How to Count Weaves Per Square Inch?

[jimmy the lid]

I am a bit confused about the methodology for counting weaves per square inch on a Panama hat. I posted the following photo in The Panama Canal Thread, and Carter opined that it shows approximately 144 wpsi:

So, Carter -- that must mean that you are counting this way:

Based upon other materials I've come across, I thought that the count might go this way:

Then again, it's not clear to me why one wouldn't measure along the line of the weave, which would yield this:

Anyways, I'm clearly confused. Any help on this would be welcome!

Cheers,
JtL

 

[carter]

On the other hand, I'm 1/2 bind.

I think you are correct. Looks like approx 400 wpsi. [huh]

I retract this statement. It was late. I was under duress. They coerced me into writing this. I cracked like a rotten egg!

 

[jimmy the lid]

Thanks for the reply, Carter. I think the jury's still out on this -- but it's something I've always wondered about. Under Scenario #1 above, the wpsi count would be in the 150 range. Under Scenario #2, the wpsi count would be in the 600 range. Under Scenario #3, it would be in the 400 range. Based upon what I've read on Panama Bob's website, I don't think that Scenario #3 is the right way to do it, although it seems the most straightforward. Anyway, I'm really curious about this.

Cheers,
JtL

 

[HamletJSD]

I'd love to see PB or Art ring in here... I have wondered the same thing for a long time.

 

[Panamabob]

This is a brisa weave hat. You can count the wpsi, yes, but it doesn't mean the same as it does in the llano/montecristi weave. I'd call it a brisa second tier up, meaning a grade 3/4 or 5/6, depending on the vendor.


On the llano you just pick one inch, count the crossweaves as you go with the weave and then against the weave and multiply and you are in the neighborhood. Or, as some do, take a magnifyer and actually count the crossweaves in one square inch. The Montecristi cuenta, as BB and PHD call it, is for Llano weave only.

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

Well, that certainly clears things up.

 

[Panamabob]

I'm sorry if I'm unclear. The sarcastic eyes are making me think I've done something wrong.

The Brisa weave leaves the diamond or honeycombed shape in the hat. Brisa weave hat, one-two days of weaving because the paja is doubled over doubled when weaving. The Llano is one to one, and in Cuenca could mean 2-3 weeks of weaving. In Montecristi, much longer because they only weave at certain times. In Cuenca, they weave all day every day if needed.

A nice little set of pictures:

http://www.panamas.co.uk/info_grades.htm

 

[jimmy the lid]

Many thanks for the input, Bob. Much appreciated.

In terms of counting technique, do any of the examples I posted illustrate the right way to count weaves (Given your input, I understand that these are photos of a brisa, rather than a llano weave -- but in terms of illustrating how to count, are any of them correct?)

Cheers,
JtL

 

[Belegnole]

Love learning new thinks thanks, Bob and Jimmy

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

In terms of counting technique, do any of the examples I posted illustrate the right way to count weaves (Given your input, I understand that these are photos of a brisa, rather than a llano weave -- but in terms of illustrating how to count, are any of them correct?)

Cheers,
JtL

That's the question to which I'm also eager to read the answer.

Bob, I meant no personal zingers there. I thought I was sounding like Groucho Marx (in an effort to be jovial) but may have come across accidentally as just 'Grouch'. :eusa_doh: Anyway, I guess I'm just used to hanging around with guys who aren't real fragile when it comes to some ribbin'. I've never met you but because of all of your contributions to this site I feel like I know you - - and I instinctively like you.

But is it photo scenario #1, #2 or #3?

 

[carter]

Now I'm even more confused. On the site posted by Panama Bob, it reads:

Grading Panama Hats

Grading is a measure of weave density per inch. This is determined by counting the number of straws that run in one direction within an inch (2.54 cms) and deducting 10 (ten). The larger this number, the higher the "grade". Hat grades range from 1 to 20 and take between 1 to 60 days to weave. The majority of hats available range from grade 2 to grade 8. This weave density measure is used for classifying hats woven in the area around Cuenca.

So, if the hat posted by JTL is a brisa weave from Cuenca,
then the way I counted originally would be correct.

Therefore, the wpsi count would be approximately 144.

However, the site PB provided reads that the hats are graded from 1-20, not by wpsi. So the hat JTL posted would be a grade 2 ? [huh]

How many alternate methods are there of grading a Panama hat?

What the heck. Wear the hat, enjoy the hat, love the hat, and, if all else fails, send me the hat!

 

[GWD]

LMAO! It seems that grading a panama and grading a felt hat are pretty much the same.

CONFUSING AS HELL! lol

 

[jimmy the lid]

What the heck. Wear the hat, enjoy the hat, love the hat, and, if all else fails, send me the hat!

lol lol lol I'm with you, Carter -- all except that last part! The lid that sparked my curiousity is really nice and I am going to enjoy it immensely. In the end that's what really counts -- the enjoyment per square inch.

Sometimes it seems like buying a Panama is like buying a mattress -- hard to really compare one product to the next. No doubt there are certain objective factors that enter the mix -- but, in the final analysis, a lot of it is pretty subjective.

I'm still curious about that darn counting technique though!

Cheers,
JtL

 

[Panamabob]

From the website: A friend from Cuenca wrote that years ago. I'm trying to work on the website, but don't have the $3500.00 everyone wants...unless you want a Simon Espinal hat for $30,000!

I'd say it is a 3/4 brisa or 5/6, depending on from whom I'm buying. The hat is well woven, that is for sure.

