I’ve started work on Luzine Happel’s left-handed Schwalm project. I’ve never worked with a project that has the pattern applied with an iron-on transfer before. I’m surprised at how dark it is, and how much the colour of the transfer transfers to the thread as I stitch. I’m used to my whitework being white! The instructions say that all will be well at the end when it has been soaked and then boiled to billy-o, but in the mean time, its not very white!
My other main thought at this stage is that I have a hunch (and I could be wrong!) that Schwalm embroidery fell prey to the worldwide discontinuation of Coton a broder No 12. (Oh, unhappy day!) Most of the shapes have to be outlined in coral knot stitch. The thread I have been provided for this part of the project is Coton a broder 16.
As I stitch, it just feels a bit thin for the coral knot stitch. My feeling is that if you were going to work a knotted outline, you’d want it to *look* knotty. I suspect that in the past, it would have used No 12 broder cotton, which is a bit thicker than No 16, and therefore would create more pronounced knots. I will ask Luzine about this. I’m intrigued.
I haven’t done much on the project yet, but I’m certainly enjoying it. I’m just doing a little bit each day. That will get it done.
White Threads is the blog of Yvette Stanton, the author, designer, publisher behind Vetty Creations' quality needlework books and embroidery products.
I, too lament the loss of no. 12 coton a broder. I am jealously saving what’s left of my stash – so perfect for darned netting. Could two strands of no. 25 coton a broder work for your knots? I know there were higher counts (30, 35 & 40) but they are now extinct or close to it too which is why the suggestion of no. 25 – so far still on the market.
Hi Jeanine, I can’t actually make any changes to the design that Luzine has given me. However, if I were able to, perhaps two strands of 25 might work, though it would behave differently than a single strand. (And, as yet, I’m not even sure that my supposition that it would have previously been done in No 12, is correct!)