As I make Bucks point, but not Chantilly, I put
forward my views on the debate on whole and half
stitch in them with diffidence, but it seems to me
that one point that has not been addressed is the
difference made by working in black or white.
One of the features of much white floral Bucks point
is the contrast between the fairly firm cloth patterns
and the light point ground, generally achieved by
adding pairs as needed for the cloth (though sometimes
you do have to add pairs for the ground to stop over
large holes appearing by the cloth). Some patterns
however have the flower petals or whatever worked
empty, with the outlining gimp held in place by a
couple of pairs of ordinary threads working honeycomb
or possibly cloth stitches. These can have a tally in
them, but not necessarily; in effect, the six-pin
honeycomb ring of geometric Bucks going floral. The
Lester Bucks unit I am tampering with at the moment is
like this - it's from Anne Buck's "Thomas Lester, his
Lace and the East Midlands Industry, 1820-1905", in
the middle of page 22. I have been sent a copy of
recent workings of this, one with the petals in cloth
stitch, the other with gimp and honeycomb, and both
look very effective. An original sample of a similar
(but not identical) pattern on page 20 of the book
shows the petals open, though leaves filled in, again
looking good. The general impression I get is that
the white Bucks point of this period does not use half
stitch very much for the pattern, though it does for
fillings; it's either cloth or open, with or without
tallies. This, as Tamara points out, requires you to
add and throw out pairs all the time, to keep the
cloth "on grain" as much as thick, to avoid the holes
that appear when threads move diagonally in cloth,
virtually regardless of density. While she, and
others, don't like doing this, it should be stressed
that there is little problem in adding and throwing
out in this type of work; the ends don't show, and
nothing undoes if you take the minimum of care -
you're generally throwing out from excessively dense
cloth, so the pairs left hide the gap and hold the
ends.
Black point ground however looks far too dead if the
solid bits are worked in cloth, and it seems that even
in England if open "honeycomb rings" weren't used,
half stitch was, for aesthetic reasons. Pam
Nottingham states this, and shows a piece worked in
whole stitch, which as she notes, would almost
certainly gain form being worked in half stitch. As
Tamara points out, there is much less need to add and
throw out pairs using half stitch, and the further
point is that it is harder - you generally have to add
and throw out at the edge, whereas in cloth you can do
so in the middle, so the technique suits the result
needed - black lace and cloth stitch do not really go
together. I get the impression that Chantilly also
tends to keep threads in by carrying them with the
gimp when not needed, which would avoid the problems
of throwing out from half stitch. I get the
impression that the English habit of using kat stitch
instead of point ground in black lace, presumably to
get a lighter effect, was not as standard in Chantilly
- does anyone know if this was the case, or just me
looking at untypical examples?
Musing further, the first book on Bayeux Lace by
Nobecourt and Potin, "Yesterday's Lace for Today"
shows white Normandy point ground, and interestingly,
the solid bits of the more geometric patterns are in
half stitch, with additional pairs needed for the
motives being carried around with the gimp. The book
is based on an instruction book written by Rose Durand
in 1919, and has pictures of her pillow as left when
she died. That lace, very elegant, is in white, the
leaves and most of the petals in half stitch, but some
front petals in whole stitch, and some front sepals in
whole stitch lightened by lines of twists on the
workers - very effective.
BTW, the second book, recently published, is "a
l'ecole de Rose Durand". It has some extracts from
her leaflet, but not a complete reprint, a picture of
the lace pillow with the last piece, and some
attractive more complex patterns. I don't think it
has been translated into English, but even ignoring
that, I think the first one is the one to go for, as
it gives Mlle Durand's full book, which is not only
(imho) excellent, but a historic document in itself.
Interestingly, the only illustrations are of what the
signs on the prickings for various stitches are, no
diagrams as such. The book itself supplements them
with diagrams, which seems to me (despite the recent
debate, of which more anon) to be the only sensible
thing to do, and also sets out a beginner's course
using Mlle Durand's own samples and prickings to
supplement her instruction book.
The pillow shows a haze of threads from bobbins thrown
out and brought in during the working, so she
obviously had no problem with that. She actually
added pairs simply by hanging them over a pin at the
side, and placing them where needed, cutting the ends,
or rather beginnings, off when that piece was well
finished. I now do this as a matter of course in
Bucks (and indeed Honiton), and it seems as secure as
the other ways, and doesn't show. I straddle the new
pair round the left thread of an existing pair, which
works well for me. It means that if cloth is getting
open in the middle, you can add the pairs where
needed, rather than at the side and hope the rest will
push over. Is this still done in France?
My favourite bit from her original leaflet is the last
instruction: "For flowers which are separate or not
linked to each other, a number of additional pairs and
gimps will be required. That is a small point, easily
learned in one lesson, when the rest is well
understood." Hum!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
