New York Minknit

 (illustrated with random stationery found in my desk drawers)

 Have you read OlgaJazzy and KnitLit‘s latest posts? I’m talking about this and this–where they both point us to knock-off patterns of designer knits.

Olga found a zillion knitting magazines that knocked-off that Pringle sweater that I was lured by a few months ago, and I have to say, despite me mocking Lion Brand a few posts ago, the Lion Brand version is definitely the best, in terms of fidelity to the original and the styling of the finished object. BUT! It’s still nowhere as nice as the original–look at the cables, they’re so simplified compared to the original which had cables of different sizes, styles, and directions. Plus, I remember learning during my last search for that Pringle sweater that the original was knit in 4-ply cashmere, which I doubt the knock-offs are.

(I think the bottom sentence, “I look at fashion magazines with my friends and try to keep myself up to date,” is the most logical, but I find the abbreviated version more amusing, as some sort of commentary on fashion and feminism: “I look at fashion magazines and try to keep myself.” I bought this stationery in 1997 when I visited Japan, and ten years and many, many moves later, still have it.)

Anyway. I am not opposed to knock-offs, and I don’t even think the quality of designer goods is always noticeably better than the knock-offs. But in some cases, like the Pringle sweater, the quality IS definitely better and the knock-offs seem significantly shoddier.

And that quality is what brings me to Knit Lit’s post about the Vogue Knitting version of Alexander McQueen’s sweater. Knit Lit Kate writes, “funny how fit, styling and color choices can make all the difference!” Absolutely–the McQueen version on the runway is cool and avant-garde and the Vogue Knitting version seems much more pedestrian.

(I fear that my decision to knit a shawl is going to make me look like this lady. Kerkdracht in de rouw! I have no idea what that means. This is from a set of Dutch regional dress postcards–or “nederlandse streekdrachten”–that Adam bought for me when he went to Amsterdam last year.)

I know that Vogue Knitting offers designer knits, but I wish the designers would license more of their knits as kits or something. James Surowiecki alludes to this idea in the financial page of The New Yorker this week when he mentions the notion of “a registered original design,” when Jackie Kennedy and other society ladies of the fifties would buy Parisian runway designs made at Bergdorf Goodman or something through a licensing deal. They were Designer, with a captial D, but made here, probably in the garment district. It seems that the knitting community is small enough that they could offer similar kits or patterns for us knitters to recreate, without harming their business. (Well, maybe not. The kits would  be a blueprint for mass-manufacturers to knock-off these same garments, but this is already happening without the kits! And I shudder to think how expensive the kits or officially licensed patterns would be.)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a divide between knitting pattern–designers and couture and high-end pret-a-porter designers, and I wish we could have more of the latter available to us as knitters.

Okay, enough rambling for today.

I don’t often get to use the category tag “crazy knitting” here, but I have found an awesome subject, courtsey of JenLa. I don’t even know how I found this post* but it introduced me to a topic I have never thought of: knit landscapes.

These range from these strangely cute:

to the incredibly weird…Knitted Historical Figures. I think if I ever knit a Madame de Pompadour, I have crossed the line into CRAZY.

*There should be some word coined for when you google something but can never remember the magical combination of words used to find that page ever again.

So I can read when I knit, but I think I need some sort of geek contraption that holds out the book in front of my eyes (like on a helmet or something), because when I try to read when I knit, I get terrible posture. But tv…I love tv, much to the shame of my people (righteous San Franciscans who believe that tv rots your brain). And I just saw the best new show…Gossip Girl. So deliciously good. If you want to watch prep school kids in all their tv-trashtastic glory, this is the show for you.

I am lacking in knitting blogging material, and thus I turn to my favorite filler: The Traveling Project!

(Top left and bottom right) Adam and I were invited to a preview night at a new bowling alley/bar in Williamsburg, The Gutter (well, I think really Adam was, but I tagged along) and the shawl came along too.

(The photo in the lower left is Williamsburg at night.) Adam takes beautiful photos all the time, even when I am being annoying, and being like “Why so many photos!?” Then I steal them for my blog. Mwhahaha.

(Top right) We also went to IFC to see Helvetica, the documentary. This is me knitting in line. The shawl is too heavy to knit while standing up, but it’s the traveling project for now.

Pattern: generic top-down sock pattern
Yarn: 1 ball of Sockotta, 5% cotton/40% wool/15% nylon, $9 from The Homespun Boutique, in Ithaca.
Needles: Inox 2, set of 5
Time to make: Started February 20, finished September 8

Not much to report–the yarn is kind of stringy, and the pattern rather ugly, but I actually really enjoyed knitting the self-striping pattern. I would definitely knit a self-patterning yarn again, though I do think the result is weird.

