Date
1 - 20 of 70
Overshot and nomenclature
|
Sara von Tresckow
For those who couldn't view the graphics, this might be better.
In the center is the old German technical notation that led to the ISO standards K = Koeper(twill), 1/3 means 1 up and 3 down, Z means right leaning – also from Kienbaum, p. 200 and this notation is used for more complex twills in the Oelsner. (See chapter on Twill pp. 16-24.) On the right is the current ISO standard – found in both Kienbaum p. 200 and the ISO document p. 4 – 20 means twill with the thread in the lower left corner of the structure beginning the sequence raised. The 01 03 means a 1/3 twill. The next 01 means that the threading proceeds left to right in groups of 01. That last 01 is the step of 01 meaning that the next thread is on a shaft 1 away from the previous giving that structure a right leaning direction. Interesting is that representations have not changed significantly in a century. They convey a structure by defining the interlacements of warp and filler in a way that is independent of equipment used. As Al Fannin said in this morning’s article “Our more obvious point of beginning would be to advocate a greater emphasis on the on-paper study of weave structures separated from the mechanism of producing any structure on the loom.” The tools exist. These designations form the basis of books like “Warp and Weft” – Lovallius, et. al. I discovered the ISO weaves taking a Jacquard class on the TC-1 years ago with Pat Williams using JacqCAD software. Each time I selected a weave for part of my project design, there was a numeric description prefaced with ISO. These numbers can be put together and sent to a mill and you would get the correct structure put on the loom. The screen shot is the JacqCAD representation for the weave above. Yes, there are standards which could be helpful. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Martha, I see that they do not show in groups.io, but they do show in an
Outlook client. I'll try downloading the images to the pictures section now. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Martha Town
I am loving this conversation! I'm in a guild that does 2 year studies that challenge all of us to expand our knowledge and creativity. One of the weavers often challenges our use of weaving terms and names. I'm teaching some again since Zoom expanded that opportunity, and even with my favorite topic of Twills, I have found that terminology can differ in the many books that include it. So I often share several names for each twill structure. I also clearly clarify that the threading, treadling and tie ups used are NOT "Twill threading", etc. Only resulting structure is twill....and then there is the problem of when do all the iterations in a twill gamp become something else??
Several years ago when I learned more about Drawlooms (from Sara at Midwest)...I realized the difference between shafts and harnesses, and I have corrected the use of those terms in my teaching and conversations. I often explain the difference in order to advance correct usage. I think I am most challenged with terminology and weave 'names' when I'm pursuing a study and then trying to explain my design process to other weavers. I have recently been playing with all the weave structures that can be woven on a draft with blocks on 2 shafts repeated in even numbers. This type of draft is used for Honeycomb, DDW, a Lace that is like Huck, Rep Weave, Monk's Belt, etc.. Stacey Harvey-Brown's book Honeycomb Hybrids explores this particular threading very creatively. She did her best to explain her exploration and I love doing the same type of thinking, trying to push a structure in a way new to me. I am developing a class based on a gamp that will contain many of the structures, and have been trying to come up with a class name that covers all of them. The closest I can come is "Cell Weaves" but I don't find documentation on that term so am not confident that it is correct as a weave group title. (And I don't want to be roasted if it is not correct....haha) Would welcome feedback on that issue, but also wanted to let all who have contributed to this discussion know that your thoughts have been appreciated! Sara, I could not open the illustrations you referenced in your last message. Charlene, I would love to see and use the Database you are helping with. I wonder what role Handweaving.net could play in helping clarify terminology? Seems like they have nicely avoided names so far. HA! Martha Town |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Ah, but there are even multiple systems for expressing weave structure
without verbal description. They are just not commonly used by American handweavers. The graphic above shows three types of identification for weave structures - illustrating the suggestion from Igor Raven a few days ago. On the left: This illulstrates following - H.G. Oelsner, "Handbook of Weaves", 1915, fig. 39 p. 16, Martin Kienbaum "Bindungstechnik der Geswebe", 1999, p 200, as well as ISO 9354 : 1989 (E) p. 4. In the center is the old German technical notation that led to the ISO standards K = Koeper(twill), 1/3 means 1 up and 3 down, Z means right leaning - also from Kienbaum, p. 200 and this notation is used for more complex twills in the Oelsner. (See chapter on Twill pp. 16-24.) On the right is the current ISO standard - found in both Kienbaum p. 200 and the ISO document p. 4 - 20 means twill with the thread in the lower left corner of the structure beginning the sequence raised. The 01 03 means a 1/3 twill. The next 01 means that the threading proceeds left to right in groups of 01. That last 01 is the step of 01 meaning that the next thread is on a shaft 1 away from the previous giving that structure a right leaning direction. Interesting is that representations have not changed significantly in a century. They convey a structure by defining the interlacements of warp and filler in a way that is independent of equipment used. As Al Fannin said in this morning's article "Our more obvious point of beginning would be to advocate a greater emphasis on the on-paper study of weave structures separated from the mechanism of producing any structure on the loom." The tools exist. These designations form the basis of books like "Warp and Weft" - Lovallius, et. al. I discovered the ISO weaves taking a Jacquard class on the TC-1 years ago with Pat Williams using JacqCAD software. Each time I selected a weave for part of my project design, there was a numeric description prefaced with ISO. These numbers can be put together and sent to a mill and you would get the correct structure put on the loom. Here is the JacqCAD representation for the weave above. Yes, there are standards which could be helpful. