Thanks TChem. I'd offer to trade with you except mine seems to be no prize right now, either.

And Karin, thank you for the card. I appreciate it (even if my memory of German has decayed - already - to the point where I couldn't read everything on the page).

I'm working on the sleeve cap of the Greek pullover. I'm amazed that I'm nearly done with this.

I'm also thinking about "next patterns" - oh, I still have Kenobi (and I pulled out what I had done this evening to look it over). But I also have some really nice Cascade 220 in a color that almost perfectly matches my eyes (true: it's brown with sort of a green heather overlaying it) and I want to make the u-necked vest from Fitted Knits. (And it will be nice, for a change, to not have to do SLEEVES.)

But I'm contemplating what size. My M.O. has been to make a size bigger than what I "absolutely" need - to factor in a couple inches of ease. So that would mean doing the 46" size, probably. But - this is supposed to be a FITTED top.

And you know, after looking at the "gallery" of 1824 blouson tops at Knitting Daily, I'm beginning to think that maybe zero or even negative ease would work better here. The 44" size would be like 1/2 inch ease...but the 42 1/2" size would be just a tiny bit of negative ease - like an inch - and you know, even worn over a t-shirt or t-shirt-fabric turtleneck, that might look better.

It's funny. I've been so programmed by the fashion rags and your standard clothing stores to think of myself as a Fat Chick - and therefore, the conventional wisdom goes, I should hide myself in tentlike, voluminous things. But I'm beginning to rethink that - my favorite pair of dress-slacks right now are *just* fitted enough that they're still comfortable, but they kind of skim certain curves and hug, ahem, others. (Okay - I will come out and say it. I think, despite the fact that there are a lot of body parts I feel there's something "wrong" with on me, that I have a nice butt. It's neither too big nor too flat [word up to Sir Mix-a-lot.]. It's well toned thanks to the copious exercise I get. And it doesn't sag.)

And maybe...maybe that could be true of the top, too, as long as the tops are well-designed. (I wore a men's Hawaiian shirt today and was reminded of one of my frustrations with it - the buttons are on the "wrong" side, and when I wear my purse over the shoulder I conventionally wear it over, the strap can catch on the buttonhole edge and unbutton a "strategic" button on the front. But part of the problem is that the design of the shirt assumes a basically linear torso, not one with curves, so there's a bit of pressure being exerted right on that part of hte shirt.) So maybe some negative ease on a nice, girl-designed top would look nice.

After all, it's worth a try. If I absolutely loathe the way it looks, I suppose I could rip back and do the next bigger size, or give it to my (slightly woolaverse but would probably wear a vest) slightly slimmer sister-in-law.

Anyway. Maybe I need to replace "Fat Chick" in my mental image with "Curvy Chick," or what I like better, "Voluptuous Chick." (Oh, yeah, I know - in some circles "voluptuous" is a polite euphemism for "fat," but work with me here.)