The historic Ipswich lace samples we have from Ipswich MA from 1789-1790 use whole stitch CTCT kat stitch as the ground. So, I am assuming that was the normal way of making that ground at that place and time with minimal use of pins. The prickings do show pins being used in the kat stitch ground.  However, there are a number of other Ipswich-looking laces in Museums in the US that has a different kat stitch ground, like the one in the Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/lace-colle...  TE.H39069 where it looks like the kat stitch was made with CT pin CT or more likely TC pin TC, and also large pinholes in the vertical intersections. This would have taken more time and pins.  From a distance, it looks like honeycomb stitches but there is only one twist (and cross).  

Any suggestions/ideas of when/where this type of ground might have been made?  

Views: 61

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm going to take a closer look at those MoMu pieces and see if I can tell on those.

Zoomed in on this--does it have the same almost-honeycomb features?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Border_%28ST51%...

I feel like it's similar? But I'm not quite there with the details.



Mary Mangan said:

Zoomed in on this--does it have the same almost-honeycomb features?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Border_%28ST51%...

I feel like it's similar? But I'm not quite there with the details.

Yes, it is the same, and several others are, too.

Yes, it is the same, and many of the other Museum pieces are, too. 

I have seen books on freehand lace from Queras and other towns in the mountains between France & Italy. Those typically used Paris ground (kat stitch). I don't know their exact age, whether 19th/20th c or much earlier. No pines used.

In the modern age, of course, Paris ground is used in bits in Binche, and no pins are used.

In honeycomb and Paris/kat stitch the threads travel exactly the same path. But as stated in this discussion, the difference is an extra twist in the honeycomb. That's what makes those tiny little holes. Kat stitch doesn't have those holes.

These are not direct answers, but might add something.

That is exactly what puzzles me. It looks like honeycomb because of the large holes but when looking closer, there is only one twist, so it must be the pin, which must have stayed in for a good while for the holes to be so consistent. And that means that a great number of pins were used.   

Lorelei Halley Administrator said:

I have seen books on freehand lace from Queras and other towns in the mountains between France & Italy. Those typically used Paris ground (kat stitch). I don't know their exact age, whether 19th/20th c or much earlier. No pines used.

In the modern age, of course, Paris ground is used in bits in Binche, and no pins are used.

In honeycomb and Paris/kat stitch the threads travel exactly the same path. But as stated in this discussion, the difference is an extra twist in the honeycomb. That's what makes those tiny little holes. Kat stitch doesn't have those holes.

These are not direct answers, but might add something.

I was jealous of the other women's cloaks today at my re-enactor event. And I began to think about making this MFA one for next docent season. I went back to look at it today to get a sense of how much yardage of silk I'll need to watch for some sales, and I noticed that the museum now has close ups of the lace trim. I don't remember them having that detail before.

And one of them has this gappy honeycomb look to me. 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/326482/womans-hooded-cloak

Is that the same situation do you think? 

The first one, which goes around the hood looks like the pinned-in-the-center kat stitch. But closer details would be needed to verify.  As far as I know, it has not been reproduced yet.  The lace that goes around the cape is # 18 and has regular honeycomb ground.  The MFA thinks both were made in Ipswich, which is good to know.  

That would be a fun project for you.  It is a beautiful cape.  I would like to think I could offer to make a reproduction pattern of the hood lace but I am not sure when that would happen.  I would need much closer close-ups. 

Mary Mangan said:

I was jealous of the other women's cloaks today at my re-enactor event. And I began to think about making this MFA one for next docent season. I went back to look at it today to get a sense of how much yardage of silk I'll need to watch for some sales, and I noticed that the museum now has close ups of the lace trim. I don't remember them having that detail before.

And one of them has this gappy honeycomb look to me. 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/326482/womans-hooded-cloak

Is that the same situation do you think? 

One thing I would love to know from these long pieces is the length of an average piece of lace--is that continuous yardage around the bottom, or is it pieced from some typical shorter pieces. 

I think that Doris said that MFA wasn't letting people in still anyway. But someday. And I'd love to see the Zilpah one in Maine as well. 

The MFA might also be tempted to do better shots of the other Ipswiches. I might thank them for these and then ask for better shots. 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/313741/womans-hood

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/50167/womans-cap

I should probably attempt that hood first as a reasonable goal! The 6 feet I made for my shawl bottom wasn't even enough. 



Karen Thompson said:

The first one, which goes around the hood looks like the pinned-in-the-center kat stitch. But closer details would be needed to verify.  As far as I know, it has not been reproduced yet.  The lace that goes around the cape is # 18 and has regular honeycomb ground.  The MFA thinks both were made in Ipswich, which is good to know.  

That would be a fun project for you.  It is a beautiful cape.  I would like to think I could offer to make a reproduction pattern of the hood lace but I am not sure when that would happen.  I would need much closer close-ups. 

Mary Mangan said:

I was jealous of the other women's cloaks today at my re-enactor event. And I began to think about making this MFA one for next docent season. I went back to look at it today to get a sense of how much yardage of silk I'll need to watch for some sales, and I noticed that the museum now has close ups of the lace trim. I don't remember them having that detail before.

And one of them has this gappy honeycomb look to me. 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/326482/womans-hooded-cloak

Is that the same situation do you think? 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Translate This Site

PAGES

Pages for Needle Lace

Pag    search

Beginners     search

Notes

HOW THE SOFTWARE WORKS

Created by Lorelei Halley Administrator Jan 19, 2012 at 7:07pm. Last updated by Lorelei Halley Administrator Dec 9, 2014.

PHOTOS

Created by Lorelei Halley Administrator Jan 19, 2012 at 7:29pm. Last updated by Lorelei Halley Administrator Sep 2, 2014.

How to Post a Long Article

Created by Lorelei Halley Administrator Mar 7, 2013 at 4:47pm. Last updated by Lorelei Halley Administrator Mar 7, 2013.

COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

Created by Lorelei Halley Administrator Jan 19, 2012 at 6:58pm. Last updated by Lorelei Halley Administrator Dec 20, 2012.

How to embed a video on the IOLI site

Created by Tatman Jan 25, 2012 at 3:26pm. Last updated by Lorelei Halley Administrator Jan 25, 2012.

Members

Events

Other Events

Laurie Waters has a very substantial EVENTS list on lacenews.

http://lacenews.net/lace-event-calendars/).   

EU Cookie Directive

© 2021   Created by Lorelei Halley Administrator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service