This might be a stupid question but I'm just curious as to if I am missing something. I am in the process of doing my first maltese cross and I'm just about done with the cross pattern and the threads arent stacking very well at the 4 different intersections. I am wrapping with size D thread and I was wondering if that is the problem, by using size A thread will it allow the thread to stack better at the intersections, or is there a better way to get the thread to lay a bit better? In between intersections the thread is about as tight as it will stack but once you hit the intersection where it overlaps it creates a small gap.

It tries to roll downhill over each crossing of a previous thread. This is normal.

Here are a couple or three things you might try.

1. Use just a tad less tension. But continue to pack the threads tight.

2. If you are wrapping the same color thread on more than one pass, wrap all the same colors in bands in the same direction, rather than wrapping one left, then one right, etc. The wider surface of a "band" all running next to each other is easier to cross without threads rolling downhill.

3. Don't worry too much about packing the threads after each cross. It's sometimes easier to pack the centers if you do the packing after 3 or 4 threads. Granted, if you're wrapping a single thread per pass, this will be more difficult as the threads tend to lock each other in. But when you can, wrap more than one thread in the same direction per pass (you can wrap them singly but continue on the same side until it is time for a color change.)

.................

Tom,

Thanks for the input, I'm going to try that now and see if it makes a difference. I have a feeling once I get it filled in the rest of the way it will lock everything into place like you have stated.

It will always be a bit of a "fight" but at least you may be able to get it done just a bit easier.

.............

I've put a bit less tension on the thread and as I've filled it in the threads are tightening up a lot better now. Thanks for the tips, I'll post the final product on the photos section later tonight / tomorrow when I finish it off.

Tom,

Thanks to your help I was able to finish it off tonight.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Thanks again!

Overall I'd say it came out pretty well.

..............

First attempt, I'll give it a thumbs up... nice job.

Some feedback.

I really like your thread color selection and the proportion of thread colors in your closing fill threads; they frame the dark background fill area around your cross nicely. Your proportion of dark fill around the cross could have used one or two more dark thread(s) to help set off the cross, but overall given the size of the blank it looks pretty good, again good job. Too many threads and your fill would have started wrapping around the blank and you would have lost the frame effect around the central pattern.

Some decorative wraps, like the Maltese Cross, form horizontal or vertical edges between colors, and other patterns, like diamond-body fish, have the color transitions that are at angles other than horizontal/vertical (these color transitions generally follow the threads, or cross at angles to the threads, as the threads spiral up and down the blank). When you have the horizontal/vertical color transitions like this pattern has, most of the time it is best to wrap threads one at a time (instead of bands of multiple threads). Now there are exceptions, for instance you could alter the appearance of the color edges by wrapping in bands of threads, which would give the color transitions a less-formal "sawtooth" appearance instead of the more-formal straight line appearance. By changing the number of threads you you lay down on each pass you alter the appearance of a pattern without actually having to change the initial cross layout pattern or the number of each color of thread. This is something that many people who wrap a lot of decorative wraps don't consider. I've noticed that many people get in a rut and tend to always wrap either one thread at a time, or wrap in bands all the time. Wrapping in bands saves a lot of time, so people who wrap a lot of rods often end up being band wrappers. But the most skilled decorative wrappers among us know when to wrap single threads and when to wrap bands to get the effect they want. They likely won't change from single to bands, or vice versa, half way through a background fill unless there's a design reason to do so. Every thread is laid down a certain way for a reason. Every thread construction decision has an artistic effect to the overall appearance of a decorative wrap.

For the gold threads in the fill area, you wrapped in bands of two threads consistently throughout. Whether by design or by accident this worked well for you because, other than the initial single gold thread, each area of gold had a total number of threads that was divisible by two (you had bands of 2, then 6, then 2 threads again). If you look at your photo, you can see the effect of this most clearly where the bands of gold cross each other below the central Maltese Cross. If your thread layout was different, say 3, 7, 3, you would not have had a uniform sized "sawtooth" effect. About the best you could have done would be to lay them singly, or laid them as bands as bands of a 3, then 2, 3, 2, then 3 (resulting in a 3, 7, 3 pattern layout). Beginners who start out wrapping only one thread at a time often have a difficult time later on understanding and managing the artistic implications of band wrapping. Whether by design or chance, your 2, 6, 2, and wrapping in bands of two works well artistically and it helped to solve the problem you described you were experiencing to some degree. Given the results we can observe in the photo, Tom's advice to wrap in bands was spot on here.

