I guess that an aesthetic criteria for judging machine made lace is still emerging as well. The Battle of Britain panel is certainly the gold standard for machine made lace. What makes it special? I like it because I think it is very interesting visually. Along each side are great landmarks of London as they appeared during the blitz, ie. with lots of rubble and destruction. This is striking because you are used to seeing the landmarks on postcards, looking very neat. The images were derived very faithfully, by an artist, from photographs taken during the Battle of Britain. Then someone had to transpose them into the machine lace technique also a work of artistry. Finally there was tremendous labor involved in the punching of the cards. Like Flemish oil paintings for instance, there is some symbolism. There is on one side an English Cottage and on the other side a Manor House, showing that all the English people were united at this time. There are planes flying around and going down in flames overhead, many with Swastikas on them, making for some dramatic action in the center of the piece. I like it because the history of the piece is interesting, having been conceived by a manufacturer whose son died in the Battle and harking back to another exceptional piece of lace produced in limited run in Nottingham of Joan of Arc. Anecdotally, it appears that pieces were distributed to different countries and heads of state. It is unclear exactly how many were made, but my impression is no more than 30. Then all the cards were destroyed, essentially "breaking the mold" as in limited editions of medals and figurines. As I was discussing this with my husband he suggested size as a criteria. At first I dismissed this, but on second thought size is important. One thing about the Battle of Britain piece is that it was produced on a machine manufactured in the 19th century. I get the impression that there are not many machines left that could do a piece this large and intricate. In fact, the Masons appear to be buying back machines that previous generations of their family sold abroad. I think they said they had bought and had shipped back one from New Jersey. I had a discussion with Sheila as we were examining the machine lace at the Met. She identified certain borders as having been made as exhibition pieces. Apparently she could tell from the width. There were/are certain standard widths and wider pieces were/are quite exceptional. Size and other features that push the limits of the machine or show exceptional operation of the machine are important. Unfortunately, I have a bit of a tin ear for these since I don't understand the technical limitations of machine made lace that much. For instance Mr. Mason commented about the George Washington portrait that it was made on a Pusher machine being used as a Lace Curtain Machine. So I am suggesting that we judge machine made lace on Design, History, Exceptional use of Machine Lace Technique and Limited Edition status. Another criteria sometimes of interest to collectors is Provenance. The Lace Merchant has an interesting provenance, having belonged to David Schwab a lace manufacturer in New York. I am not sure what the provenance of the Battle of Britain panel that the Mason's own is, but it was probably originally owned by a head of state of one of the Allied Nations. Ilske proposed that very fine duplication of appearance of hand made lace was a criteria in her judgment. Does anyone else have a criteria or opinions on mine? Devon
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
