles, for people who don't loop start? [I know they'll be more of
> >> a pain for loop-starters, since you can't DO that with blended.]
> > They're not, really, in terms of the stitching. What
> >I find, however, is that if there are a zillion different
> >blends, it can be hard to identify which colors have been
> >stiched so you can figure out where to put the next stitches.
> >I.e., it's hard to tell if that particular stitch over there
> >is blend A or blend B when there are a whole bunch of blends
> >and many are similar. (Same problem without blends if there
> >are many shades very close together.) So, if there's a lot
> >of that, I usually resort to gridding so I can figure things
> >out based on absolute location rather than location relative
> >to other stitches. Thus, if you're not careful, lots of
> >blends raises the odds of having to frog, which is pretty
> >much my operational definition of complexity ;-)
>
> :-). Reasonable definition.
>
> For someone like me who works color-by-color, seems like that problem
> would be drastically reduced, or did I miss something?

It can be a challenge even if you work color-by-color (I
usually do). For instance, when I was doing the shepherd boy
in the Mar-Bek Nativity, the tree had three or four different
colors of green plus a couple different blends of those
greens (near as I can remember). I worked mostly color by
color, but there were *lots* of onesies and twosies, and
once the stitches were down, it was really hard to tell
*which* green they were. So, I'd look at the chart and
see that there were more of blend C over there by that
block of (what I thought was) blend B. It would turn
out later that that had been blend A, which had one strand
the same as blend B, but the other strand was a slightly
different shade of green. Uggh. Frog, frog, frog.
Gridding solved the problem because I then relied only
on exact placement, rather than placement relative to
colors I couldn't tell apart ;-) Does that make it more
complicated? I'm not sure, but it made me frog more, so
I call it more complicated ;-)

[LMM0113]

> I am referring to classifying counted cross stitch
>patterns by degree of difficulty.

This is a fascinating idea, but I wonder who would arbitrate the rating? Since
I did embroidery for many years before discovering counted cross, many of the
"specialty stitches" are old friends to me, so I would only rate a chart
"difficult" if it had numerous, frequent color changes. I get bored if a chart
contains only cross and fractional cross stitches!
Linda on Long Island

[rosaleah]

Interestingly (to me anyways), the most difficult x-stitching I've done has
been the smallest one I've attempted. Really, it was a *tiny* piece that
ought to have been simplicity itself ... but I forgot to factor in the
partial stitching with color blocks of only 4 or 5 or 6 (partial!) stitches
that the pattern contained. I found it so confusing and frustrating that,
over 3/4 done, I gave up on it entirely. It's the only UFO I own.

Thus have I learned: for me, occasional fractional stitches aren't a
problem: a design _depending_ on them, though, ranks as "expert" in my book.
I've got a good looooooong ways to go to get to that spot!

--Rosaleah, who thinks that difficulty ratings between 'absolute beginner'
on the one end of the scale and _maybe_ 'only for expert professionals' on
the other are largely subjective anyways ... "stitcher, know thyself" prolly
being the best watchword ;) (okay, okay, add "look before you stitch" &
"doodle cloths are your friends") <g>

[Velvet]

Seanette Blaylock wrote:
>
> B&Y Mc Bride had some very interesting things to say about "Re: Degree
> of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.":
>
> >2, whether there are any blended needles
>
> Dumb beginner question: why would blends be any harder than "regular"
> needles, for people who don't loop start? [I know they'll be more of
> a pain for loop-starters, since you can't DO that with blended.]

I'm curious about that, as well. I mean, if worst comes to worst, you
can always tuck the ends in somewhere before you start, provided there's
surrounding stitches. But then, I went from doing little Cherished
Teddies (Designs by Gloria & Pat) on Aida, to Mirabilia pieces on
32-count linen and didn't even blink twice.

[Bill Williams]

Rather than the pattern being labeled by degree of difficulty, I think it
would be better to let the stitcher determine for themselves if they are
capable of working the project by adding a "stitches required for this
project" note, along with a suggested skill level, such as beginner,
intermediate, and advanced. Connie

"F.James Cripwell" <bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9ege5m$3kp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[Linda D.]

On 23 May 2001 13:32:38 GMT, bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (F.James

Cripwell) wrote:
> In all my years of reading rctn, I have not seen this subject
>discussed in detail, and in recent days and weeks, I have seen several
>allusions to it. I am referring to classifying counted cross stitch
>patterns by degree of difficulty.