Band wrapping is both a time saver, and it gives a contrasting less-formal or edgier "sawtooth" effect that differs from the cross pattern resulting from the more-formal straighter-edge single thread construction method. What you did with this wrap just plain works well, you have single threads where crisp color edges are important and you have bands where it was opportunistic to use bands and crisp edges were not necessary (or artistically desirable). I like what you did a lot.

Wrapping in bands, where appropriate, means you have fewer thread crosses and fewer thread crosses means you can adjust the location of the crosses more easily. Every extra thread in a band (2nd, 3rd, etc.), lays parallel to the first without having to cross over another thread, so these threads move easier and can pack together more tightly giving a more consistent appearance. From a technical viewpoint of actually laying down the threads, I think most of you did here was pretty good, however, I see two main aspects of your work in this part of the wrap where you can make improvements. First, you could have adjusted some the cross locations a small amount to get them more in-line with each other, I'd give you an 8 out of 10 on cross location. But the biggest improvement you could make is from packing threads.

Packing threads is pushing one thread as close to another thread as possible. Packing is especially important on bright threads because when threads are not tight to each other you get gaps between the threads, and the gaps often look darker than the thread because light reflection on the exposed side of the thread is not the same as the light reflected from just the top of the thread; the brighter the thread color the more visible this effect is, while the darker the color the less visible the effect is. For example, poorly packed black threads can hardly be noticed compared to brighter colors which stand out. Since the colors you used are bright, to me your loosely packed threads tend to detract from the overall look a significant amount. On solely the tightness/packing of your threads I'd have to deduct a few points because it's one of two aspects of your wrap that stands out in a negative way to me, so 7 out of 10 on packing. The other aspect is the cross location of your final dark thread, some are way off axis.

Now, because you don't show the rest of the wrap, I can't tell if the solution to the problem is through improved layout, thread application/packing, or a combination of both. If it's a layout problem, you would have run out of room to lay threads at some points in the wrap while other areas of your wrap still need more threads to fully fill in and close. If your layout work is done correctly, and you've included adjustments to the spacing to account for the taper of the blank, the gaps that are visible in the photo could have been eliminated with a combination of packing threads and adding a few more to fill in the resulting gap. On your particular wrap, a perfect layout would result in you laying down that last single dark colored thread so that it perfectly filled the space left between the lighter threads on each side (along the entire length of the wrap). Without seeing more of the wrap to compare, only you can judge what needs to be done to improve the appearance in this respect.

Overall this really looks pretty good given your experience level. It certainly looks better than my early attempts at doing decorative wraps. I think you have a lot of potential, keep up the good work.

John,

I actually laid every thread individually in this wrap, I didn't want to lay two and three threads at a time because I didn't want you to be able to see where I had two and three threads over laying each other at the intersection points. But I just looked at the rod again and I believe what I did was instead of doing the same pattern of wraps, I ended up wrapping in a different sequence between passes so two went over making it look like a band. For my future wraps I will make sure I have a precise sequence in order to make every thread line up one over one under. I hadn't actually even thought about a sequence until looking at it just now and realizing what I did. However you were spot on with your suggestions and my spacing was just a bit off at the end and I didn't account for the taper of the rod as well as I should have. I ended up with a few gaps and a few closed sections so I basically just had to burnish the threads and space them out just enough to fill the pattern in the rest of the way. I've spent a majority of the day today just improving and practicing layout and trying to get it more precise. I've been working at this for about three weeks now and I have progressed through doing some basic chevron's to doing a fading chevron, then moving on to some basic cross wraps making a two colored diamond and this was my first more intense pattern. Overall it came out okay based on my opinion, it bothered me that it didn't come out precisely on the pattern making it close off on some spots and open on the others but hey, that's just part of the learning curve I suppose. This was also an experiment to better understand how to do a box layout as I have never done one before and too was to figure out how to do a St. Johns cross which I now understand the pattern of how that works in my head. This whole decorative wrapping world has fascinated me and I've been able to kill hours on end just wrapping rods and I'm to the point now where I've just about wrapped all the rods I own just practicing how to pack threads and work on different patterns. I appreciate all of your suggestions very much and I am already working on color combinations and thoughts about what my next wrap will be, but for now I need to perfect my layout so I don't run into that issue again. I look forward to showing off more stuff and learn many new wraps and progress at this skill.

