Thanks to Jane Partridge and Adele Shaak for their replies to my conundrum. Adele is correct that Regency lace had no gimp on the outside, but did have gimp on the inside around little holes. I have always thought that this showed a preview of what would be later tried in Bedfordshire Maltese. Regency lace certainly has an ungainly appearance like this lace, so perhaps Adele is correct that it is a variation on Regency. If anyone wants to see an example of Regency, the Metropolitan Museum of Artâs piece, 26.281.1 (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/222059) is a good example. It has a mildly wavy edge like the piece I am now examining. Janeâs suggestion is also interesting. I have seen machine made pieces that were made without gimp and that the lace runners then had to put gimp into with a needle. The Metâs piece, 13.163.3a https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/219579 is an example of that. In that case the design doesnât make any sense without the needle added gimp, which is not the case with this piece. And yet, the mesh of the piece in question is very regular and somewhat elongated, which is not the case with 13.163.3a, but which I sometimes think I see in machine made pieces. And there are some transitions that look odd to me. But the mesh on the Regency lace 26.181.1 is also elongated, if less regular. The piece in question has braided areas and I am not sure that this could have been done by the machine. Much to think about. Many thanks for the thought provoking suggestions. Devon PS. Best wishes to Jane for a successful treatment and recovery.
- To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachnelace.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
