Of shed and shot. A question

[Phil Smythe Member Find all posts View Profile Close Phil Smythe]

Phil,If the trailing number is the number of yarns plied together, and that number is 1, then it's the same as saying 3 shots Z.....

Hi Chuck,


Thanks for your input, but the above is understood and is no longer the issue.


To save you going back and deciphering all the above posts I’ll break it down to where my ‘confusion' lays.


1) You initially said re my photo “Shorthand for yours is: 3 shots Z1”


2) I then asked “...........but what about the other three yarns (as there are six), how are they described”


3) Dinie replied “double wefted”.


4) But then in a later post Dinie expressed this 'equation' so to speak “Two shoots = two passes of the weft = double wefted”


5) Two which I replied / asked in my last post to her above “This “two shoots = double wefted”, would to me then seem, and I repeat ‘seem’, to me to translate down to '1 shot = single wefted' which if so 'seems' to contradict what you said above re Chucks description of my first post photo. That is, he said “3 shots, Z1”. If two shots = double wefted wouldn't that imply 3 shots = triple wefted?”

So that's where the issue lays now (for me). That is, if "number of shots = number of wefts" (as Dinie seems to imply) then there seems to be some disconnect re the description of shots / wefts, as I express in my #5 above.

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

Hi Phil,

Let's all read (or re-read) the section in Marla Mallett's Woven Structures headed "Knotted-Pile Terminology Problems" (p.47-57), where all of this is courageously sorted out.

Joel Greifinger

[Phil Smythe Member Find all posts View Profile Close Phil Smythe]

Hi Phil,Let's all read (or re-read) the section in Marla Mallett's Woven Structures headed "Knotted-Pile Terminology Problems" (p.47-57), where all of this is courageously sorted out. Joel Greifinger

Joel, no offence meant, but if I thought I adequately understood what is written between the pages you suggest reading I wouldn't be asking the question/s here.

And as I stated in my last post, there seems to be some conflict in the terminology / descriptions used in this thread, and hence why I would like it (as per my last post) clarified for my own amateur benefit if nothing else.

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Phil,

For the life of me I can't figure out how you got yourself down this rabbit hole.

It's like obsessing on the difference between "Hi Phil" and "Hey, Phil".

Single wefted vs multi wefted is a "shed" issue.

With single wefted, there is no "shed" switching between rows of knots..

A single pass of weft, which can contain one or more shots of yarn, separates each row of knots.

As a result, every other warp is exposed on the back of the rug. Consequently, they can wear out faster.

With doubke wefting the shed is shifted after the first pass of weft and the alternate warp is covered by weft.

As a result, when the rows of knots are pounded down, less warp is exposed.

If the weft tensions are alternated then there is warp depression and the warps are entirely unexposed on the back.

See, simple.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

And as I stated in my last post, there seems to be some conflict in the terminology / descriptions used in this thread, and hence why I would like it (as per my last post) clarified for my own amateur benefit if nothing else.

Hi Phil,

As Marla starkly put it on p. 48, "Endless confusion has surrounded the simplest descriptions of weft yarns in knotted-pile rugs. "

"A weft is one pass of a yarn or combination of yarns through a shed...A weft is sometimes called a shot or pick...Even then, wefts don't do much shooting unless they are encased in a smooth, enclosed shuttle and thrown through a wide open shed. This rarely happens on a rug loom. The word 'shoots' appears in some rug books, as a noun, conjuring up visions of bean sprouts, not yarns. Although the intended meaning is clear, this is not standard textile usage.

Ambiguities in analysis most often occur when analysts attempt to distinguish between different kinds of wefts. Let me emphasize: Two or more separate yarns laid together in one shed make up one weft. Though a weft shot is often one yarn, it might consist of 'two red wool singles' or maybe 'three two-ply brown wool yarns.' On the other hand, if we say there are 'two picks' or 'two shots' or 'two wefts' between rows of knotting, we mean that the yarns were laid in two different sheds and follow different interlacement paths." p.23

On p. 50, she warns about the ambiguities of the terms "double-wefted" and "single-wefted".

The detailed descriptions on p.48-49 of ambiguous weft descriptions from four prominent rug sources (Louise Mackie, Charles Ellis, Sotheby's and Murray Eiland) illustrate the manifold pitfalls. On p.54-55, she puts forward her recommendation for how wefts should be described to facilitate shared understanding.

Joel, no offence meant, but if I thought I adequately understood what is written between the pages you suggest reading I wouldn't be asking the question/s here.

Phil, no offense taken, but I don't think you're going to find a clearer explication of the terminological morass or a more helpful model of description than in Marla's book.