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... <mailto:sarav@...> Author of "When a Single Harness Simply Isn't Enough" http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Pamela Graham
Sara,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thank you for the explanation. I use the long cord tie-up as mentioned in an article by Madeline Van der Hoogt, with minor modifications, quite successfully. I also run the upper lamm cords through the lower lamms on their way to the treadle as it just seems tidier and, so far, no problems. I have not tried, but am intrigued by, Beck Ashenden’s method with the knitting needles. Have you heard of it and ever tried it? Thank you for your posts on this forum. They are always informative and clearly stated. Pam On Jul 27, 2022, at 5:26 PM, Sara von Tresckow <sarav@...> wrote: |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Pam,
Yes. In the early 80's when Texsolv was new, weavers used the convention of long and short cords, looped over the lams and down to the treadle. The cords were usually pegged with a 2-legged peg under the treadle. Also, because of the conventions of the old snitch knot tieups where the connections were between treadle and lam, the cords from upper lams were to run behind the corresponding lower lam. Some weavers had tried running the cords through both lams when coming from the upper to keep things easier to oversee. A discussion happened, first about whether the cords could run through the holes in both lams - and then a suggestion came (from of the European members, I think) that starting with a loop at the treadle and a peg on top of the am might be best. It was also proven that running tie cords through both lams neither led to premature wear nor excess friction. From this, the "long cord tieup" is descended. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Pamela Graham
Hi Sara,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have a Glimakra 120cm standard and I adjust my tieups at the lamms. Is that what you meant by the “aha” or am I missing something? Thank you, Pam On Jul 27, 2022, at 10:00 AM, Sara von Tresckow <sarav@...> wrote: |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Charlene Marietti
Carol brings up a good point regarding nomenclature in scientific fields, such as botany. Once defined by appearance, they are now subject to DNA testing, which has turned many a classification system upside down. The orchid family is one. I was a microbiologist when bacterial classifications underwent a major change in the last quarter of the last century. However, in scientific fields, more complex and precise evaluation tools (one of which is, of course, DNA) have enabled specialists to reclassify items in logical and systematic processes. But with weaving structures, there are no such tools for classification. Identification is dependent on description--and therein lies the rub. Without a common format, people use different words to describe what they see. Add languages other than English, and the formats differ even more due to language-specific rules. Oh, and find a word hard to pronounce? Rename it. (Or rename it for vanity’s sake.) There is a real reason to come to an agreement on a standardized format: Databases. To build a database of weaving samples, for example, there must be a logical, common framework. I have been involved in such a project. It is based on Emery’s framework, but it requires someone with cross-referencing knowledge to identify submissions. To do that, I created a crosswalk (so that if someone entered ‘crackle,’ it can be entered according to Emery (twill, compound elements), and a sentence summary of the weave. The common names are still associated, so a user can search for crackle. Even so, it was/is a major undertaking. I know there are some inaccuracies, but it's a start. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
I've been loosely following this discussion and thought I would comment. Someone said that this doesn't happen in Science, but yes it does. The Scientific names for plants are changing all of the time. You can see an explanation here: https://rotarybotanicalgardens.org/why-plant-names-change/ Also, in the NYT's today, there is a thread about American Sign Language and how some signs have changed over time:
 |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Su Butler
Multi-harness does not define the looms most handweavers use. There is a difference between the definition of multi-shaft and multi-harness, and many people mistakenly use the term multi-harness when they mean shaft. The term multi-harness comes from drawloom weaving. A harness houses the shafts that do particular work on a drawloom. One harness houses the ground shafts. Another harness houses the pattern shafts. And in some cases a third harness houses the single unit drawcords that allow the weaver to create pattern. Drawloom are often called multi-harness looms. On the other hand, a multi-shaft loom would lead one to believe there are more than the minimum number of shafts on a (single harness) loom, say more than two or possibly more than 4. But all the shafts are housed in one harness. I think this term came into being in America when looms of more than 8 shafts started to become readily available.
