I'm putting myself up for hazard pay, as I have started the Latvian Socks. I love the pattern, it's a slightly more complicated lace pattern, which requires a wee bit of concentration and regular glances at the charts.
Now, I love the socks in Ultimate Socks, but if all the patterns have been as badly editted as this one, I think that we should collectively ask for our money back.
In 2 days of knitting, I have been pulling out my hair, because this entire pattern should be reviewed. I have written the folks at Vogue but don't expect to hear back until after the new year. So, the problems:
1. The charts are all mislabelled. After casting on 80 odd sts, you are directed to follow chart 1 for the scallop patterning. You need to follow chart 5. chart 1 is the leg pattern.
2. For the cuff, you are directed to follow chart 2. You need to follow chart 4.
3. Chart 1 is the leg pattern and chart 2 is the instep pattern. If you look carefully at chart 1 and 2, you will see a few issues.
3.1 The heart motif in Line 7 of chart 1 and 2 are different. The one in chart 1 is correct.
3.2 In chart 1, the side panel is worked on even rows, on chart 2, it's on odd rows. I think that you need to do it on the odd rows. ... so start the side panelling on line 3. (You'll find it easier as you'll have a rest row)
3.3 the side panels on chart 2 are not correct. If you look at the heart panel in chart 1, you'll see that the last 2 lines of patterning on the side panels are wrong. (They don't match the socks on page 137) You need to look at chart 1 to have the right motif.
This is what I think that Chart 2 (instep) should look. I'm only showing lines 7,9, 11 with the corrections in RED, so it's jibberish to anyone but someone with the book.
So despite my progress,
I'm going to rip back to the cuff and reknit the leg as per 3.2. I really should had read it more carefully, but honestly, I didn't expect so many errors.
After reading about it on your blog I am so glad I haven't bought the book or asked for it as a present from family.
It's such a shame really that publishers don't put more time into proof reading before publishing. I guess at the end of the day all they care about is publishing deadlines and money,they know that the books will sell regardless or errors.
Posted by: Helen at January 1, 2008 04:39 AMAre you on Ravelry? I think a lot of people would appreciate you adding your errata notes there! That must have been really frustrating but all of us future Latvian sock knitters appreciate your persistence!
Posted by: mel at December 31, 2007 02:10 PMThey look so gorgeous! And such patience is rewarded. I'd have thrown the book across the room and cried. Vogue is all about the look of the thing, it seems - shame on them for technical sloppiness.
Posted by: Serenknitity at December 31, 2007 12:21 PMIt's a lovely sock. Too bad there are so many errors in the pattern. I'm sure you'll make it work.
Posted by: eyeleen at December 31, 2007 03:02 AMIt's really too bad, but Vogue patterns do have a long-standing reputation for being carelessly edited. I certainly won't buy any of their pattern books just for that very reason. Too bad, the pictures of the socks are so lovely! Your patience and your reservoir of skills will be rewarded with a beautiful pair of socks, to your credit.
Posted by: Karen Kahane at December 30, 2007 10:16 PMI really wanted the Vogue Sock Book but found reviews on many bookseller sites that said it was full of errors. Somehow knowing this doesn't diminish the want. Good luck on divining the pattern writers intentions.
Posted by: Rachel at December 30, 2007 07:40 PMI haven't knitted any patterns from this book yet - how terrible! But the socks look great. I wonder how other people have managed? ( I see you are the only one on ravelry!)
Posted by: dawn at December 30, 2007 06:58 PMYou are so patient! But your sock is beautiful and your explanations are a gift to those that want to tackle this pattern and have hopefully read your post. Very impressive. I hope Vogue answers this quickly.
Posted by: Bergère de Lochaber at December 30, 2007 06:57 PMIt is so disheartening to read that there are so many serious errors with this pattern. It is good that you are sufficiently skilled to navigate your way to a nice pair of socks.
Posted by: Sarah at December 30, 2007 06:40 PMIt's shocking that there would be so many egregious errors in a Vogue pattern. I'm sure their in-boxes will be full of complaints for the new year. In my line of work (school textbook publishing), we can be fined up to $10,000 per error, so we make doubly sure our books are error-free. Too bad Vogue doesn't have quite the same incentive.
Kudos to you for having the patience and perseverance to figure out the problems and resolve them!
Posted by: Tracy WW at December 30, 2007 06:39 PMI confess I would have given up. Did they post any errata anywhere?
Posted by: Mandella at December 30, 2007 06:12 PMOMG! Is it really that hard to proofread? I don't understand how publishers can push out books in such an irresponsible way?
Anyway, now you should be able to go more smoothly. Wish you a wonderful 2008 to come.
Thankfully I've just managed to cancel that order. I think I'll stick with Barbara Walker!
Posted by: mrspao at December 30, 2007 05:34 PMWow! Thanks, Polly. I'm putting your directions inside my copy of the book. Very, very poor on the part of Vogue; you'd think they'd do better. Makes you wonder what else is messed up? Your sock looks great so far. Can hardly wait to see the "improved verson"! lol
Posted by: Renee at December 30, 2007 05:01 PMIt is ridiculous that a company puts out a pattern with such gross errors. Shame on Vogue for not having a worthwhile proofreader department.
You do deserve your money back, for redoing the pattern so it works.
Posted by: Nina at December 30, 2007 03:10 PM