Jump to content

Categories

Show all
Show all categories

Articles

Our website articles
Original text by: Marina Belova
I dream of the times when I bring my embroidery workspace to an order. I want to make the working process comfortable and have everything I need ready to hand. That's why I've been reading on the issue and discovered a lot of interesting information.
Many words have been written on how to organize your workspace, but here are the things I singled out and to try in the  nearest future.
I liked the scheme by Frank Gawronsky in the Images magazine depicting how the tables should be arranged for such manipulations as hooping and giving the finishing touches to an item. Doing so will help to minimize the number of steps in your working process.

But arranging tables is, of course, not enough. You need to always have the working instruments on them, too. Such as, for example, scissors for trimming away the stabilizer or marking tools or the hooping device — the object of dreams of every embroiderer.
But what is also important for me is keeping all my threads in one place close to the machine so that they will be easy to find without opening all the boxes in search for the one bobbin you need. So, you need to create a threads database, even it is only a simple one. That is, actually, not so difficult to do.
Several times I've come across an interesting suggestion: to cut the stabilizer according to the size of your hoop in advance. In my opinion, this recommendation is considerable for mass production, because it saves time which otherwise would be wasted on cutting the stabilizer before every hooping, allowing to simply take the prepared piece. But in my case, which is trying to use as little stabilizer as possible, it is more advantageous to use pieces of stabilizer beyond the size of the hoop. Therefore I just plan to make the stabilizer unreeling device to make the use of stabilizers more practical.
I also dream of placing a needle change reference guide behind my embroidery machine so that to be sure which needle to use.
And I also want to write a plan for the scheduled maintenance of my embroidery machine.
I dream of installing the source of bright light above my workplace at last, to make everything visible so that I don't need to squint when threading a needle.
One more curious recommendation that I cannot turn into reality is having the right kind of floor under the embroidery machine. Frank Gawronsky writes that the best floor on which the embroidery machine stands is a wooden one.
I also cannot change the lack of space around my embroidery machine for such needs as thread change, service maintenance and framing (which needs about 90 cm of space around). The good thing is my machine being a compact one that can be moved around on tiny wheels. These wheels make the embroidery machine a bit too high for me, making the thread change not the easiest task either. The bed plate should be no higher than 70—80 cm, and mine is no less that 90.
But it is possible to put the other things into action.
After all, the hardest thing is not to have all this, but to bring all things in your workspace to an order so that the tools and threads and devices could be found in their proper places.
Today I suddenly decided to check an assertion, which I read somewhere and took on faith, that the multidirectional filling stitches warp the embroidery so much that it is extremely difficult to take it under control. That's why such effects should be applied with care. 
The same source (and not only that, for this is written in many other places) stated that the best complex fill is the one composed of unidirectional stitches, better horizontally oriented, because it allegedly warps the fabric less that the other and is easy to work with. This is the classical view on machine embroidery digitizing. It's not a coincidence that a vast number of designs is made with unidirectional stitches. 
And though I have said a hundred times that you should not just believe in something, there never was a good time for checking it out. So, I fell for that bait, too. But I conducted an experiment of my own. 
Out of leisure interest I made the simplest sequence possible: three circles with the contour made by three simple stitch lines. 

This is a more realistic look: 

The left circle has a fill composed of simple horizontally oriented tiles without any understitching or pull compensation + a plain contour. The edge of the fill and the contour coincide perfectly. The central circle is very much like the first one, except it has the understitching as well (full grid) and pull compensation (0.6 mm), and also stretch compensation (I trimmed away 2 or 3 stitches from the top and the bottom). The right circle is again pretty much the same as the left, but I changed the direction of stitches, having made them curvy by using the Liquid Effect, kept the pull compensation as in the second example, but discarded the stretch compensation to see what would happen if I did. 
One should point out that Wilcom does the pull compensation in a rather strange way when creating the curve stitch effects. If a 0.6 mm compensation is very much visible with unidirectional stitches, in this case it is not clear if the editor does compensate these 0.6 mm, how and where: 

However strange it looked on the screen, I nevertheless proceeded with the embroidery. I embroidered all of this in one hoop, using a sheet of printing paper as a stabilizer. Here is what I got: 

If we look at every one of these pieces separately, we'll see that: 
The left circle has a slight pull (on the right and left the fill does not reach the contour) and stretch (the edge of the fill on the top is beyond the contour).
The central circle was embroidered almost without these defects:
And the right circle with multidirectional stitches emerged nearly perfect. Whilst according to the theory they should have looked like this: 
And this despite the fact that I did not do anything to prevent the stretching; as the for pull compensation, calculated by the editor according to my data, it was minimal. The only visible difference is that the fabric around the embroidery is puckered a bit more than it would around the standard fill. But this is not critical and can be easily corrected by ironing. It turns out that to create an embroidery design using this type of filling stitches is somewhat easier, but ironing and getting into shape will take a bit longer than usual. 
As they say, you win some, you lose some. It turns out that the easiest method of getting a good result is not doing everything by book, but going outside the established framework. The fact that horizontal and vertical stitches are not the best ones in the context of embroidery deformation is known, perhaps, to every novice. And this example proves it once more. 
A fun, unique decoration for a kitchen is to embroider on the first sheet of a roll of paper towels.  It is very easy to do, but looks difficult.  Here’s how:
Unroll several sheets from the roll.  You can tear them off and tape back on the roll when done, or just leave them attached to the roll.  I left mine attached to the roll and unrolled enough so that the roll rested under the sewing arm out of the way.
Cut a piece of cutaway backing stabilizer to be wider than the hoop all the way around and at least as wide and tall as the piece of paper towel.  Using spray adhesive (I like Madeira’s MSA 1000 because it works well but doesn’t smell bad), spray the backing and stick it to the back of the first sheet.  If you need more room to get the entire paper towel in the hoop, you can embroider on the second sheet so the first will be inside the hoop.  When finished, just discard the first (unembroidered) sheet.
Hoop the backed paper towel in any hoop that fits the machine embroidery design.  I thought a magnetic hoop would be ideal, but did not have the right size for my design, so I used a round, regular hoop.  Pop it on the machine, and let it sew!  I slowed down the embroidery machine a bit, just in case.
When finished, remove from the hoop and cut the backing to the same size as the sheet of paper towel.  I did not cut around the Catwoman machine embroidery design the way I would for garments.
You may need to use more spray adhesive so the corners are stuck together before you hang it up.
When I finished the design shown here, I was going to carefully iron the paper towel to remove the hoop marks, but was called away before I could do it.  By the next morning, the marks had disappeared all by themselves!
Original text by: Marina Belova 
The ideas for machine embroidery and the methods for bringing them into life are everywhere around, the only thing you have to do is adopt them. Some time ago I was puzzled by a curious way of border alignment, but then I grasped what it was about: 
Judging from the images shown, it turns out that this method does not require printing a template on paper, nor doing any measurements. 
The supposed steps for doing the alignment, as I understand, are the following: 
1. Hoop only a water soluble or a cutaway or a tearaway stabilizer if the look of the wrong side is not so important. 
2. Before embroidering the design itself you first embroider a rectangular — a guide stitch for future alignment that must outline the embroidery accurately. This should be not a simple rectangle, but with the center marks, as on the picture below (marked with the red dotted line):

