Lorelei, It may be because I am both a collector and a lacemaker, but I don't see that the two groups differ in what they want to use a name for--to be a short-hand for some set of data. The data that you as a lacemaker want to know is the same as what I think collectors want to know--techniques, date, location of manufacture, materials, and what characteristics enable one to know date and origin. The fundamental question is which of these data do you want to base a name on? The more distinguishing features you use as the basis for identifying a "kind of lace"--i.e., what one puts a unique name to--the finer the categories are going to be and the more names will be in play. Plus you have the difficulty of naming lace that is a duplicate, made yesterday, of an antique piece, since I think both lacemakers and collectors would consider the later copy to be different from the original, however close to identical the two are.
My second observation is that the terminology problem really arises from the fact that there are few discontinuities in the history of lace; for any two related kinds of lace, one can usually find examples that are intermediate between the two, or combine features from one with features from the other. Any terminology is going to have problems with items that fall on a spectrum or, worse, vary in multiple dimensions as lace does. I suspect that my solution for my own use will be to base a set of names on only the techniques used in the lace, and apply adjectives to those names as needed to communicate the other metadata, especially date, because usually all the rest are inferred from techniques and design. However, I will withhold that suggestion as well as specific comment on your classification until I have found my old notes and thought more about it all again, since this revisits something I attempted to do about 10 years ago (except to ask whether you meant to exclude Valenciennes or is that an oversight?). Many thanks to Devon, I think it was, for opening this particularly interesting can of worms! Nancy A. Neff Connecticut, USA On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Lorelei Halley <lhal...@bytemeusa.com> wrote: > We have a constant problem with terminology, partly because we comprise 2 > different groups of people - collectors and lace makers. ... As > I understand it, the collectors want a name they can use to reference a > particular piece in a way that gives collectors an idea what to expect. I > would like to hear from collectors on this issue, particularly what they > consider the purpose of a name for a lace. ... > > The problem comes in when us lacemakers get into the conversation. My > perspective is always that of a lace maker - what techniques are used in > this piece, what do I have to know to reproduce this. I also would like > terminology to refer to time, to distinguish antique from modern designs of > that type, and to distinguish century or half century for antique laces... - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.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/