Ugly socks meet ugly shoes. My inner San Franciscan comes out.

Ugly socks without the shoes.

It only took me half a year to knit these socks! Here’s a flashback montage of the sock over the seasons.

I was reading my September Vogue the other day, and I came across this article. The author of the article goes to Wenlan Chia’s studio–and never having knit before!–knits herself this tunic. It’s pretty cute, actually, and it’s one of the patterns in Twinkle’s Big City’s Knits (which I own, and was planning on making some stuff from). There’s a whole flickr group devoted to Big City Knits here–pretty cute.

(And I just noticed on the flickr bulletin board that Wenlan Chia was recruiting knitters in NYC to teach at Anthropologie to make her clothes–and that Vogue would be covering the classes. That might be where this article originated…)

In the fashion spreads of the same issue, there are also tons of GINORMOUS knits. Kind of crazy, and probably not all that wearable, but cute.

(I know there’s a ton of hatred around The Internets about Twinkle and Vogue–generally separate camps of hate–because of their tendency to only show clothes for skinny ladies. I’ve got some thoughts on this, but am too tired to blog about it. Sorry.)

(My parents have these weird Polaroids from the ’70s, where some sort of chemical reaction between the photo album and the photos must have occured, that have the same tint as the photo above. Digital photography–even capturing the weird light of Polaroids gone wrong.)

It’s overcast and rainy in New York, hence the weird coloring of the shawl. (It’s actually much greener–closer to the color in this photo.) I’m almost done with the first skein and I think I might need to take a little break. The shawl was sufficently interesting that I knit it all summer, but now that I have another whole skein to go, I’ve slowed down a bit.

Spring/ugly socks are close to being finished, but my recent revelation that one sock is much too short and needs to be re-knit, has also dampened my enthusiasm for them.

In short, I have become a grouchy knitter.

In response to the comments on the post below, I did know that Lion Brand has some new, cuter patterns available, but unfortunately, none were at the store. Seriously, they had ordered these brand-new fugly fugly brochures that must have dated from the early ’80s (and the insides from the ’50s or so–in some ways, a godsend. Imagine if they taught you how to make an ’80s-sweater instead!)

Fashion Design Books

Address: 250 West 27th St.
Phone: 212-633-96446
Website: www.fashiondesignboks.com

Adam spotted the re-opening of this store the other day. This is the campus bookstore for F.I.T. (the Fashion Institute of Technology). They have a large wall of yarn, all made by…

LION BRAND YARN!!!

At first, I was a little excited because I thought they might have Cotton-Ease, this hard-to-find Lion Brand yarn. But they don’t, though they do have fun fur and lots of other somewhat weird novelty yarn.

I’m really disappointed in this store. How could a fashion college have such a terrible selection of yarn? They even have these brand-spanking new Lion Brand booklets that are straight from the 1970s. It’s one thing when you’re a weird creepy sewing/yarn store from way back (very popular in the outer boroughs) and have dusty, faded brochures that were never sold; it’s another thing when you ORDER new Lion Brand learn-to-knit brochures that still teach you how to make horrendous acrylic slippers. Knitting has evolved so much since the selection here, and for a fashion college to renovate and choose to trap its knitting section in 1982 is really a shame.

I think Lion Brand has been trying to evolve a little bit, but they’re still trapped by their loyal fun-fur-loving customers. (What’s weird is that the Lion Brand HQ is right near Union Square–I used to walk by it all the time at lunch–and yet it hasn’t really evolved as a brand. Though I have to admire the intensity of this.

Knit.1 used to be sponsored by Lion Brand, and they had some cute patterns, and they still use a decent amount of Lion Brand. Anyway, if you work near F.I.T. or go to F.I.T., this might be good if you absolutely need something, but since School Products is pretty close by, I would suggest going there instead.

Downtown Yarns

Address: 45 Avenue A

NY, NY 10009

Phone: (212) 995-5991

Webpage: www.downtownyarns.com

This is a cute little yarn store in the East Village. I’m pretty sure that Stitch and Bitch was shot here. It has homey library-like shelving, which one of the employees said the owner buys at upstate antique stores. I’ve been in here a couple of times while waiting to eat dinner in the neighborhood and the staff here is really nice. I’ve never bought anything here, but I think the owner has a good eye for color and texture, and there’s a good selection of yarns here. In the photo I’m handling some Katia Jamaica cotton–here’s a cute baby kimono that someone made with the yarn.

