"Unnecessary" Weaves in library
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: September 26, 2009
Posts: 500
Submissions: 0
Location: Meridies

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Karpeth wrote:
Oh- That should have stated gridlock. Sorry. I can edit that.


I thoguht that was probably where you were going.

Still, I do wonder if we should consider how relative ring size affects things. This weave will pretty obviously behave differently from gridlock made from a single ring size. It's probably a really bad idea to include it (how you make the weave is the same regardless of ring size), but I can see where some weaves have specific ring size difference--like this one--that make the weave behave differently when completed, and that may warrant consideration.

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:55 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Dinwar wrote:
Still, I do wonder if we should consider how relative ring size affects things. This weave will pretty obviously behave differently from gridlock made from a single ring size. It's probably a really bad idea to include it (how you make the weave is the same regardless of ring size), but I can see where some weaves have specific ring size difference--like this one--that make the weave behave differently when completed, and that may warrant consideration.

It has been my experience, watching what comes and goes through the weaves submission queue for the last few years, that making something with all the same size rings is much easier to evaluate. Most of the time, when you have to use different size rings to make a "weave", it turns out to actually be a "design". Don't get me wrong... I love designs just as much as I love weaves. But people tend to get a bit touchy about it. It's as if weaves are somehow "better" than designs in people's minds. I don't get it.

I took a weave submission made from multiple ring sizes that is currently in the queue and made it with all the same ring sizes. It looks and "reacts" completely differently. In my opinion, the weave should be submitted in its "all the same ring-size" configuration into the weaves library, and the multiple ring size piece should go into the gallery as a design using that weave.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 236
Submissions: 30

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:47 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I agree for the most part, lorraine, but what about those weaves that actually require different rings sizes such as Dragonscale?


Also, about Trinitymaille's family, look at this picture closely and identify any 2-1 chain in the structure.



Now compare that 2-1 chain to this picture and tell me which one it most closely resembles.



Personally I see Persian.

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:33 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Certain weaves require multipla ring sizes per default (eg. Dragonscale). I am certain that lorraine agrees to that.

To me, it's very European in that comparison, but Jacob's Ladder looks European in the way it's presented. While I hold that Trinitymaille is a bastardized E4-1 (as it, with a simple added connection becomes E4-1), certain weaves need a tactile comparison.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: September 26, 2009
Posts: 500
Submissions: 0
Location: Meridies

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I think part of the difference comes from different ideas on how to classify weaves.

If we classify them based on how to build them, I agree that when a weave does not require multiple ring sizes, using one ring size for the submission is appropriate--that simplifies the instructions and facilitates focusing on the connections between rings, making re-creating the weave easier. I also think instructions of some sort should be required for submission (this is analogous to biology, where photos and descriptions are required to name a new species). Quite obviously where multiple sizes are necessary for the wave, multiple sizes should be included! Too many great weaves use multiple ring sizes to do otherwise!

If we classify weaves based on the completed weave, things get a tad more complicated. By "completed weave" I mean the point where the weave is stable and displays all its inherent properties--so for chains or sheets at least a few units of the weave, and for unit weaves one whole unit. How those move, how the rings interact, how they can be used in some piece, can definitely very based on ring size. And when you're thinking about making a necklace or basket or sculpture, those are the important parts.

So I can see the importance of both when it comes to browsing the site looking for inspiration.

[quote=Slagr]Now compare that 2-1 chain to this picture and tell me which one it most closely resembles. [/quote]Honestly? Japanese, looking left/right. It's multiple strands of J2-1 interconnected. If you look at it from another perspective (up/down), you can see E2-1 interconnected. I'm afraid I don't see any Persian--no connections that go around the "eye" of two other links.

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 236
Submissions: 30

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:59 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Dinwar wrote:
Honestly? Japanese, looking left/right. It's multiple strands of J2-1 interconnected. If you look at it from another perspective (up/down), you can see E2-1 interconnected. I'm afraid I don't see any Persian--no connections that go around the "eye" of two other links.


If you look closely though you'll see that the rings are not orthogonal like they would be in Japanese, but rather are angled and layered in Persian fashion though not overlapping in this case. The lack of around-eye connections is due to it being a minimized weave-- you can't have both around-eye and through-eye with anything less than 4-in-1. What you do have, however, is through-eye and no-eye which is functionally equivalent for the 3-1 case.

Joined: September 26, 2009
Posts: 500
Submissions: 0
Location: Meridies

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:53 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

There's a slight angularity to it, but I attributed that more to interacting with the rings below it (ie, the rings in the chain below it push the rings out of alignment) rather than because of any Persian-style interaction. Looking again I can see that if any individual chain was bunched up, it'd potentially do the "around the eye" thing Persian weaves do--but that said, the same can be said for any Japanese weave.

Either way, any taxonomic system encounters edge cases--as you said, once you get below 3-1 things tend to start collapsing. I'm more than happy to admit this is a weird edge case where various families of weaves collide in ways the taxonomy isn't designed to handle. Such events are inevitable in any taxonomy. Smile

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:57 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Slagr wrote:
Personally I see Persian.

Slagr wrote:
The lack of around-eye connections is due to it being a minimized weave-- you can't have both around-eye and through-eye with anything less than 4-in-1. What you do have, however, is through-eye and no-eye which is functionally equivalent for the 3-1 case.


The 2-1 chain displays unstable concepts. I don't believe that just because Trinitymaille can be held in a position to show persian connections qualifies it as being persian. I can use large enough rings to make European 4 in 1 behave like a persian weave too. That doesn't make it persian.
I urge you to make more unbalanced european weaves to become more familiar with this distinction. Oops and European 5 in 1 (2) are good ones. I definitely agree that their shape and behavior suggests persian, but their structure suggests european.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: May 26, 2010
Posts: 236
Submissions: 30

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:00 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Slagr wrote:
Personally I see Persian.

Slagr wrote:
The lack of around-eye connections is due to it being a minimized weave-- you can't have both around-eye and through-eye with anything less than 4-in-1. What you do have, however, is through-eye and no-eye which is functionally equivalent for the 3-1 case.


The 2-1 chain displays unstable concepts. I don't believe that just because Trinitymaille can be held in a position to show persian connections qualifies it as being persian. I can use large enough rings to make European 4 in 1 behave like a persian weave too. That doesn't make it persian.
I urge you to make more unbalanced european weaves to become more familiar with this distinction. Oops and European 5 in 1 (2) are good ones. I definitely agree that their shape and behavior suggests persian, but their structure suggests european.


I'm very familiar with both of those weaves. I'd like to turn your attention to Half Persian 2 in 1 Sheet 4 as well though. I actually independently discovered this weave starting from a piece of E4-1 and applying a 90° seam to each successive row, using European connections each time, but there doesn't seem to be any debate about its family. Trinitymaille is similar in this sense, where European connections are present, but in the presence of other connections and the general structure (parallelogram shape and its curvature at low ARs) of the weave it falls more accurately under the Persian category. I'm willing to concede that Dinwar's assessment of Tinitymaille as an edge-case where multiple families are equally arguable is a reasonable conclusion but the idea that it is strictly a European weave is not accurate.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Slagr wrote:
I'm very familiar with both of those weaves. I'd like to turn your attention to Half Persian 2 in 1 Sheet 4 as well though. I actually independently discovered this weave starting from a piece of E4-1 and applying a 90° seam to each successive row, using European connections each time, but there doesn't seem to be any debate about its family.

I seldom go by the "how it was created" method for how a weave should be classified. The structure of that weave definitely fits persian, while depending on your construction method it could either fit european or persian.

This definitely digs deeper into weave classification, which does attempt to draw lines when it is more of a grey area.

