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/