><snipped>

> Most of the time one can
>thread a needle with a standard length (in my case half a meter, or
>a little under 20 inches), and follow the pattern until I run out of
>thread. The same is basically true for patterns I have stitched by
>MLI and TW. However, you get a pattern like Sunday Best, where
>the face and bouquet of flowers were filled with "onsies, toosies",
>including half stitches.
> To use an old army expression, I thought I would "run this one up
>the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it". Anyone have ideas on
>*any* aspect of this subject?
>--
>Jim Cripwell.

Hmmm.....I can see where you are coming from with this. I
feel like you do about those long boring rows of one colour...they
seem to go on forever :( Yet some charts with a stitch of this and a
stitch of that drive me nuts too!
What I do like, is stitching something like an MLI quilt,
which has some solid outlines, but lots of colours that make up a
pattern. It's like one is building something.
I also love to do faces....I feel like I'm creating a person,
then dressing that person by stitching from the face down the
body...so much fun :) Gosh, that almost sounds kinky...(wink)

take care, Linda :)
Vancouver Island, bc.ca :) (remove 'nospam' to reply)

[Di Messina]

Jim,
I guess I don't find any of the cross stitch projects I've done
difficult. Even the onsie twosie stitches don't make it hard for me.
Blending either. At this point I don't think I've found any really
challenging project, cross stitch, neeplepoint, canvas work, or hardanger.
Some have been a little harder than others, but none I would call
challenging. Don't get me wrong, I love stitching, but up to this point I
haven't found it at all difficult. I think that Brazilian Embroidery and
traditional Japanese embroidery would be difficult for me, so I haven't
attempted them yet. Maybe that's a bad thing. I'm sure I'll get to them
eventually.
Does anyone else find this?? That stitching is not hard?

Di

F.James Cripwell <bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9ege5m$3kp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[Dianne Lewandowski]

I've been reading/watching these posts since Jim first put forth the
idea. The now defunct (and sorely missed) "McCall's Needlework"
magazine rated their articles in the final few years of publishing. I
think rating can be helpful. Especially a "beginner" and "Advanced"
rating. After you've passed the beginner phase, what comes next is a
matter of trial and error. But if, as a beginner, you saw a piece
marked "advanced", it would help you discern the vast middle ground.

Linda brought up something I was going to say yesterday, then changed my
mind - waiting to see what more came forth.

It would seem to me that many of you (certainly not all) have had no
experience other than cross stitch. That is a shame. As Linda
mentioned, having experience with other forms (regular ol' embroidery)
brings with it a good groundwork (base). From reading older books,
mainly turn of the century, and numerous books and articles on the
period before this, the basics of hand sewing were first taught. Hand
sewing is the very basics of handling needle and thread - sort of like
scales in music - the building block of needlework. Then on to simple
cross stitch. Now, in those days, simple cross stitch often meant
*very* tiny crosses on non-evenweaves, fine linen, muslin, etc., as a
means of "marking". Think initials. Samplers, of course, were also
taught. But these, aside from their so-called educational benefits,
were simple at first - and grew in complexity as time went on. Using
patterns/graphs was not unheard of.

Embellishing clothing and household items with plain old embroidery also
started very young. One grew with a pallette of knowledge from all
different sources - often depending upon your ethnic background and
local custom. Included were knitting skills, tatting, crochet, etc.
These were all taught as a matter of course, because of both need and
cultural influence. As machines could reproduce these things, we
changed the way we approached the skills.

Many of you already have knowledge of these other skills, and therefore,
the degree/criterea of complexity would not be the same as those who
have tried nothing but cross stitch. Don't get me wrong. I'm not
demeaning cross stitch (something I'm oft accused of doing). I'm simply
stating that, because we live in different times with the "building
blocks" absent or weak, our method of looking at "complexity" is skewed.
And I often see this by the questions asked here (at RCTN) and the
frustration of many who have done almost nothing besides those little
"X's" and have fits with patterns that incorporate other stitches - many
of which are very basic.

Dianne

[Meredith Dill]

My current project is driving me crazy, but it's whitework, not
cross-stitch, and if I had gridded it to minimize the counting errors,
I'm sure I'd find it easy. My only problems arise when the stitch
diagrams don't make sense to me - I haven't yet found a cross-stitch
project that I found hard (and I do use beads and metallics as needed).

Meredith

[Sonya Cirillo]

:) I had decided not to comment - since the title specifically
mentioned that counted cross stitch was what was being rated -
but I agree with Diane, from my personal perspective I found it weird
to see 'free form' embroidery listed as something to make the
piece an advance piece.

But hey not all of you were "abused" with learning 'free form'
embroidery :0 I learned this - even before hand sewing! Seriously,
things like stem stitch, chain stitch, daisy. . . are just as
easy as the cross stitch - honestly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (remember
some of us got to learn it at 7-9 yrs old with much less
fine eye/hand coordination than adults)

Certainly padded satin (which can be tricky), needlelace and
various raised forms like mentioned are usually to be considered
by most to be more advanced.

I like the divisions one of the shows uses to rated their classes.
I think it's CATS but I may be mistaken. Anyway they've done a
fairly good break down to help people decide which classes they
will get the most out of!

Sonya

[KDLark]

>Don't get me wrong. I'm not
>demeaning cross stitch (something I'm oft accused of doing). I'm simply
>stating that, because we live in different times with the "building
>blocks" absent or weak, our method of looking at "complexity" is skewed.
>And I often see this by the questions asked here (at RCTN)
and the
>frustration of many who have done almost nothing besides those little
>"X's" and have fits with patterns that incorporate other stitches - many
>of which are very basic.

I don't think you are demeaning cross-stitch by suggesting that people try
other forms of needlework and sharing your enthusiasm for them. I did crewel
and before I did cross-stitch, made clothes, and also knit. However, I think
cross-stitch is about as basic as you can get...more so than hand sewing. No
knot, no sharp needle, little holes so all stitches are uniform. Cross-stitch
and needlepoint would be, to my mind, good starting points...the "make a ditty
bag" of the decorative stitching world. You master a simple design, then move
on to more "complexity." Some people stop moving on at one point, some never
stop, and I suppose that's their choice. It took me a while to decide to try
drawn thread, just as it took me a while before I decided to try a Fisherman's
knit sweater. I can't see ever doing certain types of needlework -- Brazilian
embordiery (I don't like the way it looks, to be frank), heirloom baby clothes,
or those lacy scarves made of very thin mohair...not enough time, and too many
beautiful things that I already have planned to do. Perhaps some people have
more of a craving to learn the new and possibly "difficult" than others?
Perhaps others want to perfect one skill before they try another? I don't
know...everyone has to decide where they want to take their own stitching, in
which direction and to what level.

Katrina L.

[Stephanie]

Di asked:

> Does anyone else find this?? That stitching is not hard?

This is exactly what I have been thinking as I have been reading this thread.
IMO, if you can count to cross-stitch (make an x) you can count to do any other
specialty stitches. I think the problem lies in what people are comfortable
with: if a person has difficulty or simply doesn't like a certain stitch they
might not like a design, but that doesn't make it difficult.

Difficulty is all relative too. If I am a more experienced stitcher, then
nothing (counted work) will be difficult. The technique might be new and I
might have to practice a stitch on a doodle cloth, but that doesn't make it
difficult. To me, that makes the design interesting.

Like Di, I have taught myself several different types of needlework:
embroidery, canvas work, needlepoint, drawn thread work, and hardanger. I
guess I should be thankful that I am blessed with the ability to pick up on
these things quickly.

Stephanie
Alabama
WIP: Egg II; L&L Ice Angel

Finished 2001: Kreinik Sampler
LB "Close to My Heart" bellpull
AL Noah Sampler
LD Bluebonnet drawn thread

[Velvet]

KDLark wrote:

> I don't think you are demeaning cross-stitch by suggesting that people try
> other forms of needlework and sharing your enthusiasm for them. I did crewel
> and before I did cross-stitch, made clothes, and also knit.

I actually tried embroidery before XS, and actually started XS'ing
because I figured it'd help me learn some of the stitches I wanted to
learn, and that it would be good for the discipline, if nothing else.
Of course, I find out now what I was doing wrong with the embroidery
(trying to do it on muslin, as opposed to something with defined holes),
and that I'm really not all that far off in not being able to do a Laisy
Daisy (I've seen many people express distaste for them), so I don't feel
all too bad.