 

[jimmy the lid]

I'd say it is a 3/4 brisa or 5/6, depending on from whom I'm buying. The hat is well woven, that is for sure.

My sense was that this hat [Dobbs Planter's Punch/circa early 60's] is well-woven, but it's nice to hear that from you. Here is a slightly different perspective:

OK, Bob -- now I'm on my knees begging you. Can you offer an opinion on which of the examples above in this thread shows the correct way to count the wpsi?

Cheers,
JtL

 

[mineral]

I am a bit confused about the methodology for counting weaves per square inch on a Panama hat. I posted the following photo in The Panama Canal Thread, and Carter opined that it shows approximately 144 wpsi:

So, Carter -- that must mean that you are counting this way:

Based upon other materials I've come across, I thought that the count might go this way:

Then again, it's not clear to me why one wouldn't measure along the line of the weave, which would yield this:

Anyways, I'm clearly confused. Any help on this would be welcome!

Cheers,
JtL

Your question is actually mathmatical in nature, and this would yield the closest result:

Note that when you square the quantity measured in one length to get the number of weaves per unit area, you are making the implicit assumption that the vertical and horizontal elements should be counted the same way. This is not true if you use Method 1 or Method 2 (which are mathematically equivalent, as I will try to show). Take, for instance, your method 2:

-------------
*X!*X!*X!*X!
X*!X*!X*!X*!
-------------
*2!*4!*6!*8!
1*!3*!5*!7*!

You would notice then that you are stacking like this (A-B denote row-column):

-------------
*3-2!*3-4!*3-6!*3-8!
3-1*!3-3*!3-5*!3-7*!
-------------
*2-2!*2-4!*2-6!*2-8!
2-1*!2-3*!2-5*!2-7*!
-------------
*1-2!*1-4!*1-6!*1-8!
1-1*!1-3*!1-5*!1-7*!

The counting for the vertical component is therefore different from the counting for the horizontal component. The horizontal component is counted in the up-down-up-down way (as you defined it it) and as a result the vertical component is counted in the end point contact way. (Or in other words, your vertical component should be counted like it was done for the horizontal component in Method 1.) If you multiply what you've counted in Method 2 (i.e. 25) with what you counted in Method 1 (i.e. 13), then you have 325, much closer in line with the 400 you obtained in Method 3. (The errors come from ruler placement, curvature in the weave, etc.)

Of course, a much better method would be to draw a one inch square and count by hand the number of weaves in the square. That would be far more reliable and would remove this counting problem.

(Note: I have tried to use no mathematical jargon at all, and I apologise if that was done to extreme and made my point incomprehensible. The idea is that you must first properly define the "unit cell" that by translational symmetry fills the "space", and properly calculate the number of "unit cells" within the area and then multiply the number of "weaves" you have included within "unit cell" to get the total number of weaves. I have marked out each "unit cell" in my above schematic for your Method 1/2 with - and !. Method 3 works because each "unit cell" has 1 "weave" rather than 2 in Method 1/2.)

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

Mineral, that was pretty cool of you - and very thorough. Thanks!!

If one were to count all the weaves might I suggest taking a piece of dark construction paper, cutting a 1" square out of it. Place that on the straw and take a digital photo. Then zoom in and count more comfortably than with a ruler by eye.

[huh]

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

OK, I had PMd Bob the other day to be sure he knew I wasn't attacking him with my "Well, that certainly clears things up" remark. I hesitated to copy his reply because it is a 'private message' but in the interest of answering the question of this thread and on his behalf, here's this from Bob:
------------------
Re: Sorry, Bob
No problem. I misunderstood. You should see some of the emails and PM's that I get...wow!

I think photo 3 is the one I use most often, but on the up/down counting it sometimes is more like photo 1, depending on the weaver's technique.

Thanks,

Robert
-----------------

Whew!

 

[jimmy the lid]

Wow. Mineral, thanks a million for taking the time to go through that. :eusa_clap I won't be able to completely follow your methodology until my third cup of coffee, but I think I'm getting the drift!

Thanks, also, Gene for sharing Bob's thoughts.

It always seemed to me that technique #3 would provide the most straightforward, reliable results. If one were to do a horizontal and vertical count along the weave, then multiplying the two counts would yield an accurate wpsi number. The thing is -- in most of the photos on the web, the ruler is not placed along the weave. Like Bob says, I guess that the actual technique may vary slightly based upon the nature of the weave itself.

I think the one thing this exercise has taught me is that third-party wpsi counts should probably be taken with a grain of salt...

Cheers,
JtL

 

[mineral]

Wow. Mineral, thanks a million for taking the time to go through that. :eusa_clap I won't be able to completely follow your methodology until my third cup of coffee, but I think I'm getting the drift!

....

I think the one thing this exercise has taught me is that third-party wpsi counts should probably be taken with a grain of salt...

Cheers,
JtL

You are much welcome.

Actually, I would argue that wpsi is probably never a good number to use. Judging from my own Montecristi, the weaves nearer the center of the hat are significantly smaller than the weaves outside. This permits opportunities for massive gaming of the numbers. Also, because the weaves run in circles, measuring it using anything straight will always lead to frustration.

I suppose a better way to judge the density of the weave is actually to count the number of weaves around one of these concentric circles and then divide 360 by this number to get the angle associated with each weave. I would agree this is going to be extremely tedious but I think the angle gives a much better objective measure of density than the wpsi (which probably has a measuring error of 100-200).