This was a project I had wanted to do for a very long time. From the moment I saw it on the front page of Ravelry all those many months ago, I knew it was something I would love working on, and wearing.
Now that it’s finished, it’s everything I wanted! I wraps, it drapes, it’s not just a boring rectangle scarf, and it’s not too heavy as the weather just doesn’t get that cold here.
Working out what the designer intended with the pattern however, was a bit of an ordeal. I re-read it several times, still couldn’t make out what she meant in two separate places and had to resort to contacting her for clarification. For anyone contemplating making this pattern, I’m just not convinced that the pattern was written as clearly as it might have been.
First, on the initial chart for the body of the piece, there is a symbol represented by a dot with an underscore which stands for knit and purl in the same stitch. Given that I was going to be travelling with the piece, I had printed the pattern up, and the underscore at A4 size printing was not obvious. Given that this stitch is used in every row it is necessary, and crucial to your stitch count. I think a different symbol representing this stitch would have made it clearer.
Adding to this confusion is the fact that, when I looked at the symbol identification table, the purl stitch was represented by a dot. Hence I initially thought that stitch was a purl. As the piece is based in garter stitch (if I made it again I would do the body in stockingette) there is no need for the symbol table to even have the purl stitch listed as it is never used in the piece.
Second, again going back to the symbol table: all the symbols are on the left, with the definitions listed down the right. All except for the “T”, where the definition just reads “T”. Now granted, in the full pattern there is an entire explanation of what the “T” means and does, but not where it will be utilised either in the pattern or on the piece. But when I’m working from a chart I don’t carry the pattern with me; just the chart and the symbol table. So again I was frustrated, forced to a halt, and needed to wait for a response from the designer.
There were other instances within the pattern where things were all noted, but out of the sequence in which you’d knit them, and therefore in which I looked for them (the “T” was a classic example). I don’t want to have to read an entire pattern just to find the bit which is relevant to where I’m up to; I expect the pattern to be written in a linear fashion and to be able to go to where I am up to in the pattern, read the bit I need and keep knitting. All in all this made dealing with the written section of the pattern highly frustrating. Once I was on the charts (and could read the symbols) I was fine though and the knit was a breeze.
When I was about half way through the 39 repeats of the edging, the designer contacted me once more to tell me in detail just how talented she is, and to insinuate that my technique was lacking and that the piece was above my skill level. She may have been a touch lax on her research skills, considering some of my finished pieces. Given how easy my other shawls/projects are to find and view, I think she might just have gotten a bit carried away with herself by that point.
I won’t be buying anything from her ever again, nor recommending her patterns to anyone as they are badly put together and difficult to follow. It’s a pity, given what pretty pieces she comes up with.
I still love my Fishu, but having to deal with the designer made the knitting process less fun than it could have been.