What I really need to do is get myself some "doodle" linen, and play
around with different stitches, etc, now that I a) have a better idea of
what I'm doing and b) have more resources now than I did before.
Hardanger just scares me silly, though ;)

However, I think
> cross-stitch is about as basic as you can get...more so than hand sewing. No
> knot, no sharp needle, little holes so all stitches are uniform.

See ... and that's what I don't get about people around me saying that
I'm working on "hard" pieces. I had to try and explain the difference
'tween Over one and over 2 today, and just couldn't; and I've had many
people tell me that I'm nuts for trying to work on linen. I figure I
must be doing something wrong, since I just went from Aida straight into
linen, lots of beads, lots of metallics, nylon thread, etc ... I didn't
have anyone around to teach me, I just did it (which is why I couldn't
explain over 1/over 2; I know what they are, I just don't know how to
express to someone else who's never worked on anything other than Aida
what I'm talking about). I don't see it as being hard at all. I make
an "X", I follow a pattern ... I see it as basic stuff. Some of it just
seems like common sense.

But I've always stated I'm weird. Maybe I'm just a freak ;)

Cross-stitch
> and needlepoint would be, to my mind, good starting points...the "make a ditty
> bag" of the decorative stitching world.

Being the newbie that I am, I really don't know the answer to this:
what's the difference between counted cross-stitch, crewel, and
needlepoint? What's candlewicking?

I'm probably one of the few who've never found samplers appealing. I
just don't see much point behind them. It's not something that I'd want
to display on my walls; so I skipped them. I just picked up a kit and
started stitching; and after the kit was done, I decided it was in my
best interest to start buying books, and go from there.

I don't
> know...everyone has to decide where they want to take their own stitching, in
> which direction and to what level.

See ... and I still want to learn embroidery at some point, which is
why I'd never part with the little embroidery book that used to be my
grandmothers (One Hundred Embroidery Stitches, put out by Coats &
Clark's in 1964). But I'm really enjoying stitching Mirabilia & MLI
pieces, and I have so many things planned, it's probably going to be a
while before I get there ....

[Linda D.]

>Di asked:
>> Does anyone else find this?? That stitching is not hard?

On 24 May 2001 20:05:34 GMT, steph...@aol.com (Stephanie) wrote:

>This is exactly what I have been thinking as I have been reading this thread.
>IMO, if you can count to cross-stitch (make an x) you can count to do any other
>specialty stitches. I think the problem lies in what people are comfortable
>with: if a person has difficulty or simply doesn't like a certain stitch they
>might not like a design, but that doesn't make it difficult.

><snipped>

>Like Di, I have taught myself several different types of needlework:
>embroidery, canvas work, needlepoint, drawn thread work, and hardanger. I
>guess I should be thankful that I am blessed with the ability to pick up on
>these things quickly.
>
>Stephanie

We've had similiar threads to this over the years, but if one
reads the Subject of this thread Jim posed the question regarding
counted cross-stitch and was only referring to counted cross-stitch.

I also think one has to look at why a person stitches... Do
they do it for relaxation from a stressful job? If so, then maybe
they don't want to stitch anything complicated and want something
soothing and restful. They don't want to get stressed out working
with some specialty thread that was a pain in the butt to find.

I've done many kinds of embroidery and still do 'play' with
many of them and at the moment I'm learning to bead and am in the
midst of my first amulet bag made with Delica beads....so gorgeous!
It's not hard to do, but it's new to me, exciting and fun!

[PaulaB]

>
>
> This is exactly what I have been thinking as I have been reading this thread.
> IMO, if you can count to cross-stitch (make an x) you can count to do any other
> specialty stitches. I think the problem lies in what people are comfortable
> with: if a person has difficulty or simply doesn't like a certain stitch they
> might not like a design, but that doesn't make it difficult.
>

Having taught at the LNS, I can say with confidence that what is easy
for one is not always easy for another! I was often challenged to
restate instructions or rethink something to make it understandable to
someone else. I suspect it's a right brain-left brain thing,
partially. Coming from a family where my DGM did *everything* with a
needle, beautifully and fast, and a mom who was often frustrated by
needlework, is it any wonder I was so intimidated? I often tell
people, "If I can do this, you can" but some will just not believe
you. I learn well from diagrams, but some don't - they have to see it
done. Absolutley nothing wrong with that, either, just different!

