Crochet Detective

I’ve always loved history, mysteries and puzzles, but I never expected I would have to be a detective to do crochet.

I have been collecting vintage needlework patterns lately, specifically crochet patterns. Some of them were written over a century ago. There are some very beautiful edgings from the past that I would love to make. But many times, there is a bit of a mystery to solve before I can start. I have to do more than just read the pattern. I have be sure I understand the terminology being used and convert the pattern to modern English.

Today, there are many ways crochet directions can be written, but the most common are U.K. terms and U.S. terms. I learned U.S. terms when I was a beginner. In fact, my grandmother, aunts, and friends all use(d) modern U.S. terms. But, that style didn’t become widely used until the middle of the twentieth century.

Patterns from 100 years ago were largely using U.K. terminology. It seems to have been the standard, which make sense because U.S. terms hadn’t fully developed yet. Even publications made and distributed in the U.S. in the early twentieth century, used U.K. terms.

Furthermore, there are distinctions between vintage and modern writing styles and word usage. Since I am especially interested in patterns printed around 1900 -1940s, I often have to do some investigative work to determine which terminology is being used (U.S. or U.K.) and to translate the directions from early twentieth century ways of speaking into modern ways we talk today.

Word usage can change over time, and if the crocheter isn’t on the look out for things like that, it can cause confusion. An example of changing word usage would be, the use of the word “under” as it relates to putting stitches into the work. In some of the patterns I’ve been researching lately, the directions say to make the stitches “under the ring,” or “under each chain.” Today, we would say, to make the stitches “into” the ring or “in the chain space”. A new crocheter might spend an absurd amount of time trying to figure out how to do stitches under a ring, which might lead to confusion and frustration. (Ask me how I know.)

We construct stitches the same way they were done in the past, but say the instructions in a different way. For example, a pattern from 1910 might say: “Chain 9, fasten with 1 double between last 2 small scallops, turn, repeat from 1st row to desired length.” In today’s U.S. terms we might say, “Ch 9, sk 2, sc, turn. Repeat rows 1-3 to desired length.” The modern language is more precise and technical.

To verify which terminology the pattern is using, I look to see if there is a glossary of terms, which contains descriptions of how to do each stitch. If there is no stitch named Single Crochet listed, the pattern is most likely using U.K. terminology. The name “single crochet” comes up in some publications using U.K. terms, but it is usually referencing a variation of a slip stitch. The same movements of a U.K. double crochet are called a single crochet in U.S. terms.

When I run across directions that include a stitch that either doesn’t make sense to me or I’ve never heard of, the challenge is to figure out what the stitch is actually accomplishing in the work. To figure out how to convert it to modern language and terms, I research other publications and patterns from the same time period. If I find the same stitch name, I determine what kind of items it is used in (edging, table cloths, etc), which gives me a clue to what the modern equivalent is. Luckily, there are many publications from the early 1900s, that include illustrations or photographs, so I can examine the stitch in action, to determine if I’m on the right track. But, sometimes, there is no visual, so I might have to just experiment to see which stitch gives me the design I think I should be getting.

Sometimes, the mystery is just trying to figure out how to do a stitch. In M. Hemingway & Sons Silk Co.’s pamphlet titled, “A Treatise on Embroidery-Crochet and Knitting with Illustrations” published in 1899, the author says:

There are several variations of double crochet, useful in crocheting bootees, mittens, etc, which will scarcely need illustrating. Among them is the “rose stitch,” which is worked in rows, back and forth, the hook being inserted from the right side under both horizontal loops of the stitches of preceding row. (Pg 62)

I’ve never heard of the Rose Stitch before. My initial thought was the stitch described above is similar to the modern Front Post Only stitch, which can be used for ribbing and visual interest. But, at the time of publication, the term double crochet stitch is most likely referring to a U.K. double not a U.S. double. Front Posts are not usually associated with U.K. double (U.S. single). My next thought was that the rose stitch might be equivalent to a Front Loop Only stitch, which could work with a U.K. double; but that didn’t feel right either. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen the stitch listed in an actual pattern, just in a description of the stitch.

I researched the term “rose stitch” on the internet, it returned descriptions of how to crochet a 3 dimensional rose. In the quote above, the author mentions the rose stitch can be used on booties and mittens, so I doubt a 3D rose is what the author intended. I decided the way to move forward from here, was to work up a swatch of single crochet, and adding what she describes; crochet back and forth with the stitch going under the horizontal loops. I tried this. The swatch had no loops on the front of the work, so there was nothing to put the stitch into. The book this quote came from included patterns on both booties and mittens for babies. But none of the patterns included a type of stitch as described above.

Finally, I returned to the internet, but this time asked one of the AI assistants to search the phrase “worked in rows, back and forth, the hook being inserted from right side under both horizontal loops.” The result was a determination that it is Tunisian Simple Stitch being described. I don’t have experience with Tunisian crochet techniques, but It makes sense, and for now I’ll accept it as the answer. But I can’t be sure, until I find patterns using the stitch.

I love investigating these gems from the past. It has taught me two things. First, be patient and trust the process. It only frustrates me if I second guess my understanding while I’m crocheting. Sometimes I think its not working, but in fact, the instructions are just fine, it works out if I just finish the project before I analyze it. Secondly, the crocheters from the past weren’t that different from us. They strove to add beauty and uniqueness to their daily lives by adding decoration to clothing, pillows, bedspreads, towels, etc. They had their own version of customization, and it was beautiful!

To learn more about modern crochet techniques, I suggest the following websites:

craftyarncounsil.com 

hookfully.com

shelleyhusbandcrochet.com

If you are interested in exploring crochet patterns from the early twentieth century using primary documents, I suggest the following websites:

AntiquePatternLibrary.org

ProjectGutenberg.org