Su Butler 😊
From: weavetech@groups.io <> On Behalf Of hunter.roseholle via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 6:17 AM To: weavetech@groups.io Subject: Re: [weavetech] Overshot and nomenclature
I don't remember who brought up "multi-harness". Allen Fannin did a beautiful job explaining the redundancy of the term in this article in The Weaver's Journal beginning on page 7.
Jan _._,_._,_ |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sara von Tresckow
Jan,
THANK YOU. I sorely miss the contributions that Prof. Al Fannin made to this list. There is at least one other frequent poster in that issue - Bill Koepp who wrote the article on loom maintenance. He was very active in the discussions leading to our collective "aha" that countermarche loom tieups do not need to be adjusted under the treadles, markedly changing the way we do it today. That article also addresses a point that has been missed in this discussion - about "structures" being chiefly about the interlacements of thread rather than naming conventions. There is a ton of meat in that article - well worth reading. Sara von Tresckow, Fond du Lac, WI sarav@... Author of “When a Single Harness Simply Isn’t Enough” http://www.woolgatherers.com Dutch Master Loom/Spinning Chairs/Öxabäck Looms, visit us in Fond du Lac or contact us about your weaving/spinning needs |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 03:23 AM, hunter.roseholle wrote:
They could have called the halvdrall example "linen weave" to follow losing the Swedish name as Davison did. One of my new preferences (in the age of Google) is to use a name that someone can look up in most weaving references, or find using Google. "Linen weave" is pretty useless in that regard, if I want to be understood. It's great as a "secret handshake", though. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
hunter.roseholle
I don't remember who brought up "multi-harness". Allen Fannin did a beautiful job explaining the redundancy of the term in this article in The Weaver's Journal beginning on page 7. Jan |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:27 PM, hunter.roseholle wrote:
It's easy to understand why so many people (including me) become confused.It is. When you focus on "does this fit with how I choose to define "overshot", culled from its various uses (and non-uses) among different references and languages?" you will be "confused" and "bothered" when someone makes a different, but equally reasonable choice behind your back. If instead we focus on "informed inclusivity" (as was claimed), we all learn a bit more about history, language, and halvdräll, and nobody is confused or bothered. Admittedly, this very informative discussion wouldn't have happened without disagreement, though. Nothing gets us to do some research like wanting to prove someone else wrong. :-D Point being to use the name used in the language and culture you are writing in.What name? Whose language? Whose culture? It sounds simple when you put it that way, but haven't we just proven by the existence of this thread that there is no correct answer to those questions? Dawn Jacobsen is bothered by the used of "crackle" vs. "Jamtlandsdräll". "Halvdräll" is Swedish and the English equivalent is to put it under "overshot". And who's definition of the name "overshot" are we meant to use (although I defy anyone to define "overshot" in a way that manages to exclude "halvdräll" but doesn't exclude other examples that are considered "overshot")? "Informed inclusivity" answers most of those questions, I think. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
hunter.roseholle
Inga, you and the Gist blog post are describing Daldrall, one type of overshot. Much of weaving terminology came to the U.S. with immigrants so there are still many terms in common use today like the Norwegian Krokbragd. Some have been lost in translation. There is really no reason for Gist to use "halvdrall" in the original example which started the thread. They could have called the halvdrall example "linen weave" to follow losing the Swedish name as Davison did. They also could have called the overshot Daldrall, keeping halvdrall and called the collection "simplified drall" as I have already suggested. This would have added clarity. I give the blog post a thumbs down.There is also no good reason to call overshot "floatwork". It just muddies the water even further. Jan |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Or even as described in Gist’s own article that started this whole thread.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
https://www.gistyarn.com/blogs/how-to-weave/weave-structures-overshot marie Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe On Jul 27, 2022, at 08:56, Inga Marie Carmel <ingamariecarmel@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Let me rephrase that. Overshot as a twill based weave with half tones. I don’t have Davison here ( I’m in Sweden ) so I was pulling that from memory. I’m referring to Bertha Grey Hayes as much as Davison.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You won’t find Halvdräll or Daldrãll in a lot of English language books. They’re Swedish names and weaves. My memory is foggy here but the COE requires three lace weaves - Swedish lace, huck and Atwater-Bronson. One doesn’t exist in Swedish books, or rather two share a name. You get from one to the other by adding a thread between units so you can repeat them. But they have the same name. Took me forever to decode that. Point being to use the name used in the language and culture you are writing in. marie Inga Marie Carmel An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe On Jul 27, 2022, at 00:27, hunter.roseholle via groups.io <hunter.roseholle@...> wrote:
