Crossstitchforum - A FREE forum for Cross Stitchers

I've finally gotten around to folding in a large amount of floss given to me by the family when a relative passed away last year. As I've been doing this, I wonder all over again - how in the world does DMC determine what number it assigns to its colors? WHY do they skip large blocks of numbers? WHY do they sometimes assign non-sequential numbers in what appears to be color families, only to turn around and put a bright pink and bright blue next to each other with sequential numbers? I remember asking myself these questions when I got enough of a stash to start using the Lo-Ran organizer with the thread cards, and again when I re-organized into my hanging file system. Having to incorporate all this extra thread has brought up these questions again. Do any of y'all have any ideas/answers?

I have had a theory about that. It's entirely speculation and based on nothing other than deep cynicism.

I am sure that DMC chose the numbers entirely randomly so that they could then catch out other manufacturers with copyright issues if any similar numbers in similar orders were published.

But then I could be entirely wrong and there is a deep system in there somewhere. But I'd be astonished.

Regards,

Richard

richardandtracy wrote: there is a deep system in there somewhere

Method in their madness? As you say, unlikely

I wonder whether they give numbers to whatever they develop, in order, and some of the colours never make it to the range - that would explain, a) why a fair few colour "families" do have consecutive numbers, b) why there are gaps, and c) why, when a family gains a new member later, it has to get a non-consecutive number (unless there happened to be a gap, I suppose).

I'm sure they did it to drive us stitchers crazy!!!!

I have often wondered that myself. It annoys the orderliness in me to just jump entire blocks of numbers. It would be a good question to ask them though.

I have no idea about the numbering system but was recently wondering why charters don't use a standard symbol for each DMC colour. It would make life so much easier for those of us doing multiple projects.

BizzieLizzie wrote:I have no idea about the numbering system but was recently wondering why charters don't use a standard symbol for each DMC colour. It would make life so much easier for those of us doing multiple projects.

Well, if Richard's theory is correct, I guess the same sort of logic would apply. If there were standard symbols, then it would be too easy for pattern thieves to copy/publish patterns with the correct colors.

On the other hand I know that every now and then they bring out a "new range" of shades in a set colour which would explain why some blues are in the 900's whilst others are in 4 figure numbers.

Just a thought to throw in the ring.

BizzieLizzie wrote:was recently wondering why charters don't use a standard symbol for each DMC colour. It would make life so much easier for those of us doing multiple projects.

Having charted things myself I'll give my personal view on it, which is that you would need an enormous amount of different symbols, which means that some of them would be very complicated/detailed. And lots of designs need only 10 or 20 symbols (I'm obviously not talking HAEDs here...)

If my design uses, say, three shades of red and three shades of blue, I might choose to use a dark circle, open circle and dot for the reds (from dark to light) and a dark square, open square and vertical line for the blues (again from dark to light). But if I was compelled to use the "standard" symbols, I might end up with things like a cross with a circle through it, or two lines together with a dot in the middle, or whatever. You know how complicated they can get.

I do try to be consistent in that a small dot is always the lightest colour in my design (white, for example, or lightest pink or yellow), and symbols for darker shades are darker, so you can tell the picture from the chart if you look at it with your eyes half closed.

BizzieLizzie wrote:... but was recently wondering why charters don't use a standard symbol for each DMC colour. It would make life so much easier for those of us doing multiple projects.

There is a small matter of copyright. If it's done with a font, who owns the font? Will they demand payment? If so, from every chart or every program seller? If the symbols are drawn, will someone claim copyright on the shapes? Will it make free charting programs a thing of the past?
Then there is the small problem of who defines which symbol for each thread. Would it be the ISO organisation, who charge for every standard? Or the US government who are currently moving away from 'free to user' standards? Or do we encourage DMC define the symbols to go along side their absurd numbering system? And could we trust them, on the basis of their present absurdities, to define sensible chart symbols?
As a UK programmer, would I feel the slightest obligation to follow a US, EU or DMC diktat as to which symbol for which DMC thread I was to program into my chart program? Probably not; So who would enforce it? Would it be possible to ensure conformity? Would it even be desirable in a time of individualism?
And then what happens if I feel I don't actually like some of the symbols and don't want ever to see them again due to some personal or cultural connotation? (Eg a swastika used to be a symbol of good luck from pre-history, but now has a totally different significance in Europe & N.America but may have almost no recent cultural significance in SE Asia). Should I be forced to use it despite my parochial personal/cultural objections?
Finally, in many situations people like the average brightness of the symbol to match the average brightness of the thread. What if an unused symbol better matches the thread brightness? Does the person receiving the chart just have to lump it?
Then what happens to blends? In theory there are well over 100,000 blends possible from DMC colours. Not all of them are viable as the colours in the threads are too different - about 10,000 to 12,000 are viable and unlikely to break down easily, so should only these have their own symbols, or should there be symbols for all possible ones? Then what about Anchor, Kreink and.. and.. and any of the ones available. And what if I want to blend between Anchor & DMC? New symbols again? You could easily be looking at 500,000 symbols being needed. That is quite a few to handle.

I know I have answered a question with a lot of questions. It's not because I want to be a pain, I am using them to highlight the areas where general & international agreement would have to be sought & cultural sensitivities soothed. In theory I think it's a good-ish idea, but on closer examination of the details, possibly the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Regards,

Richard.

Or how we progress mostly nicely from 100-900 and suddenly it's like, 3370 and 3760. WHERE DID 1000-3000 GO?

We may never know. Or someone can go get a job there and ask. They'll probably realize that person is secretly a hobbyist who wants to know and kick them out.

Often wondered & thought it may be to do with people copying their colours but my main thought was I imagine years ago when they started out they did not have as many shades as they have now. For example they may have had 250 shades when first starting up & every so often over the years have been able to make even more different shades.

That's what I've always assumed, Lavenderbee. DMC began with a broad range of colours and hues, but demand grew particularly after chemical dyes became the norm, perhaps?

What I always found helpful with DMC was how they use the same basic colour number across the range (say 321 red) and use a prefix (E for Light Effects or S for Satin) to denote different types of threads. Anchor, of course, does the same thing. And because these two manufacturers produce top-quality thread, it's possible to use both sets to fill in for missing colours: if the exact shade of blue is missing from DMC you'll probably find it in Anchor. And DMC is well known for the range of reds available. Curious, isn't it?

I agree with that thought as well. I know it s the same with knitting yarns. My mum would be really amazed & delighted at the wide variety of colours & fibres in knitting yarn now compared to when I was young. She was an avid knitter so we were often in yarn shops. Way back then DK & 4 plain were the main thicknesses she used. We also used to make my dad socks but I cant remember if she used 3 ply or not. I can remember holding 3 double ended needles with brown wool on them, that is all. Occasionally had Aran yarn but not often.

A few years later when I was a teenager nylon, crepe & courtelle yarns were made as machines & techniques were advanced. Then when I had children of my own I had even more of a variety of fibres,colours & tweeded yarns to choose from. When I go in my local yarn shop it is a kaleidoscope of colours, so many it is like walking in to rainbow. That's my way of describing it maybe someone has a better description.

In addition to all the plain colours there are now marbled, mixed colours & self patterning etc. My mum would never have guessed knitting yarn would be self patterning after her lifetime but if she had seen it I know she would have loved it.

So maybe adding every few years to available stock is the way the manufacturers number their threads.