On May 19, 2005, at 3:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacquie) wrote:
Although I don't think the pictures are all that good for someone hoping to
sell an item for this much money, from what I can see there is very little in
the way of "Milanese" braids. Lots of holes (possibly Figure of 8s), cloth
divisions (but they're in a lot of braid laces) and a few small lengths of
Meander. I'm sure that I have been told (Pat Read?) that one of the best ways of
telling Italian and Flemish lace of this style apart is that the Italian has
more variety of stitches used in the braid.
It's too bad Devon's away; I can't remember whether the 17thc Wedding Apron in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (NYC) is Italian or Flemish (somehow, I think Flemish, but may be wrong). But it - sure as sure - has a splendid variety of patterned braids and fillings (within the shapes formed by the braids), in addition to having a superb and very interesting design. While this one is just plain, old, boring...
And, like Patty (or was it Alice?), I have my doubts about it being 17th century; those picoted, diamond-shaped (before the item was washed) plaits connecting the elements just don't "smell" right for that time. At first, I thought it was Russian Tape, and I'm still not convinced it isn't... :) That, or Duchesse; Milanese is much less prone to indulging in half-stitch than either of those.
We don't know the size of thread either, but it can't be *very* fine (typical of 17th c Milanese); the large flowers (the ones with the hst) must be about 2-3" accross (if the entire piece is 36")... And, interestingly ... The seller says that, until 1830s linen thread was used for Milanese, cotton afterwards, but never says which thread is used in the piece... :)
If I was paying this much, I would certainly want more variety <VBG>
No kidding! And more assurance, too, not to mention more detailed photos :)
Was there not an incident a little while ago when an e-bay seller came up
with a similarly intellectual description, but quoting an *expert*, except the
expert then announced that they had not actually definitely identified the lace
as that; it had just been one of several possibilities (but, of course, the
most valuable).
"Expert opinion" is like "anonymous sources" in journalism, or "it came from an estate" used as a provenance :) Unless we know who it is (and can make our minds up whether to *trust* the source), it is just a meaningless frou-frou; a padding to hype up the sale...
Which goes right back to Amanda Richard's note on the E-Bay "bobbin". She wrote:
I rather got the impression that they would rather
believe their customer than me. Hope someone doesn't buy it taking their
word for what it is. Anyone else game for trying to change the sellers mind?
You'd change the seller's mind PDQ, if you told him/her that it was not a bobbin, but a special pen that Queen Victoria used, later spangled by one of her playful children :) There are plenty of sellers who are willing to be "educated", but only if the input has the potential of raising the price :)
-- Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