Joel

[Phil Smythe Member Find all posts View Profile Close Phil Smythe]

Phil,

For the life of me I can't figure out how you got yourself down this rabbit hole.

It's like obsessing on the difference between "Hi Phil" and "Hey, Phil".

Single wefted vs multi wefted is a "shed" issue.

With single wefted, there is no "shed" switching between rows of knots..

A single pass of weft, which can contain one or more shots of yarn, separates each row of knots.

As a result, every other warp is exposed on the back of the rug. Consequently, they can wear out faster.

With doubke wefting the shed is shifted after the first pass of weft and the alternate warp is covered by weft.

As a result, when the rows of knots are pounded down, less warp is exposed.

If the weft tensions are alternated then there is warp depression and the warps are entirely unexposed on the back.

See, simple.

Regards
Chuck

All well and good Chuck, however as l keep coming back to given there are six single yarns between the two rows of knots in my photo, and your description of it being "3 shots, Z1" does not make any sense to me, nor does reading Marla's pages on the subject help in this instance. Of course your Z1 does (but if we are going to continually refer to Marla's book, then Marla states the Z 'part' would be referred to as 1Z or just Z - in this instance anyway, see under 'weft' page 54), but your '3 shots' for six yarns does not make any sense to me. Sorry.

[Phil Smythe Member Find all posts View Profile Close Phil Smythe]

Phil, no offense taken, but I don't think you're going to find a clearer explication of the terminological morass or a more helpful model of description than in Marla's book. Joel

Well, if I had started into all this when much younger maybe Marla’s book would be as clear as you make out, but to my old brain it simply is not. Very very helpful do doubt, but as I said I wouldn't be asking the question here (re my photo) if I could get the answer from Marlas book. After all I am not just here to waste my or your time, nor create ‘argument’ for argument's sake. No doubt to you folks already knowledgeable in rug structure / terminology her book is crystal clear, but not everyone has the deep background as you folks posting here, but I can't seem to get that across with regards a novice such as myself.

And since Marla’s work is constantly referenced here, I’d like to just point out the following two ‘ambiguities’, or ‘contradictions’ shall we say, with regards what she writes and what others have written here, (and other authors write elsewhere). That is, she states that the term ‘double-wefted’ is a term that should not be used (see top page 50.) yet it is used, by yourself and others in this thread (and I personally think it has its place, but what do I know, next to nothing it seems).

Then we come to how she states the word ‘shoots’ should never be used, that is it should always be ‘shot/s’ (page 23 end of third paragraph.). Yet the majority of the rug books I see with technical descriptions habitually use the term 'shoots' in their technical analyses, and that by such knowledgeable authors as Tsareva, Franses, De Jong, Myers, Cole, etc.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that my simple question here has turned into a long dawn out proverbial “he said / she said” when I had thought my original question (post 1), or the follow-on request for a clarification on Chucks ‘3 shots, Z1’ (for six single yarns) could have been simply answered. I was obviously wrong!

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Phil,

your '3 shots' for six yarns does not make any sense to me

It should make sense, I explained it clearly in post #19. You don't have 6 yarns. You have 3 yarns, then a shed shift, then 3 more yarns.

It's a double-wefted rug.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

A single pass of weft, which can contain one or more shots of yarn, separates each row of knots.

Chuck,

A "pass of weft" can contain one or more threads of yarn, but not "one or more shots", since the terms "weft", "weft shot", "shot" and "pick" are extensionally equivalent in this context.

As Ann Dixon puts it, a pick or shot is "a single inserted row of weft thread". Or, as Marla wrote, "Two or more separate yarns laid together in one shed make up one weft. Though a weft shot is often one yarn, it might consist of 'two red wool singles' or maybe 'three two-ply brown wool yarns.' On the other hand, if we say there are 'two picks' or 'two shots' or 'two wefts' between rows of knotting, we mean that the yarns were laid in two different sheds and follow different interlacement paths." p.23

Joel

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

And since Marla’s work is constantly referenced here, I’d like to just point out the following two ‘ambiguities’, or ‘contradictions’ shall we say, with regards what she writes and what others have written here, (and other authors write elsewhere).

Hi Phil,

When Marla wrote Woven Structures clearly one of her intentions was to try to examine the vague, varied, shifting, imprecise and sometimes contradictory structural descriptions that pervade the rug literature and to propose a reasoned alternative model. As I wrote earlier, those 'ambiguities' are an object of her analysis. Not all rug analysts, including some of her fans here on Turkotek, have consistently taken up all her advice.

That is, she states that the term ‘double-wefted’ is a term that should not be used (see top page 50.) yet it is used, by yourself and others in this thread

My only use of the term "double-wefted" was to point out Marla's skepticism about its usefulness. I 'referred' to the term, I didn't 'use' it (an important distinction in some far more charged contexts). Although, in the rug literature, "double-wefted" has come to mean more than one weft shots between rows of knots, that is not how it is used among weavers and textile analysts more broadly. In this larger context, it is used to refer to two yarns combining to form one weft. So, if one used a double shuttle to throw a weft shot on a floor loom, they would say the fabric is "double-wefted", even though the weft yarns travelled through the same shed. In addition, since even within the rug literature, a structure with three, four or more weft shots between rows of knots is also referred to as "double-wefted" doesn't help matters.

Then we come to how she states the word ‘shoots’ should never be used, that is it should always be ‘shot/s’ (page 23 end of third paragraph.). Yet the majority of the rug books I see with technical descriptions habitually use the term 'shoots' in their technical analyses, and that by such knowledgeable authors as Tsareva, Franses, De Jong, Myers, Cole, etc.

Alas, yes. That was Marla's point examining the sources that I cited. Who said change is easy?

Be that as it may, it seems to me that my simple question here has turned into a long dawn out proverbial “he said / she said” when I had thought my original question (post 1), or the follow-on request for a clarification on Chucks ‘3 shots, Z1’ (for six single yarns) could have been simply answered. I was obviously wrong!

As so often, we get back to the 'is/ought' problem. It would obviously be best for effective communication if we all shared a common set of terms which we all applied in the same way. This has not been the case in rug 'scholarship' (although much closer in the larger field of textile studies, since it contains a stronger academic component). What we have, what 'is', is a hodgepodge of usages with few disciplinary institutions where these might be discussed and potentially reformed. There are few texts, and some of the most important are at odds. After all, Marla wrote Woven Structures at least partially as a critique of Irene Emery's Primary Structures of Fabrics. Two of the most careful analysts of weaving structure, Parviz Tanavoli and John Wertime, use yet different terms at times.

And BTW, I'm wid 'ya in the 'old brain' club.

Joel

[Dinie Gootjes Member Find all posts View Profile Close Dinie Gootjes]

Hi Phil,

I have just reread the whole discussion, and I think your problem goes back to Chuck's description of three singles in your one weft, as '3 shots Z1'. The use of the word 'shots' here is incorrect IMO, I referred to that in post #8. It is one shot consisting of three singles. Does that clear things up, or do I still misunderstand you?

Dinie

[Phil Smythe Member Find all posts View Profile Close Phil Smythe]

Ladies and gents,

Please pardon my absence as have been down for the count - but not quite ‘out’ - under the spell of a dreaded virus. A technical knock-out I suppose you could say though in favour of the virus.

Now, without addressing any of the posts written in my absence, in the last few days when feeling well enough to be so adventurous as to even picking up a book, let alone even venture back 'on-line' until today, I found the answer to my own first post question, and written in unambiguous no-nonsense terms (IMO anyway).

That is, Elena Tsareva describes the wefts in the photo below - which is similar in 'look' to my first photo save for having Z4 instead of Z3 - below as “2 shoots, cotton, Z4”. Now that makes perfect sense and is clear as day (to me) when written like that given what I am seeing in front of me in the respective photos. So not too big a leap to see how mine should (?) / would be described.

(Interestingly, in another authoritive book with photos and technical analyses, similar wefting is described by Alex Couchman of the Longevity Textile Conservation, London as “…….2 sheds per weft break……...” with no mention of shoots / shot anywhere - although this is only the second (or 3rd?) time I have seen that ‘shed’ terminology used (in place of shoots / shot) in the Technical Analyses sections of any books by authoritative authors. However, I can at least see what he means, whereas with Chucks description I could not / cannot. So, colour me stupid if you like, but I still can get me head around Chucks initial "3 shots, Z1" for mine. Anyway, you will make of that what you will no doubt. )

So as the Rolling Stones once sung / sing “You can’t always git what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find you get what you need, oh yeah”. So I am now happy with my own sourced answer.

Hence thanks for all the input, but no need for any further explanation folks.

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Phil,

So the question of, what is a shot, appears to be the source any residual confusion..

For me, it's a one pass of the shuttle across the loom.

Considering the image above:

If all four single yarns were passed across the loom at the same time, in a single pass of the shuttle, then that's one shot.

If each single is passed across independently, it's four shots.

To me, anyway.

Those look like they were laid in pretty neatly, prior to shifting tension and pounding knots.

That would be tough to achieve on a single pass.

But without standing and watching all we can do is speculate. It seems that Elena considers each group of four singles, a single shot.

Regards
Chuck