Another cloth diaper question...

Everyone is right about those rag-like very thin diapers. I didn't pay
enough attention to which ones they were, though I also got a pack
before my first was born. The perfect fold won't do if there is not
enough substance to the diaper. If you really don't want to replace
them you could just think of them as 1/2-1/3 diaper each. Use Leslie's
method to double, or triple them by laying 2 flat on top of each other,
then fold another into thirds lengthwise and center on top of the first
2 before putting on baby.

The snappi is a great invention, but my first was a very chubby baby
and actually got too fat for it to work, even with the larger sizes of
rectangular prefold.

--Betsy

"Cheri Stryker" wrote in message
...
xkatx wrote:

[snip]
flat ones. We have some - I believe they are Gerber brand - and the
package they came in says they are the tri-fold ones... You fold them
into thirds, and then pin them up with safety baby pins.
Here's the ones...

Oooh. I bought some of those Gerber ones for the first baby, and I didn't
like them at all. (For diapering, that is, they make fine burp cloths...)
I really didn't like the texture of the material - in fact, using them as
burp cloths early on for my newest boy gave him what looked like rugburn
all over his chin!

I bought a pack of them a little bit before DD was born. Then I had put a
second pack on our baby registry at Walmart for our baby shower, and we did
the whole registry gong show about 5 days before DD was born - baby shower
was set for when DD was about 2 weeks old...
When I first made an attempt to use these silly Gerber ones, I sat down with
my mom and she told me how they fold. At first, they did look like decent
diapers... They were reasonably priced - I believe around $20 for 8 or 12?
(can't remember how many were in the pack, but something like that) and I
wasn't willing/able to buy those terry no folds (are they called?) for
something like $65 for 5 or 6 of them! It's bad enough the wraps I use are
around $6 each, but I love them
I mentioned to my mom that they seemed a bit big and thin... She figured
after washing them they'd shrink a bit and become a bit thicker. Turned out
that they didn't shrink, they just got fairly deformed - the finished edges
stayed long, but the long, unfinished edges were the ones that kinda sorta
shrunk and didn't really wash nicely at all. *yes, I did follow the washing
instructions *
I tend to use the ones that aren't the Gerber ones - we have a whole variety
of thicker ones that wash nicely and keep their shape/size and also fold
nicely, but again, it comes down to folding a rectangle.

I really would suggest contacting a diaper service and checking out what
their diapers are like. There's nothing stopping you from doing your own
washing, but the diapers are so much better - smoother, more absorbent,
kind of feel like layers of T-shirt material; and you could probably cut a
deal to buy older diapers from them. You could also check EBay, or do a
search online for "WAHM diaper", to find lots of people anxious to sell
you really nice diapers. I know you've got a lot of investment in diapers
with the ones you've already got, but how much is your irritation worth?
(That seems to be a big equation in my life, right now....)

Yea, I could only guess how many diapers we have total, as well as how many
of which kind... Maybe one day soon I'll have nothing better to do and will
count them
I've searched locally on the local freecycles, forsale newsgroups and other
similar places online with VERY little luck.
I've gone so far as to check consignment stores, but their prices are
obnoxious for used stuff at a consignment store!

[snip]
snip
I laughed when I read that you want a diaper with no "Physics degree"
required for DH: men are "supposedly" the ones who know that stuff
intuitively!

Eh heh heh... He won't even deal with the ones that are shaped and all you
have to do is lift bum up, put diaper (unfolded under bum) put bum back down
and pull top up and attach the velcro! I have to fight with him for that,
and often he'll sneak off to the pack of disposables I usually like to keep
for outings when I do NOT care to carry around a bag of poop and pee and
soiled material

--
Cheri Stryker
mom to DS1 - almost 7!, and DS2 - 2.5 months

"betsy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here is what I do:

1) Pick up baby's bottom, slide flat diaper under lengthwise. Put down
bottom.

2) Use one hand to fold sides in sharply. Front corners sort of come
to a point or cross. This makes diaper narrow enough to go through
baby's legs.

3) Pull diaper through baby's legs.

4) Flare out top front just enough to pin, keeping taut between legs.
If not using pins, use thumb and pinkie to hold diaper in place where
back and front overlap.

If there is extra length fold it down. If you know how much extra
length there will be, you can fold down the back in advance instead.

5) Put on diaper cover. Diaper will probably be sticking out on both
sides between legs.

6) Gently pull cover and push in diaper at legs.

If it is not possible to push diaper into cover, it needs to be folded
more sharply, or baby may be small enough that the whole length of the
diaper needs folding.


Since the diaper fills the whole cover, but does not stick out, there
is less chance of poop touching the cover

--Betsy.

Whoa, another Betsy...

In article ioR5g.5269$a7.44@edtnps90, "xkatx" wrote:

I've looked and looked for different methods of folding flats... NOTHING
seems to work for me. I just *can't* fold them any way... The problem seems
to be that the flat diapers we have are NOT square - they're very much
rectangle shape, I guess for the tri-fold method? Not sure, but this way of
folding just doesn't cut it.
Anyways... Does anyone else deal with non-square flat diapers? Anyone know
of any sites that give some ideas on folding this type? It seems that every
place I've been able to look up has folding methods for square diapers, and
I've tried folding the rectangle ones the same way for the square ones on
the pages, but it doesn't seem to work... I end up with a big crumpled mess
of material that falls apart...

The nappies are just too small. The website says they are 9x7 in, which is
23x18cm in metric. I love the way they call it a "generous" size. I suppose
it's generous if you're using it as a hanky. My square terry-towelling
nappies were 60cm (2 ft) square when new, but have shrunk a bit.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Chookie wrote:

The nappies are just too small. The website says they are 9x7 in, which is
23x18cm in metric.

I think that size is the dimensions of the package of folded diapers.
Otherwise they'd be dramatically smaller than a preemie prefold, which
is hard to imagine.

Still sounds like they're just not absorbent enough - non-terry flats
tend to be suitable for newborn nappies only. Birdseye is a very thin
fabric. (I've heard less than enthusiastic reviews about Gerber diapers
in general - their prefolds are also thin, and have polyester wadding
which tends to hold stink and contribute to compression wicking.)

Lara

Do yourself a huge favor and get some diaper service quality prefolds.
I followed Larry's advice and got seconds from a local diaper service.
Not pretty, but at $.25 each, they're cheaper than some disposables.
Those "seconds" are far more diaper-worthy than brand new gerber flats
ever will be. Gerber flats make okay burp cloths and good wipe up rags,
but contain poo or pee? Sheesh.

I do have to confess... Since our financial situation relaxed and my
schedule got crazy, and since I discovered that I was able to get away
with more citric acid if Shiny was in 'sposies, I have not used cloth
at all. I found cheapie disposables that did us fine (she's a *very*
light wetter) at about 11 cents each and I think that my "nuisance
factor" threshhold for cloth is at about 12 cents per. I may go back to
cloth in a few months, maybe. Maybe.

Jenrose