NOT the same old, same old.

Here are a lot of stitches I haven't seen before. Thank you, Melissa Leapman. Most newer stitch dictionaries I have seen are reruns of the ones that have been around awhile, namely Barbara Walker, the original Sunset/Harmony and the French one (Tricotiere?). Leapman's book is a real addition to my collection. While not all of the designs are new to me, the originals are well-balanced, often with good play of light and dark and more subtle tones. I can picture their usefulness for a number of project types.
The methods involved in knitting the stitches are all in my knitting vocabulary. There aren't any moves that involve extreme needle-hicular acrobatics--calisthenics and twisting yes; circus-level contortions, no. The explanations of the techniques in the back matter are clear. The drawings are exceptionally informative and were certainly done by an artist who understands knitting.
A lot of swatches have both right and wrong side views. I'd like to see ALL of the wrong side views, even if they aren't considered suitable for the front of one's knitting. I'm nosy that way. I believe that dictionaries should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The many wrong side views take us a long way in that direction, but let's go all the way.
The photography on the swatches is sharp and easy to read with the exception of many of the holey stitches. You can't see the holes. This happens a lot in stitch dictionaries, but isn't necessary. Also, as is standard, the charts are too small with no attention paid to other readability enhancements, such as font. The symbols are even hard to make out on the key to the symbols. I ask that publishers put more effort into book design when it comes to the graphics.
As a knitting stitch dictionary aficionado and knitter, I highly recommend The Knit Stitch Pattern Handbook by Melissa Leapman. ( )