I think this yarn store is a little bit like Purl, but it carries a larger selection of more inexpensive brands, I think.

Here are some traveling project shots in the new Greek and Roman Galleries. I was predisposed to dislike these galleries because they replaced the old cafeteria, which was beautiful and a nice spot for homework reading in college. The new cafeteria is depressing and underground, and has none of the glamour of the old cafeteria. The new galleries are nice, I just miss the cafeteria.

 (The gimmick with these photos is that the galleries have two statues of Hercules, a young Hercules and an old Hercules. The young Hercules is holding the hide of a slain lion and the old Hercules is wearing the lion as a hooded cape. I am trying to pose my knitting like the lion skin. The fourth picture is just a picture of me holding the shawl near a noseless bust.)

 The old cafeteria was where the kids bathed in The Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. Also, I recently learned, it was decorated by Dorothy Draper, which might be why it was kind of old-lady fabulous. Here’s a photo of

me at the Dorothy Draper show at the Museum of City of New York earlier this year.

On a somewhat random tangent, as I come upon my tenth anniversary of moving to New York, I’ve been thinking a lot about how it’s easy to be angry at the city. Sometimes, it’s hard to live here, and it can be frustrating and kind of a trial. But I’ve also been thinking about how much I wanted to live in New York as a kid. Books like that Mixed-Up Files book gave me such a glamorous notion of the city, and on a regular basis, it still feels like a treat. I remember a couple of weeks after graduating college, I went to the Met to hang out, and then, feeling a little depressed due to my then-unemployed state, I went to Payard to have lunch at the bar. My lunch was so nice and posh, my bartender so dashingly good-looking, and my newly met lunch companion so flamboyant and generous that I felt quite cheered up.

I loved Crazy Aunt Purl’s post today, and it reminded me of that story. Sometimes, in an effort to save for the future, I forget the niceness of now. Thanks New York, for putting the New York in the New York Minknit.

Sometimes, I like to read Sheri’s blog at The Loopy Ewe. I have never ordered anything from this online store, so I cannot speak for their customer service. That being said, I think Sheri’s blog is pretty good and certainly a smart promotional tool for her business. She writes three times a week, gives updates about the online store, provides free patterns, encourages community among her customers, and gives a sense of the woman behind the business. This is a corporate (or in her case, small business) blog grand slam. So many businesses have trouble getting a great blog off the ground, and hers is not only interesting but she also creates demand in her customers. So far, so good.

I don’t generally read comments on her blog, but recently, I read the comments on this post, and I was shocked. People either have no idea how business works or they have become deranged by their desire for yarn and have forgotten basic capitalist principles. Namely, you give someone money. They give you a product. That is it.

[Random, but related aside: For example, at EVERY magazine that I have ever worked at, readers would send mail asking why we had so many ads, and could we reduce the number of ads or, as one letter said, “If you must have ads, could you put them in the back so we don’t have to see them?” C’mon, do the math. Look at the current rates for Glamour: a 1/6th page ad, in black and white, costs $22,010 PER ISSUE. You pay $15/year for a subscription. Glamour is not going to “put all the ads in the back.” If you read the comments on this knitspot post, people are complaining about the same thing in Vogue Knitting–that there are too many ads. Almost ALL magazines–with some exceptions, like Consumer Reports–are advertising supported.]

Anyway. People were outraged, because some fab new German yarn, Wollmeise, quickly sold out within minutes of it being posted. Customers suggested, nay, demanded a limit on the yarn. If people were reselling the yarn, like with those “I am not a plastic bag” bags, then perhaps that would make sense. But if people are just buying it to horde it and stroke it and run around naked with it, then hello! This poor woman runs a business. Her goal is to sell yarn and to turn a profit. Not to make sure everybody gets what they want. People have some kind of weird consumer entitlement, where they feel businesses should be run to make them happy*, not to make a profit.

*Businesses, not, say, health care. Health care is a different issue. But you do not need yarn to live. That is not a right you are entitled to.

Okay, I’m curious about your opinions, and I would love it if you would respond. Obviously, I am biased, but I am open to hearing other opinions.

(1) What is your feeling about advertising in print and online? Do you feel it distracts from the editorial content? Or are you interested in the stuff they offer?

(2) Are there situations where you think items should be limited? Like Hermes Kelly bags, or more to the point of this blog, yarn?