3. Apparently, these marks help to position the next part of the embroidery properly. The rectangle is embroidered with the dark-colored thread so as to be visible through the fabric. 
4. The fabric is stuck onto the stabilizer. You can do it in a number of ways including spraying it with temporary spray adhesive or using pins. 
5. Embroider the design itself. 
6. Then unhoop the stabilizer, but don't touch the wrong side just yet. 
7. Hoop a new piece of a stabilizer. 
8. Embroider the new rectangle. 
9. Stick or pin the fabric onto the stabilizer. The main reference point is whether the sides of the outlined rectangle match. 
10. Embroider the design. 
11. And so on, until you won't embroider all that is needed. 
12. In the end you remove all the excessive stitches and the stabilizer from the wrong side. 
You should get something like this:

Everything is rather simple, as usual. But in my opinion, this method is not commonplace. In general, it somewhat reminds the standard way of border alignment with the help of alignment crosses or lines, which I have already described, but looks much easier and requires only one thing: to neatly align the pieces against each other. And because the fabric is not hooped but placed on top instead, you do it more easily. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
When it's getting colder everyone starts asking for embroidered socks, gloves and mittens. Perhaps, because the embroidery on the items of that kind still looks fresh and original. 
Last year I received such an order and accepted it, to my own misfortune (I did not have any special hoops or devices). Well, I found trouble.
How much I regretted my decision in the course of making the embroidery, I cannot possibly tell you without using the rude words. Logo embroidery design on socks and mittens turned out to be a real nightmare for me. I tried to fit the free arm into these items in the presence of a client, hoping to use the pocket frame. 
At first, the client wanted me to embroider a nickname inside a filled rectangle. But having tried the mitten on, it dawned on me that it was hardly possible to embroider a full-fledged design on it, even if it did not contain many thousand stitches. So I suggested embroidering the text on a piece of cloth first and then sewing it onto the mittens. 
This is the place where the client wanted the embroidery initially, and that turned out to be impossible, because of the inability to fit a pocket frame into a mitten up to the required point: 

In the end we came to this arrangement: 

It would be an understatement to say that it was difficult to fit a free arm into a hooped canvas mitten with a polyester padding — it fitted to a T and did not move at all: 

I even had to remove the machine's protection cover in order to turn the mitten around somehow. I also had to stick a paper adhesive to all the movable part just in case: 

In the end the mitten just barely turned around the arm. I had to help it with one hand, turning the mitten so as to follow the cap frame and slow down the embroidery speed holding the start button with the other in order for embroidery speed not to exceed 120 rpm. Even me helping the machine to turn the mitten around didn't keep the embroidery from shifting, so I had to take it off, remove the embroidery and start it all over. All this just for one stitch! 
Eventually I managed to embroider all these mittens and the socks that followed or rather to sew the embroidery onto them, but it took me all day to do this. 


I embroidered the socks using the pocket frame, too, and it turned out to be much easier for they were made of knitwear: 

But the design was a standard one, not just plain stitching, and it was not so enjoyable either, for the pocket frame is too loose and the result was visibly pulled, and this despite me having stretched the socks to the limit in order to fit the arm into them: 

Here is the result of my 'kitchen-table effort'. This is the instructive example of what one should not do, regarding the existing limits. 
Gloves and mittens are in trend again this season. But by now I've become smarter and decided to buy a special hoop for this kind of embroidery, although there is no such thing for Velles. About the hoop I eventually bought and how much did it cost me, I'll better tell in a separate article, because, in my opinion, it's an interesting story, too. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I've come across a series of magazine articles on how to correct errors which are inevitable when you embroider something. It said many things, but it was the process of removing a bad quality embroidery designs from the item that intrigued me the most.
I've been through removing the ready embroidery more that once and it has always been a problem. The first time when I encountered such a thing and what did it eventually cost me instantly sprang to my mind. After all, I did not have any instruments except scissors and tweezers back then. And I had to remove a large coat of arms from the velvet fabric. And every time when I needed to remove the embroidery design, I remembered of the specials instruments that can be bought online, and cursed everyone and their brother.
Actually, a professional instrument for operations like this is called Peggy’s Stitch Eraser, and I remember every time that I haven't yet bought it.
It rather reminds me of a hair clipper. The price is about 80 USD, which is not too much, and I hope to buy this magical device in the nearest future.
The only thing you should need beside it are additional blades.
The aforementioned device looks like that (the image was taken from the site of the manufacturer):

But even if you don't have such a instrument, there should be a way of removing a bad embroidery. So I searched for an alternative for the lacking device and it turned out that situation is not that bad, and you just need to choose the best option:
You can use a plain ripper. You can use a modeler's knife, like the X-Acto Knife, for example. But this is a matter of preferences. You can use an ordinary razor blade. You can use even a disposable razor, to shave off the threads on the wrong side. The sequence will be the same, whichever instrument you choose:
1. Turn the item the wrong side up.
2. In any case don't remover the stabilizer. It will protect the fabric from possible damage caused by the instrument.
3. Place it on something like a darner (like the one there was once in every home, remember?).
4. Cut off the threads on the wrong side.
5. Remove the threads from the right side using tweezers.
6. In any case, this process requires a great deal of carefulness so as no to get anything wrong.
Original text by: Marina Belova 
The subject that has always interested me is why digitizing software developers measure stitch density each in their own fashion. When changing a design editor, you never really know how the density will be measured this time. 
For example, I've encountered such density measurements units: 
SPI — the number of stitches per inch  The number of stitches per millimeter or centimeter  pts (pt, EP, Points) — the distance between stitches is determined by the number of the minimal movements of a Pantograf (10 pts = 1 mm). The more points are there, the lesser is the density.  mm — the distance between the stitches in millimeters.  Every time I had trouble grasping what are all these pts and SPI and converting them into millimeters I was used to, in order to understand, how many stitches were there. Here is a table I found in the Embroidery Network showing how the units of different density measurement systems correspond to each other. Sometimes you read an article somewhere on the internet and don't understand what's it all about and what figures the author used. 