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
hunter.roseholle
"Overshot (as it’s used in Davison, for example) deserves its own name, and not to have to share it with other supplemental weft weaves. It’s a huge field of study all in itself — just look at Helene Bress’s book." The broad umbrella definition of overshot is what Davison uses. In a nutshell, overshot is comprised of 3 elements, the warp, the ground weft (usually the same thread as the warp) and the pattern weft (usually thicker than the ground). The threading, tie-up and treadling conventions for each type of overshot determine the pattern. The type of overshot I think you are referring to is like "Whig Rose" and that does have its own name - Daldrall. You won't find the word "halvdrall" in Davison. You will find the halvdrall patterns under the chapter titled "Thousand Flowers" with halvdrall called "Linen Weave". She tells readers to refer to a Swedish book, Vavbok to learn more on the topic. It's easy to understand why so many people (including me) become confused. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Wow. As the original poster of this thread, I knew I’d get some reactions but this was more than I expected. Thanks for all the interesting perspectives.
I teach rigid heddle weaving, as it turns out. I have for about 10 years. I have students that come back year after year, and as far as I know I have never scared anyone off. Our guild has grown from 60 to 170 in that same period, and many have come from RH classes, then moved on to shaft looms. We have a reputation as a very welcoming group. No one ever eyerolls a beginner, or someone weaving on a pin loom for instance. We have members of all ages, skill levels, genders and backgrounds. I very much appreciate the perspective that terms are used differently in RH weaving than in shaft weaving, thanks for pointing that out. My first language is Swedish, I learned to weave in Swedish. But I’ve lived in the US since I was in elementary school, my weaving community is mostly english speaking. Terminology is different in different cultures. This drove me crazy when I was working on my COE, I had sample requirements in English, but was working mostly with Swedish references. The lace weaves were particularly maddening. Different traditions divide things up differently. I’ve always suspected that Swedes call a greater range of things ‘blue’ than Americans do for instance. I love weaving not as a complex thing, or an industrial thing, but as a handwork that has long roots. It’s fine with me for there to be a range of names for things, and language changes. But back to the Gist ad that started this. I love Gist. They do amazing work and, yes, they’ve supported the RH community a long time. Gist’s website is the page that is open on my computer when I teach. I’ve told countless students to refer to their resources, patterns and yarns. I’ve probably sold a few of the yarn subscriptions a well. I love Duet, I have some issues with it as a yarn for towels sett at 12 epi, and I think it’s hard for RH beginners to work with, but otherwise it’s a lovely yarn. I don’t like linen or linen blends in the dryer, so Duet doesn’t close up to 18 epi. I’ve woven it on a shaft loom and it’s gorgeous. But that’s not my point here. I think that if you are an english speaking company writing for an english speaking audience you should use english language terms for things. It doesn’t matter what they do in Iceland or what Zetterstrom wrote. This is not an English first thing. I don’t give a damn about English first. The same is true for other languages or cultures. Väv should not have to figure out what the english term for something is, even if it’s in one of their translations. They often don’t actually. Overshot (as it’s used in Davison, for example) deserves its own name, and not to have to share it with other supplemental weft weaves. It’s a huge field of study all in itself — just look at Helene Bress’s book. Anyway, that’s my $0.02. Thanks for all the perspectives. I learned a few things here. I hope you all did too. marie Inga Marie Carmel Instagram @ingamarie An interesting plainness is the most difficult and precious thing to achieve - Mies van der Rohe |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Linda Schultz
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 06:16 AM, hunter.roseholle wrote:
Linda, I'm not sure I understand this. Maybe you are referring to my post.Partly. Carly Jayne added a reference to halvdrall as overshot, prior to your post. And there are others. Atwater refers to the weave as overshot in the April 1928 Bulletin and her draft has four blocks (I just randomly discovered it this morning). It's a particular way of drafting overshot, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason to exclude it altogether. |
||||||||||
|
|
