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 Art’s piece, 26.281.1
( is a good example. It
has a mildly wavy edge like the piece I am now examining.
Jane’s 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 Met’s piece, 13.163.3a is an example of that.
In that case the design doesn’t 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.
PS. Best wishes to Jane for a successful treatment and recovery.

To unsubscribe send email to containing the line:
unsubscribe lace For help, write to Photo site:

Reply via email to