But trying to convert from stitches per mm (like in Stitch Era, for example) into ordinary mm will lead you in a pretty dance. The only ratio I've found is as follows: 5,1 stitches per 1 mm equals to density of 0.4 mm. Obviously, I'll have to calculate the values myself using proportions and go from there. 
 
Original text by: Marina Belova  
Not very long ago I've noticed a pretty-looking design embroidered on 3D Puff with a metallic thread. And I thought I could do it, too – there is seemingly no difference between embroidery threads, right? After all, in standard embroidery cases the difference is minimal.
Nothing of the kind. See, how ugly the result is:

At the beginning the embroidery runs smooth, then there are stitches missing, then everything is smooth again. And the reason for these gaps is not that the stitches in different embroidery segments lie in opposing directions and there aren't much overlaps — each of the contours equals one segment, and therefore, all of them are unidirectional. I don't understand what is the problem: the brand or the thread itself? 
Do I need to change my needle (system, needlepoint, thickness etc.)? Or do I need to change stitch parameters (density, carcass)? Or, perhaps, I should change the filler (3D Puff)? Those who have embroidered on
, help me, please! 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
One of these days Lubov Tabunidze puzzled me with her conclusions on the subject of different ways of making of 3D machine embroidery by using
From what I've read on the topic in the open sources, I've learned that there seem to be at least 3 different methods of making 3D embroidery design, depending on your preferences. I mean the amount of understitching: 
The one I described, where there was a large amount of it (edges + zig-zag stitch).  Along the edges only.  And without any understitching at all.  In one source I found a clear explanation on why the second method is the best — because the understitching flattens the 3D Foam and the upper layer of stitches, which is very thick, is not as smooth as you would want it to be. 
Of course, I'd like to try all of these methods myself, to see with my own eyes, if there is the difference. I embroidered a monogram using a large amount of understitching (on the right) and with minimum amount of it along the edges (on the left): 

I swept aside the method without understitching for I had found it futile. 
In the process of embroidering a monogram with minimum understitching: 

And this is a monogram with a lot of understitching:

Here is the end result of the embroidery design:

It turned out that a monogram with zig-zag understitching is more flat than the one done with common stitch. Satin columns don't look smooth on zig-zag understitching, the thread begins to twist, and that is very conspicuous and very ugly. 
As for the 3D Puff perforation, these two techniques are the same — in either case you should make a finish and remove the Puff leftovers.
This given the fact that there is quite a task to find a 3D Puff of the same color as the thread: I've only seen white and black on the market. 
Such are my observations on the technique nowadays. 
Original text by: Marina Belova. The image is the courtesy of.
Who likes when a thread breaks when embroidering? Nobody does. That's because filling the gaps takes a lot of time and the end result looks bad. In one of my blog posts I told how to create a design in order to minimize the embroidery thread breakage, and I also wrote that there can be many reasons for it: the design, the materials, the adjustment and the technical state of your embroidery machine.
Let's find out who is responsible when the design is correct.
First, we should learn if the embroidery thread itself is the reason for the thread breakage. How do we do it? We can replace the bobbin and check how this will affect the performance. This will eliminate poor quality threads. My experience shows that poor quality embroidery threads increase the production time by at least 50%. Also, I've never encountered threads worse that those of Gamma and WonderFil.
If that didn't help, you should explore the place where the embroidery thread breaks. It may not look the same: it may appear clean cut, like it was done by scissors, or it may look scruffy.
If the embroidery thread is clean cut, it means that the needle is not inserted properly, all the way. It does down too deeply and breaks the thread. The scruffy end shows that the needle is too thick or too thin for this thread or that the shuttle is not adjusted. But the burrs in the throat plate opening or the presser foot also may be the reason.
You should examine how the thread is feeding off the bobbin when embroidering. Whether it does not twist or go into loops. The metallic embroidery thread is somewhat notorious for it, and also the bobbins of a household winding, which have a small diameter. If it is the reason, you should cover the bobbin with a net
It often happens that the old and dry embroidery threads slip down the bobbin and get stuck at the very bottom, pulling the thread and becoming the main reason for the thread breakage. If the thread is of a poor quality or very old, it should be replaced. If that is possible, of course.
You should also check the bobbin. How it is wound, whether it is correctly inserted into bobbin case.
Then we check the needle — whether it is sharp enough, does it have burrs and nicks, which may be the reason for the twisting of the thread. Check if the needle is not bent and that is has been placed exactly in the center over the throat plate. Whether is has been inserted correctly (all the way and in the proper position)? Or maybe the needle is too thin for this type of embroidery thread?
Sometimes the thread thickness and the size of the needle are not right for the embroidery design of that density. For example, the thread number 40 is best for the design, but you use number 30 and a thicker needle.
If the embroidery design has many layers, you should use sharp needles with teflon coating, a bit thicker than the ones that usually go with this type of embroidery thread, in order to prevent the thread breakage.
The next step is to check if the threading has been done properly and whether the tension was adjusted. And also to check whether the embroidery thread path is free from lint and dust. Whether the embroidery machine was oiled. Whether the embroidery speed is too high. And whether the shuttle has been adjusted properly (there should be the gap between the flat side of the needle and the point of a hook). If the gap is too small, it may snap the thread. And if it's too big, it may be the reason for the embroidery machine skipping stitches.
Another reason for the embroidery thread breakage may be a coarse and densely woven fabric, because the thread frays when going through it. A wrongly chosen stiff and dense stabilizer may cause the same problem.
If the item you are embroidering has been hooped incorrectly, i.e. not stretched tightly in the hoop or the frame, there will be fabric flagging, which, too, often is the cause for the thread breakage.
Original text by: Marina Belova
For a long time I've dreamed of making an embroidered cover for a glass candlestick. And I got to do this at last. I chose Halloween as my theme, because I had some interesting ideas. And this is how I materialized them in a standard appliqué with ragged edges:

In order to create this you will need the following materials:
A glass. Something like that:
 
A candle. A piece of nontransparent fabric of any kind (felt, faux leather). A piece of transparent fabric — organza or net (but the sequence for that will be more complex, because in order for the embroidery to look good an understitching will be needed). The embroidery sequence for a thing like this is not complex: a pumpkin in the center of the transparent fabric + an appliqué cut out of the nontransparent fabric:

The outer size of the trapezoid is based on the perimeters of top and bottom circles and also the height of the glass.
The embroidery process itself is very simple.
I hoop 2 layers of organza:

Embroider the whole pumpkin:

Stick the organza to the faux leather with a temporary spray adhesive:

Embroider the openwork, and do the satin columns, along which the appliqué will be cut out:

Take everything off the machine, cut the fabric around the outer edges. And I also cut the faux leather along the perimeter of a pumpkin so as not to touch organza:

I perforate it and lace it up on the glass:

Then all I have left is to put a candle into it and light it. This is how it looks in the light:

I could use a thread of the color matching the one of the organza on the wrong side, but, because this item is not reusable, I decided against it.
Original text by: Marina Belova
Today I embroidered and sewn a protective case for my social card. You can put your urban-transport pass or some business cards in it, too. A very multifunctional thing I've created. Why didn't I do it earlier?

All this can be very easily done, especially taking into account that I used felt, the edges of which don't require edging, and that no satin stitches are needed — the main part of the design is an ornament of the right side of the holder.
I created a very simple embroidery sequence picturing some bacteria:

As usual, I hooped a stabilizer and proceeded with my embroidery:

First, I do the marking:

I take a piece of felt, spray it with a temporary spray adhesive and hoop the whole thing:

Embroider the design:

Then I run the guide stitch where I need to make a round cut in order to make the taking the things out of the case easier (the right side of the rectangular):

Then I take off the hoop, turn it the wrong side up and stick a piece of felt onto the back side of the case.

I set the hoop into the machine and sew all the pieces together around three sides, except the side where the rounding is. Then all you have left is to take it off the machine, cut perimeter-wise, leaving some fabric around the stitching. Having made a cut I noticed that I forgot to change the bobbin thread and embroidered the design with an ordinary white one:

I solved the problem by using a textile marker pen, but it was possible to leave it as it was:

When the embroidery was completed, I thought that all of that could be done in a much more easy way, and, what is the most important thing, without the stabilizer, which, I must say, cannot be removed now, and is quite visible because of its white color.

I should have hooped a piece of felt without a stabilizer and embroider in just the same way. If you do not have a complex design with contours, the object shifting will not be that visible, and there will be no stabilizer at all. In that way the item will look neat.
 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Today I made a one-size-fits-all dust jacket for my daughter's school diary with a raccoon digitized from her own drawing. This is the front side: 

This is the original drawing: 

Maybe they are not very much alike, but my kid was happy with the result. 
The back side: 

The inside front cover: 

The two-page thread: 

The idea of creating a multifunctional elastic band, which could be used both as a fastener and a bookmark, I got from the Japanese embroidery magazines — extremely clever it is. As for the rest, the making process is almost the same as sewing and embroidering a passport dust jacket. 
You'll need next to nothing: to buy the cheapest diary (I bought the one for 16 RUR), create an embroidery sequence, take 3 pieces of fabric (for front and back sides + a jacket flap) and 2 pieces of an ordinary elastic band. 
So I created an embroidery sequence: 

In order to do this I had to put the frame instead of the hoop into the machine, because the embroidery is almost 50 cm wide. Then I hooped a piece of fabric with 2 layers of the underlay and embroidered the main part of the design, together with a guide stitch with marks in the places where the flap and the elastic would be: 

You cannot see the guide stitch very well on the photo, but it is there: 

Now I put the flap on the left side, which is a square piece of the fabric, creased in the middle. I align the center of the flap with the marks and put the 2 elastic bands on the right. I stick all of this to the fabric with a painter's tape: 

Put a large piece of fabric on top of it the wrong side up to create the inside front cover: 

Now I only have to sew it all together, leaving a small opening, through which I'll turn the item the right way round. This is what the embroidery machine does successfully. The seam is clearly seen only on the wrong side: 


Then I cut the item out perimeter-wise and trim off the corners. I don't remove the stabilizer — it will help the jacket to maintain its shape:
 
Turn the item the right way round: 

Press it with an iron and sew up the opening. The item is now ready. 
When securing the elastic band with a tape, I decided for some reason that I should stretch it a bit so it could maintain proper tension all the time and hold down the pages. The elastic bands nowadays are very slack. But after the jacket was completed, I understood that I should have bought a thick elastic band, which would not have distorted and pulled the jacket so much. When I'll be making a dust jacket for a sketchbook, I'll do so. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Once I was thumbing through a Madeira catalog and saw the thread with an interesting effect — it shortens by 30% when steamed and gather the fabric around it. This thread is called Smocking. Manufacturers write that it can be used for machine embroidery. 

I became interested in the result and bought a spool. It turned out to be a rather costly affair – 210 RUR for 200 m of thread! A bit too much a price for such a small length. 
First I decided to read what's written in the brochure that was also in the box. It turned out that there was no difficulty in using this type of thread — all you had to do was to embroider, then steam it from a distance, and everything would be ready. No specific instruments, no extra stabilizers and needles, only the standard ones. Thin fabrics are the best, which is not surprising. The designs are the simplest, like the redwork. 
I've read the instructions and something urged me to read the English variant, too. I revealed that the Russian translation omitted the most important thing — that it was the bobbin thread. It was stated in the end of the first line — 'special bobbin thread'. This means that I can use whatever thread I like for the right side of the fabric, which is by no means unimportant. And I was going to embroider the front side with it: 

Like that. Trust, but check you must, as they say. 
So I created a very simple quilt design of a flower and hooped a plain coarse calico: 

And began embroidering: 

The design was embroidered correctly: 

Then I took it out and turned it wrong side up for steaming. Here it is still flat: 

Now I steam it from the distance without pressing: 

Threads begin to diminish in length, to shrink and to gather the fabric. This is what I got in the end: 

The front: 

The effect promised by the manufacturer was achieved. Even if you try to stretch the fabric to get it back to what it was, the result will be unsatisfactory. 
There is only one thing I cannot grasp: where it could be used? Does anyone know? 
Original text by: Marina Belova
Now that I've come close to creating cutwork and lace, I encountered a serious problem: how does one choose the right type of thread for such projects? Should I select the threads according to the design or, on the contrary, to select the design according to the particular threads?
I've noticed before that threads identical in composition, but of different brands lie down in different ways, and the embroidery has a different look. The embroidery will look completely different if you just change a spool. On the weekend I embroidered a cutwork design using the Chinese cotton thread #30. And after the test run the bridges seemed rather untidy.

