On the theory that what happens in Vegas . . .
. . . stays in Vegas, I had just about persuaded myself that there was no need to blog the incident. Then I was reminded that it didn't actually occur *in* Vegas, but on the way there. So:
I am working the neck shaping on the front of the smallest size of the Papillon Pull (although red, and in Baby Ull) from this. I have already finished both sleeves (swatches) and the back, so I have the excitement of the almost done, save for seaming and collar.
"Bind off center . . . 9 sts, . . . and working both sides at once, bind off from each neck edge 4 sts once, 3 once, 2 sts 2 times, 1 st 3 times. Work even until piece measures . . . 24 cm . . . . Bind off rem . . . 15 sts . . . each side for shoulders."
I am ready to cast off the remaining . . . 15 stitches?
There are 23.
23 ≠ 15.
I count again.
And 23 still ≠ 15.
I verify the neck is shaped correctly. Maybe there's a mistake in the pattern?
I compare the neck shaping on the front to the neck shaping on the back:
Front: 9 + 4x2 + 3x2 + 2x4 + 1x6 = 37.
Back: 1 (placket) + 13x2 + 5x2 = 37.
37 = 37. Everything should be just fine. But 23 ≠ 15.
Or does it? Perhaps I am transported to an alternate universe where those "laws" of math do not apply? (This phenomenon would really come in handy, if only it could be controlled.)
But why didn't I have this problem with the back? I compare the actual, knitted back to the actual, almost knitted front. (Because I am *convinced* there is something wrong with this pattern.)
But the back has 15 stitches on each shoulder. This is *insane*. . . . Wait a second. Those look like armholes. Why does the back have armholes? The front certainly doesn't have . . . armholes.
I really would not feel bad about this at all. Forgetting the armholes is, after all, a mistake any knitter could make. But somehow I cannot quite convince myself that it would take any knitter the better part of an hour to figure it out.
I leave you with this: