cont — Continue (Abbreviation)

cont stands for "continue" — an instruction to keep working in whatever stitch pattern or shaping sequence has already been established, without the pattern re-spelling out every individual step again.

Why cont assumes you're tracking the established pattern

"Cont in patt as set" is shorthand that leans entirely on you remembering (or being able to look back and identify) exactly what pattern was set up in the preceding rows — it deliberately doesn't re-describe the stitch sequence, on the assumption that repeating it in full would be redundant. This works well as long as the established pattern is genuinely clear; it becomes a real source of confusion if the "established" pattern itself was ambiguous or if you've lost track of exactly where in a multi-row repeat you are.

Where the assumption can trip you up

If a stitch pattern has a multi-row repeat (say, a 4-row cable sequence) and "cont in patt" appears without restating which specific row of that 4-row repeat comes next, it's genuinely easy to lose your place, especially after a break from the project. Marking your place on a printed pattern, or using a row counter reset at each repeat's start, is worth doing specifically so a bare "cont" instruction doesn't leave you guessing.

Where it shows up

Anywhere a pattern wants to avoid re-writing an already-established sequence — "cont in St st until piece measures 10 inches," "cont shaping as set every 4th row" — both leaning on context already given earlier in the pattern.

Related abbreviations

• beg — begin, cont's natural counterpart marking where a sequence started
• rep — repeat, a related but distinct instruction to redo a specific named sequence rather than simply continue an already-flowing one

FAQ

Is "cont" the same instruction as "rep"? Related but not identical — rep typically points back to a specific, named repeated block ("rep rows 1-4"), while cont more loosely means "keep going the way you have been," without necessarily naming a discrete block to repeat.

What should I do if I genuinely can't remember what pattern was "established" before a cont instruction? Look back at the most recent rows actually worked and the last row-by-row instructions the pattern gave explicitly — reconstructing the established sequence from your own recent work is usually more reliable than guessing from the pattern's general description alone.