Hankies were certainly bigger in the past, twelve inches or more was common, 
whether they were carried by men or women. But I think a hanky would have a 
solid centre of fabric rather than lace. A chalice cover  might be all lace.

Sent from my iPad

> On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, H M Clarke <hcl...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> I would be the last person to suggest that I have any more knowledge than the 
> rest of you. That doesn’t stop me pretending sometimes so here goes ...
> 
> I would like to put the idea out there that many of the antique handkerchiefs 
> were used by men. Their fashions were more ornate and eye catching than their 
> female equivalents. A gentleman would have a larger handkerchief or it could 
> be a kerchief. Even when ladies were happily waving their handkerchief in 
> their hand, it was fully unfolded and so maybe smaller than we imagine? Also, 
> have I missed a reference to wedding handkerchiefs being a real thing in 
> olden times? I certainly have not seen Alice’s message on this topic. 
> 
> End of my tuppence worth (we got rid of our ‘penny’ years ago but my old 
> country still has theirs). 
> 
> Helen. 
> 
>> Antique examples were extremely large,15-20" of fabric. Smaller items are
>> usually described as chalice covers.
>> http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/215260?sortBy=Relevance&ft
>> shows a handkerchief 15inches square.
>> 
>> Annette Meldrum in a rainy, South Coast NSW, Australia
> 
> -
> 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/

-
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/

Reply via email to