Firehouse Angel Update (Railroading?)

Assuming this is 2 over 2, how do we feel about railroading as the norm? Or
am I being too finicky?

Felice

I've never noticed a difference in the outcome between "laying" two
threads or railroading two threads. I can even have unison without
doing either, but it takes more "watching" and fiddling.

So, let people use the technique of their choice? Could we ask that the
threads lie side by side? Or would we be limiting our stitching pool? g

The IMPORTANT part is that the front looks phenomenal, all X's cross in
the same direction (thanks for pointing that out, Jim), and that no
stray threads show through from the back. How each of us is comfortable
anchoring threads should be left to the individual? Of course, knots
are not acceptable in cross stitch. If it's 2 threads, I'll probably do
a loop start. But if it's 3 threads, I hate waste knots, so you might
find the back of *my* work doesn't look like others who are anal about
neat backs. Guess that puts *me* off the list. huge grin

Dianne

animaux wrote:

I would appreciate and welcome that precision. I personally use a laying tool
with every piece I stitch, even needlepoint. I'm fanatical about threads being
in unison and laying flat.

Now, does everyone know what railroading is? If not, we can explain it. BE
finicky! This is a good thing

v


On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:15:21 GMT, "Felice Friese" opined:


Assuming this is 2 over 2, how do we feel about railroading as the norm? Or
am I being too finicky?

Felice

Nothing to apologize for. See . . . so many headers, so much to keep
track of.

I said I would stitch if it came with scroll frame. g
Dianne

animaux wrote:

Dianne, I am so sorry. I didn't realize you wanted to stitch on this. Are you
saying you do? Adding your name now.

My backs are however they turn out. Sometimes by no intention on my own, the
backs come out neat. I don't strive for that at all. Some people would freak if
they saw all that mish mash!

Keeping two over two untwisted is a cinch. We should have no problems with that
at all. Everyone is welcome.

Not to change the subject, but my bird right now is doing the cutest thing I've
ever seen. She bobs her head down then fast up and does this little tweet noise.
She has a real cute-atude.

V

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:58:02 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
opined:


I've never noticed a difference in the outcome between "laying" two
threads or railroading two threads. I can even have unison without
doing either, but it takes more "watching" and fiddling.

So, let people use the technique of their choice? Could we ask that the
threads lie side by side? Or would we be limiting our stitching pool? g

The IMPORTANT part is that the front looks phenomenal, all X's cross in
the same direction (thanks for pointing that out, Jim), and that no
stray threads show through from the back. How each of us is comfortable
anchoring threads should be left to the individual? Of course, knots
are not acceptable in cross stitch. If it's 2 threads, I'll probably do
a loop start. But if it's 3 threads, I hate waste knots, so you might
find the back of *my* work doesn't look like others who are anal about
neat backs. Guess that puts *me* off the list. huge grin

Dianne

animaux wrote:


I would appreciate and welcome that precision. I personally use a laying tool
with every piece I stitch, even needlepoint. I'm fanatical about threads being
in unison and laying flat.

Now, does everyone know what railroading is? If not, we can explain it. BE
finicky! This is a good thing

v


On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:15:21 GMT, "Felice Friese" opined:



Assuming this is 2 over 2, how do we feel about railroading as the norm? Or
am I being too finicky?

Felice