Devon We are back into the territory of "there is no universally accepted set of terminology, even in English" for bobbin lace. I think your comments and objections are basically a matter of semantics and word usuage. Although this is perfectly understandable.
I learned bobbin lace from Doris Southard's book on torchon. She specifies 4 common grounds used in torchon: torchon ground tc pin tc Dieppe ground ttc pin tc Brussels ground tctc pin tctc (and this is what I meant in describing the piece of lace I posted the url for) twisted hole ground ttc pin ttc Doris a twister -crosser, which is the same as saying she uses the open method. If you are a cross-twister, just put the t's in a different place. Let's not get into that. Mechlin ground is the term used for the straight lace ground which uses a ground made of stacks of half stitches, and is typically worked without pins to support the ground. The designs are floral and have some quite peculiar thread paths, not at all simple and straightforward as in torchon. The ground has a stack of 4 half stitches: ct ct ct ct There is a similar ground (not the same, but similar) used in Brussels lace (always defined as a part lace), which uses a ground made of stacks of half stitches, but it is called droschel ground. I have never seen it called Brussels ground, but who knows?. The ground has a stack of 6 half stitches, though I have heard of a stack of 8 half stitches. I refuse to get worked up over whether it is 6 or 8. I haven't picked apart any really old Brussels lace to verify which it is. I believe that "Brussels ground" usually refers to the variant used in torchon, which has a pin in the middle. While Mechlin and Droschel are variants made without pins in the middle, one in a historic straight lace, and the other in historic part laces. In terms of structure they are all stacks of half stitches, but differ in whether pins are used, and in how many half stitches in the stack. There is no structural difference (as opposed to the lacemaker's actions) between Mechlin ground and Brussels ground -- just the pin. The lace I referred to was among a collection on picasa posted by a spanish speaking lacemaker. From the hundreds of photos from such sources that i have recently seen on picasa, I have formed the impression that the spanish love torchon laces and that many of their designs are complex floral braid grounded laces. But I have also mentioned in the last few months that there are many on view there which look like what I would call "continental guipure" except that the ground is torchon ground (tc pin tc), not a braided one. This is one of those, except that Brussels ground was chosen, instead of torchon ground. But one still might apply the term "floral torchon". Geraldine Stott has recently been playing with floral torchon designs and has produced some beautiful examples. I think some others have also. What I don't know is how the ground pairs feed into the clothwork in these Spanish laces -- whether it is like torchon or whether it is some other way. In case anyone has lost track of the original url: https://picasaweb.google.com/leboreira/MisNinas20102011?feat=content_notifica tion#5584669201397201858 Sorry for the vast length of this discussion, but I wanted to clear up this confusion once and for all. And just to reiterate: we are never going to clear up the disagreements about terminology. Just get past it. Lorelei - To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected]. Photo site: http://community.webshots.com/user/arachne2003
