I was just reading your article on Tied Overshot (“The Draft: Tied Overshot,” Handwoven May/June 2016, pp. 16–18). Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn’t look like the drawdown and the treadling match in Figure 2, page 16.
You are so right, and the treadling in the figure is wrong. Especially terrible about mistakes like this is the way they interfere with the reader’s understanding of exactly what you are trying so hard to explain. Mistakes are easy to make in drawings like these (though this is no excuse). This kind of drawing isn’t generated by a weaving program; it is created in a drawing program, where each mark is individually placed.
In Figure 2, the marks in the treadling are wrong. If you looked at the threads in the drawdown for each pick of weaving, you could figure out the correct treadling, but that is not a job the reader is supposed to have to do. So, readers, I am so sorry.
If you compare Figure 2 with Figure 2 Revised, notice that the first half of the revised treadling is divided into two parts. First, tie-down 1 is raised with shaft 4; shaft 3 is down and a float goes over the second half of Block A, where shafts 2 and 3 are threaded together. Then, in the second part of the first half of the treadling, shaft 2 is raised with shaft 4, and the float goes over the first half of Block A, where shafts 1 and 3 are threaded together. The second half of the full treadling does the same thing in Block B (with shaft 4) when shaft 3 is raised.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are too many halves and ups and downs in all the words about this. The reality of what is happening in weaving is always simpler than words about it make it sound. And mistakes like this one only make it so much worse.
I hope this helps, and again, I am so sorry. I am always sorry to discover errors in anything we do, but grateful to have them pointed out so that corrections can be published.