And the reason was not only the embroidery sequence I'd created. I set a very low density; as for the bridges, I made them a bit too thick, but it was not critical. It was how the threads performed, the way they lay down on the fabric or a water soluble stabilizer, that was the matter. It didn't dawn on me until I had remembered that I had once embroidered a simple design with different types of threads and that the result had vividly demonstrated me the contrast between their quality. Chinese cotton thread on the left and German on the right:

So I decided to make a comparison for my own benefit, to learn how different types of threads I owned performed with different stitch parameters — the threads that could be potentially used for cutwork and FSL.
Here are the threads I picked out for the test:

I'll name them for you.
The upper row from left to right:
WonderFil Chinese cotton thread #30 Gunold German cotton thread #30 Fufu's Taiwanese polyester #40 WonderFil Chinese rayon #40 The lower row from left to right:
Amann German polyester #40 Gunold German rayon #40 Rheingold German metallic thread #40 Nitex Chinese metallic thread #40 I made a very simple embroidery sequence for all of them (the density for cotton threads was 20% lower than that for the ordinary ones):

I embroidered different colors in the same order as the spools on the photo above. And of course what I got was an embroidery of varying quality; the difference was especially noticeable before I washed away the water soluble film and cleaned the fabric:

Here is the fabric already washed and dried:

As you can see on that photo:
2 of the cotton threads gave different performances not only in bridges, but in satin columns around the openings. German threads made thicker bridges and very smooth columns. One might think that the density for this type of thread can be lowered even more. As for the Chinese threads, they were a disappointment in all cases: they didn't lie down smooth, and they made uneven bridges.
Metallic threads seem to have given the similar performances.
Taiwanese and German polyester threads were different, too — the German one made slightly thinner and looser bridges with less luster, which was good, because I don't like my cutwork to gleam.
Chinese rayon thread gave an atrocious performance — it broke all the time, especially on bridges, though the end result looks better than the one embroidered with German rayon thread. German rayon thread made loose and ugly bridges.
So in the end it all amounts to this: no matter however much the manufacturers overpraise the quality of their goods, the crucial point will always be the look of the embroidery and the usability. And you'll always have to set the design parameters according to the thread you have. To my own personal regret.
Maybe the bobbin thread is a partly responsible for that as well? Perhaps, someone could suggest the other influences on the quality of the embroidery in our case?
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I prefer a density of 0.45 mm, which is splendid for knitwear with a right kind of understitching. It doesn't always work, I must say, but it usually does. I have previously written that you should lower the stitch density when embroidering on knitwear, but during the last few months I used to be firmly convinced that the high-quality machine embroidery on knitwear (ordinary t-shirts, quilt) was possible only on the condition of having high density about 0,3 mm with an understitching. Such a high density conceals a lot of digitizing imperfections, which is very convenient, but it increases the number of stitches. Which is what you sometimes want to avoid. 
I was browsing through a selection of clippings from the Printwear magazines, and came across several interesting photos depicting a very good-looking embroidery on knitwear. The reason these photos seemed so interesting to me was because the making of the design was approached in a very original and creative way — low stitch density both in satin columns and fills, a large number of stitches, simple appliqués with ragged edges and trapunto imitation to add volume. But then, on consideration, it is not all that special, because all of this has been known for a long time, though I, for some reason, did not use it: 

The photo was taken from the Printwear magazine, July 2013 

The photo was taken from the Printwear magazine, July 2013 
As it usually turns out, you need to look at the other's works from time to time. 
So I, too, decided to give it a try and to see the advantages and disadvantages of saving a great number of stitches, having remembered that
I've previously seen simple designs for knitwear in Urban Threads more than once. All their showcase photos were more that decent. 
I must say that the use of low density did not disappoint me, even on pique.
 
Everything is smooth, no warp and bulge whatsoever. And how few stitches are there! 
Sometimes you really should depart from the rules and try something new. It helps to have a fresh approach. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Why should every new or modified embroidery design be tested? And what's more, tested on the same fabric out of which the item will be made? To avoid mistakes, at least partly, and save yourself a disappointment of embroidering a design that looks splendid on screen and getting a result far from what you have expected on the fabric. 
When I was working for my current employer's competitors, they did not have a habit of embroidering a full-blown test design before it went into production. Such were the rules in that place. I think it was done so for costs reasons only. Practically all the designs were large-size ones, so trying to embroider them all would take a lot of time and effort. 
That's why we made a clean copy right away, using the fabric the client had brought. Of course, you had to stand there and keep a watch over the embroidery process so that to stop the machine on time in case there was some mistake in the file. And if it did, to run to the computer to make changes and load the modified design into the machine afterward. To rip off the elements you didn't need right in the hoop and then try to land this particular part of the design in the right place. 
Imagine how many mistakes, glitches and bugs were there? You could not detect them all when still under development. Besides, some mistakes cannot be corrected after the embroidery is completed. But it's quite an experience! 
So. What reasons do we have for testing the designs on the machine? 
We should see: 
How the design will be embroidered on that kind of fabric  How the design will be embroidered with this type of thread and of this particular brand  How the design will be embroidered with this stabilizer  How the design will be embroidered with these needles  How to adjust the thread tension for this design and this type of thread  Whether the design was digitized correctly:  Is it dense enough  Whether the understitching was done correctly  Whether there is enough compensation  Without this 'integrity test' it is impossible to create a good machine embroidery design. 
One more poignant question related to the testing of the designs: Who should conduct the tests: a creator of the design or a user? I have a strong opinion that the tests should be conducted by the creators themselves. And not by anyone else. Because otherwise no one will give the creator a good feedback once the tests are completed. 
Therefore, the embroidery design will not be of a high quality. The creator gains experience not so much from using the software and digitizing designs, as from standing in front of an embroidery machine and keeping an eye on the embroidery process. Only in that way can he or she understand the causal connection between what was done on the computer and the resulting embroidery.
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Today I'll tell you what is the 'bird nesting' in machine embroidery and how to avoid it. 
'Birds nest' is a thick wad of thread (knot) that appears on the wrong side of the fabric in the course of embroidery. It is a cluster of upper and lower shuttle threads intertwined with each other. 