>
> Like Di, I have taught myself several different types of needlework:
> embroidery, canvas work, needlepoint, drawn thread work, and hardanger. I
> guess I should be thankful that I am blessed with the ability to pick up on
> these things quickly.

I find counted thread (inc. Hardanger, drawn work, etc., but
especially samplers)so satisfying and natural that when I dabble in
crochet or something else I realize just how much I love my counted
thread. Like coming home.

Paula B.
>
>

[stef bridges]

well Jim I do quite like doing the boring block colour bits. I often "save"
them for times when i won't be able to concentrate quite so hard - a film or a
boxing match or something.

On the subject of rating work - well I guess we all do it to some extent when
choosing a pattern - will this be too complicated for me to finish before my
deadline etc. I am a little wary of desgners rating their work as I think it
might be a little off-putting. Before I found RCTN I was doing a lot of little
whole stitch stuff on aida because I didn't feel myself "good" enough to do
peices marked as "experienced". It is through this group that I have found the
confidence to try hardanger, embelishements, beads, evenweave etc. Now I know
that y'all will hold my hand for the hard bits. Not everyone has the same
luxury though and I wonder if newish stitchers would confine themselves to work
categorised as easy through lack of confidence - dunno

Stef UK

[Sonya Cirillo]

Stef:

But think too of the frustration of a beginner picking up
something that looked nice without realizing that 'most' would consider
it to be in the 'experienced' category. If it was rated they could
be more careful in selecting it - by considering how many of the
needed skills they would need to learn and do they *really* want to
yet??

Someone talked about a checklist of certain things that could be
checked off. For the beginner this would be most beneficial - I
think as others have said - that those that have been stitching
for awhile tend to do this already - I dare say most can look
strictly at the picture of the stitched model and have a good idea
how many new skills they might have to learn (if any) and then
judge whether to buy the pattern or not! (or maybe buy the pattern
for latter when feeling the need to learn something new!)

Sonya

[Cheri Fulmer]

This is very interesting, as I am re-designing all my charts to include
Consumer Friendly information.
Here is my take on the subject, from my position as a designer.
My designs of national park scenery are large solid-stitched pieces that
look wonderfully detailed....but I use only full cross-stitches, and no
backstitching (except for Roosevelt's glasses on Mt. Rushmore).
I was pleased when Cross-Stitch and Country Craft magazine years ago rated
one of my designs Easy for just those reasons.
And I want the beginning stitcher to know that if she (or he) can do one
cross-stitch, then my project is do-able....it's just one cross-stitch at a
time. It may take longer than a tiny saying, but it is not difficult.
IMHO a rating system is, after all, most important to the beginner.
An experienced stitcher can do most anything, or at least is able to
recognize if something is within his or her ability.
But the beginner is looking for some reassurance that she's not getting in
over her head.
So in the absence of a Standard Rating System, I have decided to print this
visibly on the outside of my charts:
This design is Easy to Stitch - it contains only full cross-stitches, and no
backstitching.
I will also add info about blended threads when they are used, though they
are not difficult, just different.
It's not really a rating, but it is a basic guideline for an inexperience
stitcher.

From all that I have read here, and I enjoy reading this group a lot, I have
seen the value of including more consumer friendly information readily
visible on the chart. When I was just having leaflets printed, there was a
definite space problem.
But now printing our own chart packs on our computer, I can easily justify
including most of the information that has been suggested here of late.
Such as number of stitches, number of skeins to buy, if there are fractional
stitches or backstitching, or any other specialty stitches, etc.

I want to thank all of you for this wonderful sharing of information.
It is a very valuable resource for us all.
Cheri Fulmer
FulmerCraft / National Park Needlework

[JVTOPAZ]

I just want to say I love your charts, I have several and will soon get others.
I have not stitched them yet but hope to soon.

Thank you.

[Cheri Fulmer]

Thanks Victoria,
You are a real cheerleader for my designs, and I thank you for your kind
posts.
Cheri

[marie kozak]

Horray Cheri! Thanks for that. I am presently working on a stitching
that I am having to use my talents to make it pleasing as I ended up
stitching the basket over one that should have been over two. The
designer failed to mention to work "over two unless otherwise noted" and
most of it was over one. So, I was kind of dumb...if I had looked at it
long enough and hard enough I would have figured it out...but being me,
I charged right in. Your concern for us is well appreciated!! I will
look for your charts! Marie in Pa.

