Thank you to Susan and Adele for their input. I had a look at what is available on line from the Lacemakerâs Pattern book. They are point ground designs as is the piece of Tonder lace. I think the thing that distinguishes the Tonder lace that I posted is its spindly design, especially stems hanging in mid-air.
I am posting another piece of Tonder lace which I would consider to me more the norm. But, what is it that makes it recognizable as a Tonder lace? My somewhat untutored concept is that it is big holes that scream Tonder. Recalling my instruction by Gunvor Jorgensen she had me do something called a Copenhagen hole. It was great fun and seemed to involve a lot of twists. I have always had difficulty relating it to a diagram because it was more of a muscle memory thing where you were working pairs in cross twist twist one after another in the inside of the hole. Maybe I was even doing it wrong. Looking at this example of Tonder there are big holes, but they are not formed the way I thought they were supposed to be. In fact, there seem to be linen stitches on the inside of the hole. Sometimes, I even see big holes that are really lined with single honeycomb stitches. I realize that in making a big hole, you really have to find something to do with a lot of pairs that would otherwise be in the point ground, so there might be different ways of handling that issue. But, can anyone tell me if I am correct that the big holes are sort of an aesthetic preference for the makers of Tonder lace that other makers of point ground did not use as much? Is there a particular time frame associated with them? Do they have any specific structural requirements? Photos posted at https://laceioli.ning.com/group/identification-history?xg_source=activity Devon - 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/