I can tell from experience that the machine does not usually stop right after the beginning of the tangling process. It often happens that this knot is sucked into the hole in the throat plate together with the fabric. And then the best you can hope for is that the fabric won't tear up and that the item won't get unhooped. But the needles often break when trying to go through this wad of thread, wherefore the potential risk of damaging the item increases. 
5 reasons for 'birds nests' appearance 
Incorrect setting of the thread: either upper or lower (bobbin) thread or both.  The machine was threaded incorrectly. For example, the bobbin thread is tight and the upper is loose. In my opinion, this is the most likely reason of all.  The fabric was hooped too loosely.  In commercial machines the cutting mechanism sometimes malfunctions and the shuttle may not be properly adjusted.  Design imperfections — too much short stitches with too little space between them.  Ways of preventing of the 'birds nesting' occurrence 
Pay attention to how the embroidery process goes. Usually when an embroidery trouble is about to begin, the machine makes a different sound. If you pay attention to the embroidery process, you can stop the machine at the right moment, carefully lift the hoop and peek at the wrong side, in order to see if there aren't any knots.  Adjust the thread tension.  Learn to hoop in the right way.  Supervise every step in the embroidery software before starting the embroidery: remove the short (under 1 mm) stitches.  If the 'birds nest' has appeared anyway, you should carefully remove the knot. How to remove 'bird nesting'? There are no ready answers for that question. Usually I start from cutting the threads under the throat plate. Then I try to reduce the 'nest' in size using a pair of tweezers. Often I have to rip off the embroidery on the right side of the fabric, pulling 1 or 2 threads from the knot at a time. You should always act according to the situation. It does not require haste and fuss.  What if a hole had appeared in the item? Then you need to repair it. 
For example, I use stretch fabrics in my work as the rule, like a polyester net. That's why I simply sew or tie up the opening it and embroider the element that was botched. It usually comes out good. 
On the internet I've read some recommendations on repairing holes in common fabrics: they suggest covering the hole with a piece of a water soluble film or an organza. And then to proceed with the embroidery. But I didn't try this method. 
 
Original text by: Marina Belova  
The question of machine embroidery without hooping was raised on the embroidery forums more than once. This method is presented as the one that reduces the time of production by replacing the laborious hooping procedure with sticking an item on the hooped paper. 
It includes the following steps: 
a piece of a heavyweight paper or a water soluble stabilizer is hooped or framed  a window of a slightly bigger than the size of the future design is cut in it  a doubled-sided adhesive tape is stuck perimeter-wise (we used the builders adhesive tape, the wide one. It is of a highest quality and therefore costly)  the item is stuck to the adhesive tape  the hoop or the frame is lifted and a stabilizer is put under them  the item is embroidered as usual  After embroidery the item is unstuck and the other one goes in its place. The process repeats.  When the adhesive tape gets littered with pile from the fabric, another layer is stuck on top of it, or the fabric won't hold in place. In general, this method is alike to the one where sticky paper (Filmoplast) is used. Only here the sticky underlay is reusable. 

I first saw this method on Yaroslavl embroidery factory. Practically everyone there embroiders using this method. Of course, I was inspired by the prospects it gave, because they advertised it like a new Japanese technology. 
But when I tried it myself, I found out that there were many nuances, which, of course, nobody was too eager to tell me. 
The first nuance was wickedly commonplace — 2,5 years ago it was extremely difficult to buy a thin double-sided adhesive tape in Moscow. A adhesive tape of a similar kind, which I bought from Chinese not long ago, is shown on the photo: 

The only place where you could find a sufficient quantity of it (for using this method you consume quite a lot) at a rather immoderate price was the factory I mentioned earlier. Strange coincidence, isn't it? The price remains to be rather high — about 35 RUR for a roll of tape. Only the builder's adhesive tape was in free circulation on the market; it sometimes didn't hold the fabric in place, and besides, it wore out quickly. Not any kind of builder's adhesive tape is good for fabrics, so you should test it before use. I remember several occasions when an adhesive tape stuck to the paper rather badly, but at the same time stuck to the fabric like glue, so it would not come off. 
The second nuance — it is not suitable for all kinds of fabrics. Slippery fabrics, and also piled ones, tend to unstick in the middle of embroidery process, damaging the result. That's why you have to stop your machine all the time and press the fabric down on tape. And as if that is not enough, you need to renew the sticky layer much more often. 
The third nuance – not all of the designs can be embroidered in that way. You may forget about big designs with large amount of stitches in them once and for all. 
The fourth nuance is that the embroidery is mercilessly warped. And this is despite all the gimmicks with the stabilizer. 
The firth nuance — not all frames can be lifted so that the stabilizer could be put under them. ZSK frame is thick and heavy. You won't lift it up so easily:

On the photo below a similar border frame — a thin and bendy Tajima: 

The sixth nuance is that the stabilizer on a ZSK split table puckered all the time and got into the rolling elements of the central guide frame, which caused the frame to jerk and resulted in shifting of the design. 

In other words, there are hidden pitfalls... everything we are told and advised of — all of that we should by all means try for ourselves. 
But today I decided to quicken the production process, using the method of sticking. We have embroidered a batch of napkins with a small design of 3000 stitches with its help. A quick method, without a doubt. But an unreliable one. And without a stabilizer. But the fabric was a first-rate one – the embroidery almost didn't warp. 
P.S. Do I use this method nowadays? Yes, I do. But only for very small designs containing a small amount of stitches, which are not easy to hoop (for example, you need to embroider something at the distance of 1 cm from the corner of a towel). But I've noticed that once the design is bigger that 10x10 cm or the number of steps reaches 5000, you have to stand in front of the machine and watch the fabric: whether it does not slide off such an insecure affixment. 
Original text by: Marina Belova  
There seem to be so many hooping rules, and I've read them many times, but yet, a new idea sometimes springs to my mind. What's more, I get new ideas about simple things, which I've seen more than once, and simple principles I've more or less successfully tried to put into practice. 
So, the January issue of the Impressions magazine contained a wonderful article on 10 basic rules of hooping by Deborah Jones, titled "Hooping": The Foundation of Embroidery". The first thing that caught my attention were the photos of a hoop for commercial machine embroidery designs with a very interesting-looking outer ring. What was so interesting about it was that it lacked the familiar screw. Instead it had an unknown device, a wonderful know-how, which, as this woman, respected by a lot of people (including me), wrote, was a part of so-called "new self-tensioning hoop": 

The photo was taken from the Impressions magazine, January 2014 
This means that from now on you won't have to adjust the hoop screw by yourself; it is now done automatically. I haven't found any description of this remarkable product or its working principle neither in the article (maybe I haven't been attentive enough) or on the internet. Pity, for it would be rather curious to know. 
Second, and maybe even more important, I was amazed by this photo: 

The photo was taken from the Impressions magazine, January 2014
Why amazed? Because a year ago I expatiated upon about wrapping of the hoop in order to make the contact between the hoop and the fabric better. 
Everything written there is true except one little detail: with round hoops for the commercial embroidery, you should wrap the inner ring and not the outer one like I demonstrated. To bind (or wrap in fabric) the outer ring of the round hoop would be a waste of time and material. I distinctly remember why I decided to wrap the outer ring instead of the inner one — because it was more easy to do so using a long narrow strip. 
So far I've wrapped only one hoop using this method: 

I hope now that it will help me to solve the problem with embroidery on slippery fabrics that tend to escape from the hoop (thin sharkskin, laminated fabrics), because the contact between them and the hoop will be better. But I won't guess at the future and try embroidering on these fabrics instead. 
P.S. What is the most interesting, a lot of people have read my previous blog describing the wrong way of wrapping the hoop, and nobody corrected me on that. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Yesterday I once more learned from experience how much proper thread tension means — I embroidered a fluffy monster using acrylic yarn and got several 'birds nests' and plenty of thread breakage. I think that anyone would agree that the embroidery machine tension balance in important.
For example, my upper thread tension was too loose, which resulted in 'bird nesting' on the wrong side and massive thread breakage together with the ugly loops on the right side of the embroidery. In case the upper thread tension was too tight, the underthread might have shown on the right side of the fabric. Which would not make the embroidery look better.
The same with the bobbin thread. If the tension is too loose, the thread will appear on the right side of the fabric, too tight – the upper thread will be sucked underneath, causing all those loops on the right side. My lower thread tension was too tight, that's why there was so little of bobbin thread on the wrong side.
In any case, finding the middle ground would be the best.
What influences the thread tension during the embroidery? Everything. There are many issues that at first sight may seem irrelevant:
Type of thread Thread thickness Embroidery machine speed Needle size Obstructions in the thread path. Not once nor twice I've seen the recommendations to test the thread tension before every new embroidery, new fabric or new type of thread. Is it necessary to get a 100% result.
But how will one know whether the thread tension is correct if there are no special tools?
There are several kinds of test designs. You can find them on the internet or create your own.
It is believed that when the tension is correct, the upper thread takes 2/3 and the underthread — 1/3 of the width of the satin columns on the wrong side of the fabric. They should appear in such order: upper/lower/upper. This is what you take under control after all the tests are completed.
I test
This test design is an English letter "I" about 2,5 cm (1 inch) high and 3-4 mm wide. It is composed of single oriented stitches only. The design is embroidered with all the needles on a stabilized fabric or a dense cutaway stabilizer. After that you inspect the wrong side in order to see, what should be adjusted. According to results you make the adjustments and test again.
H test
This design is an English letter "H" about 2,5 cm (1 inch) high, with 6 mm wide vertical satin stitches and 5 mm wide horizontal ones. Stitches are oriented in 2 directions. The design is embroidered and the tension is adjusted according to the result.
Т test
This test design is an English letter "T" about 2,3 cm (1 inch), which is embroidered both directly and in the mirror image. Satin columns are about 5 mm wide, but there are plenty of angles. The design, too, is embroidered, and the tension is adjusted according to the results.
Flags test
On www.coldesi.com, where SWF embroidery machines are presented, I've found an interesting chevron-like test design. I suppose they didn't create it just for fun, so I recommend using it, too.
FOXY 
This test design is an English word "FOXY", written in capital letters consisting of satin columns. They are about 2,0 cm (circa 1 inch) tall. This test design is good because the stitches are oriented in many directions.
Fill test
This design consists of several 25x25 mm (1x1 inch) squares with 45° and 135° stitches arranged in a chess-board fashion. Again we embroider and then adjust. You can adjust the upper thread tension well so as to prevent loops.
Madeira test
I found another interesting test design on the USA Madeira website. It consists of a standard fill and 3 satin columns of varying width. A potpourri, so to speak. But it is single-oriented.
The experts advise to check the thread tension no less that once in a month.
Here I've tried to embroider one of the test designs:

Now I'll go to adjust the thread tension in my embroidery machine.
And last, the Drop test (yo-yo test)
This method is used for checking if the bobbin thread is correctly adjusted. You won't need your machine for this one.
Take the bobbin case out of the machine.
Wind the thread on your finger and pull about 15-22 cm out of the case.
Then you shake your hand up and down slightly
The thread must be pulled out of the case a bit.
How much — on that subject I've heard different values from different experts. They start on 1 inch and end on 3 inches (or 2,5-7,5 cm). Like always, you should try and see for yourself.
You can learn how to conduct this test if you watch this video.
You can read my blog on how to detect if the thread tension was correctly adjusted and what to do about it.
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Every time I see a high-quality 3D Puff embroidery somewhere, I begin to envy its creator. I've never managed to make 3D embroidery look so good that it would satisfy myself. The problem is not only the design, that I fail to digitize the image properly, but the way the embroidery looks. 
Not very long ago I've embroidered a 3D inscription on a knitted cap. For a long while I was sweating over the way the stitches would lie, then, after having seen the same design, embroidered by the Chinese, I changed the stitches in order to get the same good result. It turned out to be not enough. Nevertheless, the look of my embroidery is not quite the same, and the feel is different, as is the height of the letters. 
Whoever works with 3D Puff I saw and examined by touch recently, the height and the softness of the underlay that creates volume are entirely different from what we can do with the materials available here. 
It's either me being all thumbs and in need of much more practice or... I have a sneaking suspicion that the quality of the embroidery materials delivered here is not too high. So, you need to find an alternative. Some materials of those that fell my way I've already tested for the same purpose. You can read more about my attempt of using the paper and 3D-Puff like foam materials here and here. 
Not very long ago I've come across an underlay for laminate flooring, and an idea popped into my mind: why not to try this option, too? What if it works? This material is harder to the touch than an ordinary 3D Puff, so it reminds me of all the western 3D embroidery, and more fragile, which gives me hope that it will be easily perforated along the edges and come off the embroidery leaving no trace. 
So I created a design according to the rules and began embroidering: The embroidery process was no worse than with 3D Puff: 

It's ready now: 

I remove all the extra material, but a lot of small bits are left around the perimeter: 

Basically, 3D Puff does not tear off easily, therefore, it should be steamed or blow dried (in case you have a blow drier). I steamed it for quite a long time, but the bits of the underlay are still there, and I am not able to remove them: 

Besides, it turned out that the underlay shrinks noticeably when steamed, so the stitches, especially the long ones, begin to sag. But a little volume is left, and the letters are hard to the touch: 

Summary: this material won't make a good cheap and accessible substitution of 3D Puff. It can be used, but the quality of the embroidery will not be high. I'll go search some more. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Several days ago I received an order that turned out a quite unconventional one for me — I was asked to embroider a monogram on the car foot pads as a present for a girl. 
These foot pads were thick, densely woven, rubber-covered and foamed, with high ridges on the front side. In short, industrial carpet as it is.
 
I've heard that it is possible to embroider on them, and besides, they bore an embroidered trademark on them. This one: 

So I decided that if other people can embroider on the car foot pads, why couldn't I do the same? And I began embroidering. What's more, the design on those foot pads was a vivid demonstration of one of the ways in which that could be done – first fill the ribbed surface with Tatami in order to make it smooth, and after that embroider on this base. 
The tricky thing is that I need to embroider not a 10х2 cm monogram, but instead large satin letters 23х21 cm each and with twirls. I can fill the space under them, of course, as on the photo above, but it would take a vast amount of stitches and also make the foot pads look worse. And I need to make them look good. 
Then a new idea came into my head – to embroider an additional contour filled with black stitches as a leveler under each of the satin columns. The one that won't show much from below, but that will make the surface under the columns smooth. 
But I reckoned how much time it would take and measured it by the amount of money I was paid. And decided that it is not worth losing my sleep over it, and besides, it was not clear that it would work anyway. So I began to seek a settlement that would take as little of my time and labor inputs as possible. And the answer came immediately — to use a water soluble film; long time ago it was suggested here by not-so-unknown Deborah Jones.
She advises to use the Underlay-at-once embroidery technique on similar coarse fabrics. It's main point is that a water soluble film should be used as the means for smoothing of the embroidery surface, and that the embroidery pattern should be made in a slightly different way. It means that you should do a layer of understitching (underlay) in one go, then the pattern will tell the machine to stop (every machine does it in its own way), and only after removing the stabilizer you create a layer with satin columns. Of course, she does not disclose any embroidery parameters, but it is still clear where to go. 
Having watched the video and pondered over the matter, I came to a thought that even this method is too long and wearing, because you'll need to draw understitching by hand. So I decided to do it as simple as possible, namely, to remove the film in the end of the embroidery, as if
I was embroidering on a very coarse net, and make a standard pattern (all the elements are embroidered in a sequence). If it was good for a net, why should it not help me here? 
No sooner said than done. I created a rather simple pattern with dense understitching in order to support the final layer, which should be beautiful and without a ragged edge. 

For the basic supporting stitches I chose 2 edge runs with 1.5 mm stitch length and quite a dense double zigzag stitch (1 line/mm in my software). And I began embroidering. 
Of course, you cannot hoop the foot pads of such density. So I decided to stick them onto water soluble stabilizer in a frame. I took 1 layer of water soluble stabilizer, stuck a double-sided adhesive tape along the perimeter of the frame, and put a foot pad down onto it: 

I should point that I didn't have to stick anything apart from that, because the understitching held the foot pad in place sure as death. 
Put a piece of a heavyweight film on top of it: 

Embroider the design: 

I take the film off and realize that because of a double stitching along the perimeters of the letters I should have increased the space between it and the elements, for I got several extremely unpleasant loops at the edges: 

This can be corrected, though I will have to sweat over it a little. I also modified the pattern for other pads, so that the understitching would not show. In the end, I got a design of quite a decent quality. The edges of the satin columns became ragged whenever they encountered a ridge, but it's not so awful as it had been when I embroidered on the ribbed fabric for the first time: 


These foot pads made me remember a curious detail: when selling embroidery machines, ZSK dealers tell their customers that they can embroider car footpads on them. But what I want to say is that it is possible  embroider foot pads not only on ZSK equipment, but on the Chinese embroidery machines (like the one I own) as well. 
This time I used a standard needle, which came with my machine and the Fufu's polyester thread. I use standard DBxK5 75 SES needles for everything. And for all 100 thousand stitches the thread only broke once; as for the needle, it has never broken at all. In the end, everything is possible. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Everyone knows that the threads are winded on the spools of different kinds. Some of these spools have a very convenient clasp, like this one: 

I like it, because it allows to store a spool upside down without thread coming off of it. I store my threads in the plastic boxes with lids so they do not to get dusty or dry up, and also for easier transportability. And this clasp is what allows me to store much more threads in a box. 
There is one more well-known way of securing the thread:

And this way of securing the thread I don't like — it's neither convenient nor reliable. I always have to put such spools in the upright position in order to avoid problems. Yet still, this is better than no securing at all. Like here: 

I know that such spools may be stored each in a small packet, net or a stocking. But, in my opinion, it just makes thing more complicated.
Indeed, if one remembers that every time when we open a new spool or a bobbin (it doesn't matter if it is a sewing or embroidery thread) without a securing mechanism, we can see that the tail of the thread is not loose, but instead comes in an easily untied knot. This way the thread is secured tightly and will never unwind. 
The way of making such a knot is no secret. It's very simple. 
Unwind the thread a bit and hold it like on the photo below: 

Holding on to the loose tail with the right hand, twist the thread in order to make a loop with the left: 

Take this loop and slip it over the spool: 

It'll look like this: 

Take the loose tail of the thread and run it through the loop. It doesn't matter whether you do it from the top or the bottom: 

Pull the loose tail of the thread, so the loop would sit tightly onto the spool. That's all. Now the thread is secured in place and does not unwind. 

Everything is very simple and easy in use. 
P.S. Only a year after having written this blog I realized that an easy way of securing the thread on a spool is using a price sticker (the one that comes in rolls). You should stick the tail of the thread to the plastic spool itself and not in any case to the thread, so as not to smear it with glue, or you will have a big problem in future. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I think that for an embroiderer it is not a secret that every thread requires its own stitch density in order to make a successful coverage. It involves not only the thread thickness, but also the variety of materials of which the threads are made, as well as different colors and brands.
Changing any of these parameters is the reason why a design once embroidered successfully on the same fabric, but with a different type of thread, may come out a disaster. I've encountered such a problem more that once, that's why it's not the first time when I write about it. 
Recently, when surfing the internet, I found an interesting test design from the Coats brand, which allows to find the proper density for a particular type of thread by conducting a simple experiment. 
The professionals working for this company created a small test design, which will help you to measure the resulting stitch density when embroidering with 120/2 thread (the standard #40). 
You'll need to do just a few things: 
Hoop the fabric.  Embroider the design with the required types of threads.  Examine the result.  Choose a suitable option.  We can determine if the density is enough or too much by checking with this chart: 

You should notice that the upper segment containing 8 squares is marked by the letter N and does not have any understitching. The lower segment with the letter U has an understitching. You should select one square in each segment, having examined them by look, by touch and other parameters. 
You can download the test in a *.dst format from the Coats website. 
In my opinion, this is a very useful experiment, especially when embroidering with a thread of a brand you haven't tried before. Sometimes you take a spool, and the label mentions only the usual things, or even nothing at all, but you can see that the thread is thicker or thinner that the standard one. And it is not clear what do about it. As it turns out, the answer is always in plain sight. 

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.