Based on your response, I can see now more clearly what you did, you sort of made a bands by laying two threads adjacent to each other singly out of sequence. This explains why some look like a pair of threads laid at the same time and others look like crossing threads. If you look closely, I bet you can follow a pair (that on top look like a band) to the side and you will see them cross on the 90/270 axis. This occurs when you alter threads in a sequence, but without a photo of both or the rod in hand you just can't tell from one top axis photo.

Also based on your response, I agree the next big thing for you to work on is layout spacing to account for the taper of the blank. It's much more important on a closed decorative wrap than an open wrap. In fact, many people lay out open wraps equally spaced because they don't have to fill in the space between the main pattern bands. You can always identify when someone does this because if the center spacing is uniform in distance but the blank tapers, the angle of the thread, as measured against the rod axis, must continually change to account for the rod taper. The effect of this will be patterns near the larger diameter will be widened left to right and shortened top to bottom, compared to the smaller diameter end where patterns will be taller and narrower. The middle of the wrap (along a linear tapered blank) will be closest in shape to what was intended based on the original layout parameters.

Would that be anything similar to when I wrap guides I start from the tip and as I got to the larger OD of the blank butt I add more to how long the wrap is or it looks short and stubby

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,

If I understand what you wrote about, I'd have to say that I've gone through four approaches to guide wrap length.

I guess the first approach would be eyeballing where the first loop of thread for each guide wrap is positioned. This is how I started doing it some 35 years ago. I was happy with the results and most people never studied my work close enough to realize there were slight variations in the length of the wraps. After a few years of rodbuilding I took as an elective an upper level art class from a guy that was a world class metalsmith. This guy could take a flat sheet of silver and raise the sheet into a chalice of such quality his work was often displayed in museums. Needless to say this guys artistic sense was off the scale. He wanted us all to bring in samples of our work, so I brought in one of my rods and when it was my turn, he dissected my work from an artistic viewpoint and in about 5 minutes made me think about what I was doing in ways I never considered before.

Trying to take what he explained and adapt it to my work, I next tried a proportionality approach, basically this meant larger diameter blank equated to longer wraps. This looked horrible to me. Being an engineering student, I felt confident the corrective answer lied in math and that all I had to do was determine the correct ratio and I would achieve the kind of artistic success I was lacking. I fooled around with some equations, then transferred careful measurements and did my wraps to exacting accuracy. Eventually I felt happy and took a sample in for the next critique. His assessment was better but he looked at my work and the expression on his face was something like "Is that all you got?" I still think about his words now and then... "La passione, where's the love in this?" I fooled around with this some more but never received the acknowledgement some other students work received.

My third iteration was when I started to wrap each guide size to a certain predetermined layout length. I actually made up some storyboard cards that I could lay against the blank for each guide I regularly used. Fuji Ns had a card that was different from the Ls, for example. And within a series a n8 was different from a N10 or 12 and so on. This seemed to give me better overall results and had the added benefit of much greater layout speed and uniformity among rods especially when I would build a set of identical rods. I follow this method for 20+ years and was pretty happy with the results. Tip wraps were shorter, but end wraps were longer, but for each guide size the wraps would be the same size irrespective of blank diameter taper.

Now many of you know I really only build great lakes trolling rods, and for all intents and purposes I only build on 2-3 different blanks at a time, and among those blanks, the diameter and taper were similar. I was achieving similar artistic qualities because the blanks were all so close in size. Then about 10 years ago, I started getting a lot of requests for Dipsy Diver rods and these blanks are much stouter than what I worked with previously. I approached the build the same way and after the first couple of guides I knew my storyboard cards just weren't going to look right for this bigger blank so I finally realized I couldn't rely totally on my storyboard cards for layout, I had to consider the other factors. This brings me full circle back to your first comment about proportionality and blank diameter. For the last ten years or so, I've been working with a series of storyboard cards for each guide frame and size, and in each series I have created variations to better match different blank diameters. For the trolling rods I build I have 2 sets each for 6s, and 8s, three each 10s, and 12s, four 16s and 5 20s. For me this covers the range of guide styles and sizes I use, the blank material (small graphite to large fiberglass diameters), and ranges in power from light brown-trout rods to the heaviest diver rods for salmon.. Someone who builds ultralights or fly rods would probably need fewer storyboard cards, and a guy who builds everything would probably need more than me. Now, when I build a set of rods for a guy and he has 4 downrigger rods, 8-10 planer rods, 4-8 copper rods and 4-6 diver rods, they all look right next to each other. It took me what, 25 years to get there? I know of a couple of other builders who have their own versions of proportional storyboard cards for their guides. Billy V uses them also, he explains to people how and why he made his storyboard cards and demonstrates how to use them at NERBS gatherings, so I know I'm in good company with this approach.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 02:32PM by John E Powell.

