I have found the "is it, isn't it" discussion about the (possible) Haskins bobbin very interesting but would like to add my tuppence worth about the spangles.
Perhaps the first lesson to bobbin 'forgers' should be - make a completely random spangle with thick wire, using beads, buttons and shells and leave a big ugly join that catches on everything :-) because then it must be old. However, I would like to make the comment that at first inspection, to me it looked respangled simply because as someone else said the spangle is symetrical. However, on checking in the Springett's book, so are quite a few of the ones illustrated. And the beads do look authentic. There is no reason why some of the 19th century lacemakers shouldn't have had the same preference for tidy spangles that we do today. You may now throw your hands up in horror, but one of the first things I do when I get a new old bobbin is to see if I can live with the spangle. If I can't, I have no qualms whatsoever about taking it off and redoing it. Often they are too big for my taste, or have wire that catches in things. I normally use at least some of the same beads and don't mind at all if the spangle is not symetrical so long as the size/shape is right. Any beads I don't use are kept apart from my modern ones and used for old bobbins I buy without a spangle. And the reason why I am happy to do this is because when I think how often I have needed to mend broken spangles in less than thirty years of lacemaking, (I think it's highly unlikely that any of my bobbins still have their original spangle from new) I find it difficult to believe that a bobbin at least five times that age is still with its original beads and wire. Especially so when I think how much more work that bobbin probably did in its youth than my bobbins. Jacquie in Lincolnshire - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