[Beth Katz]

What's easy for one person will be hard for some. We have varied
backgrounds and experiences. But in addition to marking charts
with such information, RCTN could develop and publish a small
checklist to help people choose "appropriate" projects. It could be
published in the FAQs and freely copied with attribution by any LNS
or stitching group. An "RCTN Guide to Choosing a Needlework Project".

Jamie had it right in having more than one rating system which I am
copying below my signature for reference.

The following is a first attempt to summarize what others seemed to
be saying into a guide.

RCTN Guide to Choosing a Needlework Project

Motivation Points to Consider:
- what experience do you have?
- are you doing it to relax or on a deadline?
- is it for you or a gift for someone else?
- how much time do you have?
- do you want to learn something new?

Project Style Points to Consider:
- desired topic
- color preferences and limitations
- type of stitch
(stamped cross-stitch, counted cross-stitch, painted
needlepoint canvas, hardanger, silk ribbon embroidery,
crewel, pulled thread, free embroidery, ...)
- thread and fabric preferences
- project format and size
(framed, bell pull, ornament, pillow, ...)
- whether you like the design

Project Complexity Points to Consider:
- overall project size in stitches
(do you have enough time? do you need/want it done quickly?)
- type of fabric used
(Aida, linen/evenweave, perforated paper, canvas)
- count of fabric used
(can your eyes and temperment handle it?)
- is it a kit? with the materials you want to use?
- variety of threads used
(all floss, a few easily obtained non-floss threads,
many more complex threads, how available are they?, cost?)
- embellishments (beads, charms, ...)?
(do you want them? are they readily available? cost?)
- complexity of plain stitches in project
(only full crosses and some backstitch,
some partial stitches, many partial stitches,
plain tent stitches in needlepoint)
- complexity of other stitches
(a few charted special stitches,
many charted special stitches (do you know them?),
uncharted special stitches, how many of each kind)
- is it a "learn such-and-such technique" design with good directions?
- are there numerous colors?
- do the colors change frequently or are there big blocks of color?

Chart Points to Consider:
- can you look at the chart to evaluate it?
- is the chart in color or black-and-white?
- are the symbols easy to read?
- are the symbols easy to distinguish?
- is the chart printed across the fold lines or on separate sheets?
- are the pages bound?

Remember that needlework should be fun.
Choose something you like and enjoy it.

Additions? Deletions?

--
Beth Katz

ka...@cs.millersville.edu
http://cs.millersville.edu/~katz (click on needlework)
WIPs: Dimples Designs' "Fuji", MLI's "Celtic Banner"
MLI's "Let Nature Sing" bookmark as a teacher gift

Jamie <mae...@ev1.net> said:
> I think it would be interesting to see some sort of "standardized" rating
> system with checkboxes for the factors that make the individual piece Very
> Easy, Easy, Intermediate, Advanced or even Very Advanced. For example:

> Very Easy
> Full Cross Stitch Only, Little or No Backstitching

> Easy
> Some partial Cross Stitch, Some Backstitching

> Intermediate
> Extensive or frequent partial cross stitch
> Fully Diagrammed Specialty stitching based upon cross stitches
> Frequent Color changes, Color Blending or thread tweeding
> Synthetic Metallics, Rayons or "fussy" specialty threads (Whisper, etc.)
> Extensive Backstitching (or even ALL backstitching such as Blackwork)
> Beading, French Knots, More than 30 colors of floss
> Designs over a certain size, Extensive, close value shading
> Uneven borders or repeat motifs that don't *really* repeat
> (but look like they do;)

> Advanced
> Complex specialty stitches (such as designer stitches like weird Rhodes
> "thingies" or curved specialty stitches such as Queen and Buttonhole)
> Combinations of free-form stitching and counted work
> Any combination of 4 factors rating Intermediate (from above)
> Isolated stitches, "Over-1" stitching
> Stitches requiring special handling such as Satin, couching or whipped
> stitches or stitches using two or more colors in the same stitch
> Special Fabric handling such as drawing and cutting threads, pulled
> stitches, bleach discharging or dying, applique, complex or unique
> finishing techniques, cutting fabric completely (such as Insertion
> stitching).

