Hello to One & All! This makes sense to me. As one who used to dance the Native American pow wow circuit, my son's bustle was pretty light. (That's the piece the men wear that has a dovble row of bone that hangs down the chest. The beads weighed more than the bone pieces.)
I use spangled bobbins becavse I don't have to chase them across my pillow and have my thread twist or untwist. Besides I like all of the pretty beads & designs. :-D Hugs, Susie Rose (She who never seems to have enough bobbins.) On Mon Oct 18th, 2010 9:18 PM PDT robinl...@socal.rr.com wrote: >---- Brian Lemin <brid...@bigpond.com> wrote: >I think Arnes contribution raises what I see as the most puzzling question... >Why(?) did the East Midland lace makers decide to spangle their bobbins. > >One theory I was taught (and I haven't seen it posted yet) has to do with >using bone instead of wood. I know there are plenty of old wood Midlands >bobbins, but the bone ones may have set the style. Continental bobbins made >of wood could have a large bulge at the bottom for weight. Cow bones only >come so thick, and that could determine the thickness that bobbins could be >made. WIthout a big bulge at the bottom, Midlands lacemakers resorted to >coins, beads, or anything else that would add some weight to the small, skinny >bobbins. Then people may have decided to "pretty up" the wood bobbins the >same way. > >So it may not have even been a single reason why rings of beads were added to >Midlands bobbins. It could have been for weight *and* for rolling-control >*and* for decoration. > >Robin > >Robin P. >Los Angeles, California, USA >robinl...@socal.rr.com > >In my own first contribution to this thread I flagged that we needed a " >multi-disciplinary" approach to this question. It started out as a question >on "When" did spangling start, but the "Why" of it is also fascinating. As >a non lace maker I am subject to flights of fancy about that subject, but >not one shred of proof. > >The new machine spun thread that became available at about that time, now >Arnes comment about the stability of the bobbin. That fits into my >un-infirmed ideas about why. I am sure you practitioners and historians >should be able to either put me right or suggest other reasons. But even >then, not all lace makers spangled their bobbins and they would eventually >be using the same machine made thread. > >That makes me think of it as being an equation that sort of looks like this: >"according to the types of lace being made".."plus"...."the tight spun >thread" ... equals "the usefulness of spangling and the prettiness of >spangles" (I.e. fashion.. which I am sure played its part in the spangling >movement) > >I have often thought about looking to the time when we knew they were "not" >spangled. The "not spangled" question could possibly be indicated by the >types of lace being made in the East Midlands at a particular time. > >Certainly the "oldest" bobbins found in England (Early 1700s) was not >spangled, but the other old bobbin "The Shepherds Bobbin" [I do not think >she offered a date of that bobbin] (described by Carole Morris in one >journal) was "spangled" if you count a fruit stone as a spangle. That too >could possibly be interpreted as an interim form of spangle. > >Sorry to be such a "one eyed bore" on this subject. Just teach me... I am >listening. > > >From Brian and Jean >Cooranbong. Australia > >- >To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: >unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to >arachne.modera...@gmail.com > >- >To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: >unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to >arachne.modera...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com