John

I prefer the KISS method I start at the tip of the rod Do the first guide trying to keep the thread wrap as short as possible Then as the blank gets fatter I add maybe i/16th to each wrap after depending on taper I use a compass
If I was making several rods on the same blank I can see making each wrap the same and having some thing to measure them with
I wish i had a shop as I see some builders have But my living room is all I got And it is small

You did give me some ideas on measuring to get some thing of a Constint

Ya also got to understand I type with two fingers LOL

Bill - willierods.com

John,

With the help of Microsoft Excel, BD Ehler's method, and a pair of calipers, I have just finished laying out a new box pattern and I will be doing a St. Johns cross this time. I believe that with using the excel spreadsheet and a pair of calipers my layout will be much more precise. I also used the paper trick that BD Ehler puts in his PDF and when using that side by side with the excel spreadsheet they both produced the same result so I think I have that figured out now. The boxes look MUCH more consistent now and I believe it is going to make a big difference. Now I just need to make sure I get my thread sequence right this time so I don't make anymore bands. I'll post a picture when I am done, but first I must decide on colors for the pattern and then its off to the races.

Nathan,

When I do my layout I use the calipers also. I use the inside measuring points to leave a mark on the blank in the exact spot along each of my layout axis. I prefer this to using inks to mark the blank as they can't smudge off onto my fingers or threads. The accuracy of the calipers are excessively accurate, but it really comes in handy having one tool in the hand that both measures and marks the cross locations. I feel even a steel rule and fine pen are too inaccurate, but hey, I'm getting old, and my hands of stone shake a lot so I need all the help I can get.

John,
I just finished my second closed wrap, this time I used the TOS method and it made it come out much more precise. One of the issues I believe I had with this wrap was varying thread tension so it's not as uniform across the pattern, and I believe I went a little large on the box layout making the star a little larger than I had originally planned on. I still have some thread manipulation that I need to do but this one looks a lot better than my last closed wrap and I'm much happier with the outcome of this one. Any advice is greatly appreciated as I've already begun to get better by every wrap.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Thanks again all for your advice!

Have been following this thread with great interest as am also trying my 1st Matlese Cross, but am not having near the success of Nathan. Have read everything written by ED but am missing something. So have a couple of questions if I may;

a) Nathan, I think your first example is outstanding. I still can't figure out how to do something with the borders like you have but am working on it. That aside what do you mean you used Microsoft Excel to layout your pattern? How does that work, in simple sailor terms if you would...:)?

b) John, am having trouble laying out the box. I understand and can do the four axis layout, and know the sequence is wrap up and down the outside of the boxes then wrap up and down the insides. But, how do you determine what size the boxes should be and once you deteremine that, how do you then transcribe that to the blank/pattern? ED dosen't really explain it, or if he does I don't understand. Again in simple sailor terms if you could. No engineer here.

Regards

George M.

George,

I'm using the excel spreadsheet to help layout the original box pattern. Instead of spacing each box out at 1.5 inches for example you use a piece of paper to measure the diameter of the rod at the butt side of the blank where you're pattern will start, the mid point of the section, and the tip side of the section where your decorative wrap will end. By plugging in all three of those measurements along with the total length of the section that you're going to do your decorative wrap on (all in mm) all you have to do is plug in how many cross sections you want which I did 5 and it tells you every point on your 0 and 180 axis to lay your first cross. From there I used calipers and measure to butt side of the wraps .35 of an inch to lay the second cross to make a box. Doing this is called taper offset spacing and it accounts for the taper of your rod so that all of your boxes will stay true. From that point I wrapped all four threads inside the box and all four threads outside the box and continue this on a 1:1 ratio until you fill the pattern. I've been told by many different people that laying your box pattern with size A and wrapping with size D will allow you to leave the box pattern in the dec wrap but personally I have removed the box layout threads after I have wrapped about 3 passes inside and 3 passes outside the box. For the fading effect once you close off the box with the Maltese cross you're basically just wrapping chevrons and I just used multiple colors and blended them together to do a fading pattern. If you look at the picture you can see where I used 1 gold 2 black 2 gold 1 black 1 light yellow 2 gold 2 light yellow 1 gold 1 white 2 light yellow 2 white one light yellow all white and that's what made the fading effect.

Nathan,

Help much apprecited. Just finished my 1st Maltese Cross on a practise dowel using your instructions. Worked well.

Thanks

Geo M