I've been fascinated by the different ways makers of Binche and the other Flemish laces use diagrams, and plan and execute their work; not at all like traditional floral Bucks or Beds. I wonder if there is any documentary evidence (prickings or diagrams) indicating how the originals were worked, or even evidence in the lace. I would assume if successive repeats differed, and improved, that East Midlands methods were at work; you can certainly see that happening in Thomas Lester - the eagle cuff on page 56 of Ann Buck's book has two mirror-imaged eagles, and the wheel ground between his feet was only got right on the one on the left...
I think the safest view on the aesthetics is to recognise that we all have different equally valid views - and some of us different views at different times. With lace, however, I think we should consider it in context. Binche was not made to be judged displayed or photographed flat out; it was meant to be worn, frilled at best and possibly goffered at worst, and the wearer probably didn't stand still! Obviously the same applies to some extent to Thomas Lester, but that lace was worn when ladies were more upholstered than draped, and so were made to be seen more as we do now. I really do think we need to take this into account when judging lace. I know the change from point ground to Beds groundings is meant to be because the latter were quicker and easier, and this may be true of the standard plaits of the more geometric sorts, but scarcely of all. I wonder if the original change was as much driven by aesthetic and fashion values - designs were getting larger, lace was not frilled up and worn almost like muslin, and the more open grounds suited it better. The Thomas Lester ground of diamond tallies is certainly not easier nor quicker than point ground to work, but does suit the patterns better than point ground would, or at least, I think that's the case with the pattern I'm working on at present. The use of veins and raised tallies in the bolder leaves and petals in floral Beds balances the style as well, and certainly don't make the patterns easier or quicker to work - they seem to me to require skills not used in floral Bucks - the pattern I'm working on is really in the transitional mode, and doesn't have those features (though I'm still struggling!). Not to go on about it too much, but one reason I think some of us do not go for The Mat is that its design is more Beds than Bucks in this respect. I find the version with plaited grounds more attractive. Back to my struggles in Beds, so to speak - Tamara's and Adele's comments especially on Binche groundings have illuminated something I'm trying to deal with. I was lucky enough to have a weekend recently at Knuston Hall on a weekend course given by Mrs Underwood, and had taken a pattern based on a typical Thomas Lester unit dated 1856. It's the top left hand one on page 30 of Ann Buck's book, and also in Mrs Underwood's "Traditional Bedfordshire Lace, Technique and Patterns", page 44 (with worked sample). It's a typical unit, having a repeat of two flowers and some leaves against the headside, but just ground by the time you get over to the foot. I was tampering with it by adding a corner and reverse, so to some extent repricking it. Mrs U. noted that I was taking the diamond ground right against the sprigs (which the lady who worked the sample had also done to some extent). She said this was typical Bucks mentality, but the original pricking had left the motive room to breathe, and there were more plaits leading into the ground, as needed, rather than the regular plaited ground. This would give a very regular ground, but with the Baroque design sitting within it rather than being crushed against it. I won't be able to check this till I've done a fair bit more, but I have already noted it's easier!! It also does solve the problem of a regular "strong" ground with a flowing design - less of a problem aesthetically with the visually weaker point ground - that the Binche workers have been debating. I feel some consolation in that I am probably fairly close to the original worker, in having some background in Bucks, and trying to cope with the more modern stuff! [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