*TCG's personal opinion below, and shouldnt be taken as rules written in stone*
My line drawing is centered around the eye connections.
Uniquely persian weaves must contain AE connections. Any TE connections must also contain AE connections as well.
Uniquely european weaves must contain TE connections.
The european and persian mixtures have TE connections in which some have AE connections and some which do not.

This appears to be very consistent with how the library is labeled, but I'm sure outliers can be found.

Edit:
This may be why I consider mage to be a strange label that I don't fully understand. By these classifications, the mage's NE (no eye) connection fits better into japanese.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:17 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Double Backwards HP3-1

This is a straight out duplication of HP3S6-1


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:26 am || Last edited by TrenchCoatGuy on Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Persian 4 in 1 Sheet
Half Persian 2 in 1 Sheet 4

These are the same, no?
The sample I made of the 2nd started with HP2-1 chain (horizontal), but turns out the same as P4-1S.

Edit:
Clarification - When I say HP2-1 chain, I am referring to 2 in 1 Chain arranged as HP, and not Half Persian 2 in 1. The weave HP2-1 has... consistency issues. None of the gallery images appear to match it (probably refer to 2-1 chain arranged as HP and not HP2-1), and it appears to rotate inconsistently (4 units from the left, it appears to rotate the opposite direction for one unit, then turns around again after another 4 units).
Edit#2 was typo in 2-1 chain weave link.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:12 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Persian 4 in 1 Sheet
Half Persian 2 in 1 Sheet 4

These are the same, no?
The sample I made of the 2nd started with HP2-1 chain (horizontal), but turns out the same as P4-1S.


According to My analysis of the pictures, yes.
One is descriptive, One is not.

As I cannot replicate the second One, i choose not to replicate the first, and just do a ocular inspection.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:00 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Dragonscale is one weave, on a very short list of weaves that requires multiple ring sizes.

It has always been my opinion that Trinitymaille has no Persian connections whatsoever. It does have a "Persian-like" grain running through it, but that has nothing to do with its actual construction and everything to do with how it "appears". I see no rings with both TE and AE connections in it. I love making Trinitymaille. I just disagree about its categorization. If the submitter was open to discussion about it, I would be fine with continuing to beat this particular dead horse. However, because he his not, I consider this horse not only dead, but a zombie horse that has already been sufficiently stabbed in the head enough to be called too dead to be beaten anymore. Very Happy

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
*TCG's personal opinion below, and shouldnt be taken as rules written in stone*
My line drawing is centered around the eye connections.
Uniquely persian weaves must contain AE connections. Any TE connections must also contain AE connections as well.
Uniquely european weaves must contain TE connections.
The european and persian mixtures have TE connections in which some have AE connections and some which do not.

NICE! I like this.

TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Edit:
This may be why I consider mage to be a strange label that I don't fully understand. By these classifications, the mage's NE (no eye) connection fits better into japanese.

I too have this problem with Mage. I don't see it.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:45 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Used with permission, and as per suggestion. I recieved this on the topic of HP2-1, as answer to the Query "what is your impression of the basic Chain"
TrenchCoatGuy wrote:
Inconsistent.
The weave image itself flips the rotation direction and consists of 4-1 and 2-1 connections (ring pair 4 to 5 is where this switch occurs, then again from 7-8...).

The gallery images tagged with it are just as bad.
Narnia's image is obviously not the same HP2-1.
Lorenzo's image is of the 2-1 chain arranged as HP2-1 (2-1 chain).
Childofdune's image... is too blurry to make out the connections.

That being said, I'd also push it closer to Half Persian 3 in 1 Ambidextrous. In fact, it pretty much appears to be that weave with the exception of not going through one connection (that's a 4-1 and 3-1 weave - the 3-1 rings have changed to 2-1).I haven't fully figured out if Aberrent's sheet is actually what I made, and instead used the 2-1 chain as my "HP2-1".

Feel free to toss this info into your thread... it doesn't make sense, but I haven't seen anything like the weave termed "HP2-1", despite it not being 2-1 and would be better described another way.



Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 6 of 6. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:05 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: