on 8/17/04 10:18 PM, Tamara P. Duvall at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2004, at 14:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie in Baltimore) wrote:
>
>> That's the important point of the post. Now here's just some random
>> lace
>> babble:
>
> Since I don't have the box/book I can't help there. So I'll address
> some of the less important points...
>
>> I've been working on the fan for a few months now. Today I was looking
>> at
>> what I've done so far and I thought, boy, that gimp sure is thick. Is
>> it
>> really supposed to be that thick?
>
> Probably. I have a little booklet of Loehr's on gimps (not for general
> distribution, she said, as she can't be bothered to "clean" the English
> up to a proper standard). Quote:
>
> "The thickness of the gimp.
> Is not only a matter of taste. It is my opinion that the gimps used
> nowadays were often chosen too thin in comparison with old laces" [...]
>
> Then, under some photos:
>
> "These photos of old Chantilly show that 99% of the lacemakers used a
> little bit thicker, 5 to 7 times folded thread as gimp" [...]
>
> And, in conclusion, for the Point Ground section:
>
> Choose a gimp of the thickness about 8 folds of the lace thread. (Fold
> your lace thread, which might not be suitable as a gimp 8 times and
> compare it with the chosen gimp), i.e.: Silk 4/20 - use as gimp 6 fold
> 140"
>
> So, she advocates the use of *very* think gimp (thicker even than what
> she herself says was the old practice <g>). Which makes it probable,
> that your very thick gimp is, indeed, as she intended it to be. OTOH, I
> have no idea how the Danish 250/3 unboiled compares, in thickness, to
> the Pipers' 4/20 (you're using the gimp recommended for the second,
> with the first)...
>
>> The other thing that bothers me is that I somehow got the idea that all
>> the figures were supposed to be done in half-stitch. [...]
>> However, the working diagram clearly shows cloth stitch, not
>> half-stitch. The passives all go down vertically, as with cloth
>> stitch, not slanted, as with half-stitch.
>
> Yes, Chantilly, like Bayeux, uses -mostly - half stitch in the motifs.
> And yes, she draws the half stitch as if it were cloth stitch in her
> working diagrams (if you happen to have her "Schwarzarbeit; ein Buch
> uber Chantilly" you can compare), for the very reason you state: the
> diagrams would be either huge or unreadable otherwise. But, in the
> Schwarzarbeit book, she also has single-thread diagrams - much bigger,
> if illustrating much smaller points <g> - which leave one in no doubt
> as to what stitch ought to be used (even if the photos of the lace
> didn't show it clearly). In books where colour is used, the half stitch
> in motifs is still drawn the same as cloth stitch, but green is used
> instead of purple.
>
>> Do I actually need to make all the figures in half-stitch? Why can't
>> I make some of the figures in half-stitch and some of them in cloth
>> stitch? Or for that matter, all the figures in cloth stitch?
>> Why is Chantilly done completely in half-stitch? Does something bad
>> happen when
>> you throw in cloth stitch? Is it more pleasing aesthetically to make
>> all
>> figures the same way? Is half-stitch more sturdy or something than
>> cloth stitch?
>
> No, half stitch is not more sturdy than cloth stich, just the reverse;
> it's more airy, it snags more easily. Its airy-ness does, of course,
> add to the appeal of the lace, so you might say it *is* more
> aesthetically pleasing. Nothing *really* bad happens, if you throw in
> some cloth stitch, and Chantilly isn't always done completely in half
> stitch... :)
>
> Going by my own experience and a lecture of Loehr's on Chantilly, which
> I attended some years ago in Ithaca...
>
> My own experience first, since it's slimmer: half stitch fills out a
> motif better than cloth stitch:
> Given the same distance (width) to cover, sometimes, you'd need to add
> extra pairs if you used cloth; you wouldn't have to, if you used half
> stitch. Half stitch spreads, where cloth stitch doesn't. For me, it's
> as simple as that (apart from adding a different dimension to the
> whole, of course).
>
> Case in point: look at my website, the "non-series designs 2000-2003";
> 3rd picture, "Fragrance". The stopper of the perfume bottle is made in
> half stitch, because there weren't enough pairs feeding into it from
> the ground to fill it out nicely, and I hate adding and cutting out
> every 30 seconds. As I was already carrying a pair-in-reserve with the
> gimp (needed for the body of the bottle), and as it was not a practice
> I'm used to, and as I didn't want to make the gimp any thicker in that
> spot... I decided to use half stitch. Which served the purpose nicely,
> IMO :)
>
> What I remember from the lecture:
> Chantilly, at its best and most complex, likes the light-and-shadow
> effect; it uses shading a lot. You will, therefore, see the usual net
> (CTTT), and kat stitch, and honecomb stitch, used both as ground and as
> fillings - whatever works, to get the illusion of texture accross. If
> many pairs are carried in reserve, they might be put to use in a cloth
> stitch spot also, to add yet another dimension. Or, a whole pair -
> instead of a single thread - might be used as a worker in half stitch,
> and the overal effect will be changed again...
>
> I've just had a private message from Leonard (not yet answered; sorry
> <g>), musing on the advantages/disadvantges of diagrams. I agree with
> him up to a point: diagrams do clip our wings, and limit our
> imagination/flexibility; they ossify our lace, making us fearful to
> stray from the path... Where, surely, the old-time lacemakers "thought
> on the pillow", and did what was needful to get the best effect...
>
> We do need the diagrams now; none of us is a full-time, professional
> lacemaker, and we don't have the same arsenal of tricks in our hands
> and minds that they did. But we *do* need to remember that lace is
> flexible, not made of stone, and that the diagrams are there to guide
> us, not to rule us; they're only one of the tools... The ruling
> principle remains the same as before: do whatever's necessary to obtain
> the most pleasing effect.
>
> End of sermon :)
>
> ---
> Tamara P Duvall
>Yes, an excellent, a quite wonderful "sermon" indeed, and I am sure all the
Arachnes reading it feel as I do, namely, grateful for it. �� Aurelia
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
