I got the wartime VKB for £3.53 – no strategy required, although I was sitting there in a sweat, refreshing the screen every eight seconds. The underbidders, judging from their previous purchases, were happy pickers-up of unconsidered trifles with no appetite at all for nuclear confrontation, and there was, thank goodness, no loony except me lurking in the wings.

I’ll tell you all about it when I’ve got it in my hands.

We had a good day in Glasgow, and a delicious lunch in an unpretentious place on Renfield Street called “Charcoals”. We hadn’t seen Ketki’s parents for years. They seem well, and we all agreed on the excellence of our common grandsons.

But we’re very tired.

I discovered that the current travel socks are further on than I remembered – that doesn’t happen very often. With yesterday’s train-knitting added in, I have all but finished the first one. I’ll post a picture soon. I’m going to try my new-style purling for the ribbing of the second. I doubt if the difference, if perceptible at all, will be obtrusive to a gentleman sock-wearer.

But for today, here are pictures from Rachel’s husband Ed’s fiftieth birthday party, in London last Sunday. My sister is wearing her new shawl, although her 70th birthday for which it was intended, isn’t until December. I want to try out these pictures because they are low in pixels, and it has been suggested that it is a high pixel-count which Blogger holds against me. Being the mother-in-law of a man of 50, for some reason, isn’t nearly as scary as being the mother of a woman of 48.

Well! look at that. On the left, my sister with (I think, probably) Rachel. And on the right, nothing.
















We decided for various reasons – including the visit of the old friends who were here last week, which had been planned since before Christmas – not to go to the party, but to hit London early in June instead.

I’m casting off the shrug, and should have a picture of it being blocked, by Thursday.

Comment

Carol, thank you for the interesting etymology. I wish you were here so that we could explore the question of whether the Yiddish and Hebrew “ch” sounds anything like the Scottish one, as in “loch”, etc.