Go - overs length - Discussion from Sandy's April 2010 wish list

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth on April 18, 2010 at 1:48am

I am thinking in particular of people who are sewing up squares others have made into go overs (rather than say people who are happy to make 8 and 10 inch squares themselves). I wonder if that is where the short go overs came from in the first place? I know that (if this works) I could sew up 3 x 2 body go overs from donated squares faster than I could knit a big enough band for the bottom of each go over.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Powell on April 18, 2010 at 2:43am

Here is how the original pattern for the G-O using 10" squares for the body and 8" squares for the sleeves looks on 2 different kids. Brian, on the left is 8. The sleeves are a bit long but looking at the body length, anything longer would be too long for him. His sister Katie, on the right, is wearing the same G-O. She is a very petite, 5'2" teen... and the G-O fits her with enough room for other garments underneath. so the "life-span" of this size should be 3-4 years.

We need to remember that the design produces a "dropped shoulder effect" and so need to use caution in sleeve length. In fact, when making the sleeve in one piece, I have sometimes shortened it from the 16" length - especially if I am adding a cuff to draw in the wrist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Hoddy on April 18, 2010 at 11:12pm

Being a short man, I figured if the larger Go-Over fits me then it will do for a young teenage boy. On that basis, 4x 10" squares is wide enough but not long enough for the body, so I am adding 3" rib to the base, but not too tight. After all, we were told these garments were supposed to fit over other clothes.

I've also done a shorter length of loose rib on the sleeves, just to stop them falling down if they are too long, but loose enough to be rolled up if preferred.

And something else I noticed is that the top of the sleeve would only just fit around my upper arm, not allowing for other clothes, so I am thinking of sewing in a diamond-shaped under-arm gusset, which is a technique I recently saw in a knitting history book on old fishermen's jumpers.

But ultimately all of these adaptations are moving away from the basic Go-Over pattern of joined up squares. I think perhaps we need to decide whether we want two different concepts for Go-Overs?

The first could stick with the unadorned square/rectangular concept to create a kaftan which is longer in the body* but with sleeves finishing mid-forearm so as not to be a hazard. (*Surely some children will need a garment long enough for modesty if they have to wash all their other clothes at once?)

The second could just be a big baggy jumper with all the normal sleeve shapings, but keeping the slash neck and front vent for simplicity.

Anyway, that's my two pennyworth!

Rob :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sylvia Vannelli on April 19, 2010 at 2:11am

I like unstructured clothes and have made a number of jackets and sweaters for myself over the years based on squares and rectangles. l, like you Robert, have come up against the under arm tightness and have solved it with a gusset. It works well. I disagree though that it moves us away from squares. The 'diamond' can be a square standing on its points. I have found that this shape works fine. Also, rather than lengthening with a rib, how about a band of half sized squares.

Judging from the photos posted, quite a lot of traditionally shaped pullovers are being sent, and that seems fine, but it would be nice to keep a KAS Go-over, based on squares, as a signature garment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Hoddy on April 19, 2010 at 9:33pm

Well I'm new to the underarm gusset idea, but the fishermen's jumpers had diamonds that were twice as long as they were broad, so it's interesting to hear that it still works with a more square diamond.

Rob :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Powell on April 19, 2010 at 7:25am

Rob - Originally, the G-O was designed so that people who are inexperienced knitters could make a garment even if they could only knit squares... no other skill required. Many variations have been done - as you will see in the photo album -so feel free to make a G-O however you think best.

I have not had a problem with the armhole being too snug in the G-O made from 10" squares with 8" squares for the sleeves. The sewing instructions say "Join sleeve to front and back at shoulder making sure to STRETCH sleeve out enough to create 16” armhole opening. This certainly makes for a roomy armhole since the garment has a dropped shoulder anyway.

Basically this size is geared to 8-14 year olds. The sleeves are long on my 9 year old grandson and the length is 7" below his waist. The sleeves are just right for my 18 year old petite grandaughter. Katie is 5'2" and the G-O comes to about 3" below her waist.

On both there is room for a sweatshirt and t-shirt underneath.

While some of the larger garments will be distributed to bigger teens, I think we should bear in mind that many of these will go to 9, 10, 11 year olds and so we do not want to create something too huge for that age group. I am sure that many sizes are arriving and that Ronda is distributing them in such a way that the recipient will get 2-3 year's wear out of them.... and we do not want to forget our smaller kids either - the 8" square body and 7" square sleeve will fit approximately 4-7 year olds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Powell on April 19, 2010 at 9:41am

Last year we were asked to make G-O's for the Jabulani boys in various sizes - small, medium and large. Here's a photo of the large size I made - body - 22" square with a small border on the bottom. sleeves - 17 or 17 1/2" rectangles (can't remember). Worn here by a 5'10" teen with broad shouders, slim build. The "goofin-off" photo shows how much armhole room there is. Lots of room for other garments underneath. For those who wish to continue with the original pattern - I think we are safe doing so.

• ▶ Reply