Comments on: Financial Times 14,092 by Mudd

By: Pete Maclean

Pete Maclean — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:05:31 +0000

Wil, I think now that I was a bit mixed up about 26ac. Looking at it again in light of your comment it does seem more reasonable. Thanks.

By: Wil Ransome

Wil Ransome — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:36:17 +0000

26ac seems to me to be OK, Pete: there are various types of stitch and one of them (I assume) is a back stitch, so to say ‘For example, back’ is to say ‘One example of a stitch is a back stitch’.

Where I went wrong was to assume in 4ac that a fowler (“fouler”) was a retailer, someone who sold fowl; but he’s really more someone who catches fowl, I think.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:00:29 +0000

Many thanks Pete & Mudd.

This was very enjoyable and, even though I had opted for BRAHMS in 1a, the double meaning of the clue escaped me.

Your research, as always, is impeccable.

Naughty but impeccable.

By: James

James — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:03:02 +0000

For the “more disgusting retailer” at 4A, I had ICKIER which caused me no little trouble with the down clues.

By: Pete Maclean

Pete Maclean — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:41:39 +0000

Hello crypticsue. Thank you for commenting. I may have tackled a very few DT cryptics back in the early 70s, probably without completing any clue for POCHARD.

By: crypticsue

crypticsue — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:35:01 +0000

You obviously didn’t solve the DT cryptics back in the late 60s early 70s. The POCHARD was a regular visitor to the crossword, so much so that when I ever saw one, I used to refer to it as the crossword puzzle duck.

Tricky but nice – a perfect Saturday puzzle, thanks to Mudd and Pete