When I wrote about the Bump Factor in my last post, my sister asked for a clarification. It goes like this:
Dearest sister is not a quilter, nor is she a mathmetician; she is a lawyer. I decided to offer some photographic evidence to interpret and support my theory.
I present Exhibit A.
Road Trip has a good bump factor which could have been better had I quilted another diamond within each Tumbling Block segment.
Exhibit B: Here is a little unnamed table topper. Note those ripples, puckers and lumps. I used a thicker thread on this little piece, along with closer stitiching. My happiness quotient is very high.
Changing any part of the bump factor equation comes with risk, which can sometimes produce less than desirable results.
Please, if you are a sensitive quilter, avert your gaze! I present Exhibit C:
A closer look reminds me of the funky stretch bubble shirts that were very hip in the 1970s. The thought of it makes me a wee bit itchy. The fabrics are original double pinks, one of my all-time favorites, and I think that puts the quilt as late 19th century.
I'm going to take a guess about what went wrong. When I carefully stretch those Church Dash blocks, they measure 10". In their current state they are 7 ". Although I haven't done the burn test, I'm pretty sure the fabrics are all cotton. I think the problem is that the batting is wool and it shrunk when it went through the rigors of a washer and dryer.
There is such a thing as too high a bump factor for me and you are looking at it. When hand-quilting stitches are buried under folds upon folds of fabric, it's heart-breaking.
But . . . it is still a family heirloom. We have a few chipped platters and three stopped watches from our families and I haven't sent them off to the thrift shop yet. But this is the only quilt. Do you think I should make a new version of it?