> Very Advanced
> Significant free-form or non-countable stitching such as raised and
> padded work, needlelace, or other "non-chartable" stitching.
> Drawn thread with fillings. Real Metal threads
> Combination of 4 "Intermediate" level skills plus at least one other
> "advanced" skill listed. Other _____________ (Fill in)

> The problem with just "rating" a pattern is that while stitchers
> know what they are familiar and comfortable with doing, most
> have learned in isolation and don't know what the REST of the
> stitching world knows how to do. People tend to assume they
> automatically know LESS than a designer so tend to go for things
> rated "easier" than their actual skill level. Perhaps instead
> of ratings relating to "ease," ratings could be based upon
> specific skills or something else more descriptive. It would
> also be nice to know, for instance, that even as I considered
> myself an "advanced" stitcher, a piece had fussy counting or
> a bunch of French knots or something else I just might not WANT
> to have to mess with.

> Very Easy- No previous experience with hand stitching required.
> Suitable for Aida-weave fabrics as well as line and other evenweaves.

> Easy- Can be successfully completed by anyone who can read a chart and
> thread a needle.

> Intermediate- Can be successfully completed with a bit of patience
> and care by anyone who can do basic cross stitch. Nothing done here
> can't be remedied by taking the stitching out and trying again.

> Advanced- Can be successfully completed by an adventurous, patient
> soul who has experience reading stitch diagrams. The stitcher will
> need to be confident enough to use their own judgement as far as the
> placement of some stitches. Some techniques used MAY run the risk of
> ruining the piece so practice cloth is advisable.

> Very Advanced- Special practice or experience in certain techniques as
> listed is advisable before beginning. If you have chosen this sort of
> pattern, you know how to manipulate threads and are self-assured in
> your abilities.

[Seanette Blaylock]

ka...@cs.millersville.edu (Beth Katz) had some very interesting things

to say about Re: Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch
patterns.:

> - are the symbols easy to read?

Does type size fit in this criterion or should we add one for that?
I'm sure I'm not the only person seriously bugged by teeny-tiny print
on charts. :-)
--
Seanette Blaylock
X/USA/H+(Bob)/-/-/1C(HFM Felix)/1F/"Magic In Motion", Laine Gordon(Dimensions)/
XNCr/A/D/-/SF/-/-/b++/R-/S-/K+/-/P/G/W+/Patrick Stewart, James Earl Jones/Stephen King, Scott

[Karen C - California]

>I like the divisions one of the shows uses to rated their classes.

However, the scale doesn't follow a logical progression. I am competent with
the items listed in the Super-Expert category, but there are some things in
Medium categories that I don't do at all. So, does that make me a 10 because I
can do all the stuff at the 10 level, or a 4 because I can't do the things
listed at the 5 level?

--
Finished 5/19/01 - 3 bookmarks
WIP: getting my health back, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe

Paralegal - Editor - Researcher
http://www.craft-searcher.com/kmc/index.html

Don't risk your on-line privileges! I report all Spam.

[Beth Katz]

Seanette Blaylock <seanette.spam...@impulse.net> writes:
> ka...@cs.millersville.edu (Beth Katz) had some very interesting things
> to say about Re: Degree of complexity of counted cross stitch patterns.:
>
> > - are the symbols easy to read?
>
> Does type size fit in this criterion or should we add one for that?
> I'm sure I'm not the only person seriously bugged by teeny-tiny print
> on charts. :-)

Agreed. The text should be readable. I think that's a separate point
from whether the symbols are easy to read and distinguish.

I thought about whether having symbol counts is something for people
to consider. I don't think we have a consensus on that yet. And it isn't
something that really reflects on how we choose a design. So while I find
them helpful, I didn't include them in the guide explicitly. But I did
add a part about thread usage. The chart part now reads:

Chart Points to Consider:
- can you look at the chart to evaluate it?
- is the chart in color or black-and-white?

- are the symbols easy to read?

- are the symbols easy to distinguish?
- is the text type readable
(big enough, in contrasting color, easy-to-read font)?
- are there notes about special threads usage
(extra skeins, few stitches, stitch counts, substitutions)?

- is the chart printed across the fold lines or on separate sheets?
- are the pages bound?

Other additions and deletions? Discussion?