Thursday, 8 March 2012

OTTBS finish-a-long

Following last month's OTTBS finish-a-long sucess, I thought I'd join in again this month. I have a bracelet that I started a month or so ago. It came about after getting some free twin beads from the facebook page of Preciosa. I decided that I wanted to join the twins with jumprings and finally settled on a design similar to 6 in 1 chainmaille. The twin beads take the place of the smaller 6 rings. Here's how it looked. (Please excuse the slightly goose pimple arms! Its a little chilly today and I don't put the heating on if its only me in unless it gets majorly freezing)

Now I like this look but the problem is, its not very stable. The twins flip and the rings slip under each other. A bit of a shake sometimes rights it but not always. I decided to live with it for a bit but it got on my nerves so I decided I would have to do something about it. Then I didn't!

So that brings me to this month's finish along project.... sort out this bracelet. I picked up some delica drops and size 8s thinking that popping some on the edges would solve my problem. I've started but am not sure. The drops weren't working so I've been adding 4 size 8s to the outer rings. It has not completely solved the stability issue, but it has greatly improved it and it might be even better if I carry on. The look is quite different though, much less open. Here's the bit I've done so far.

What do you think? I'd appreciate any thoughts or ideas. I'm torn at the mo. Do I: carry on with it and live with it a bit; try and find another way of sorting it; or just frog it and do something else with the beads?


EDITED to add this picture so you can get a better idea of what's going wrong with the whole stability issue!
PS. Its really tricky to take a picture of your right arm with your left hand when you're right haded. Soemone didn't think that through properly!!


Jet said...

i really like the version with the 8s on the outside. gives it a more cohesive look and a really interesting scalloped edge.

Sally Anderson said...

I like both of them but really love the open version. I'm sorry it isn't stable because I love the look of it. Would adding more twins to the rings work? Is there room to add more? But both versions are really pretty!

Anna Fjellborg said...

It looks great, I really love the design and the idea of combining the twin beads with jump-rings, like chain mail.
I must say that my favorite look is the one with the 8/0's, it looks a bit more interesting then the one without them :)

Gemma said...

Thanks for your comments and thoughts Jet, Sally and Anna. And thanks too to Tracey, Danielle and Kristen for your thoughts on the OTTBS facebook page.
I'm not sure if there is room to add more twins due to the curve if the I'd have to buy more.
I do have one or two spare so could possibly test it.

SusanJ said...

This is the first time i've seen someone use jump rings and twin beads together. Wow, what a combo! They both look amazing.Could you possible use two jump rings instead of one in the first photo? I don't have twin beads yet so I really don't know how big the holes are.

Gemma said...

Thanks SusanJ!
The holes aren't big enough to fit 2 rings through though I'm afraid.

Charters said...

I like the light and openness of the 1st pic. Could you wire wrap (still light looking and silver will brighten the effect), between the rings - where its sort of 'triangular' shape.

The outside leave totally as it is, giving that lovely lacy look.

ruthie said...

Would using silver coloured size 8s return it to a more open look? Or switching down to 11s

Beads By Becs said...

I LOVE the way it looks with the 8s on. As pretty as it was without them, I did think it looked a little bit flimsy... it looks much more structural and unusual with the 8s. I say carry on adding! :)

Carolyn said...

I also like the look with the 8s added on. Looks more finished. But I like the idea of a lacy looking bracelet, hope you can find a solution to your problem.


Post a Comment

Thanks for stopping by. I love reading your comments.