One thing the discussions of this - using heelball, pricking through original prickings etc - makes very clear that the photocopiers we now take for granted are a very modern invention, and most of us can remember when they were unreliable - distorted, shrunk patterns on odd shiney paper that disappeared after a while in sunlight. This I think is yet another thing we need to bear in mind when considering how lacemakers of old worked. I started when the best way of making an accurate pricking was meant to be working on graph paper, using one and a half squares (or whatever) one way, and one the other to get a Bucks grid - and that relied on accurate graph paper, and indeed cheap paper, itself not available in the early days of lacemaking. With all these problems in reproducing patterns, freehand lace may well have continued longer and into more elaborate patterns than we consider practical, and to me, it seems quite unlikely that "working diagrams" or similar would be readily available when the workers would have found it hard enough to get accurate patterns; a piece of worked lace would probably be the most practical way of letting someone know what to produce. It would be fascinating to know how the designs were first turned into lace, and what knowledge the designer, pricker and maker had of each others' skills. leonard...@yahoo.com
- 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/
