Talk:Bobbin lace ground

I'm going to carry on adding grounds, but wanted to get this up as a start Joedkins (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Roseground versus Flanders

Joedkins, please look at Flanders lace and Mesh_grounded_bobbin_lace, how I compare the Rose ground with the Flanders ground. It just is not right how you describe it here. Flanders uses a single pin with less holes as a result. See also your Mary Niven, diagram 5, fid 1a-c. She does not compare Roseground with the Flanders ground, but the most basic Torchon stitch with the Flanders ground. That took me by surprise when studying the history and looking at the text ten times. In a few days I can provide you a larger section with better contrast. Jo Pol (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol - yes, I was afraid of that. I was describing the way I was taught - which is Torchon, I guess. I know there are a lot of different ways to do rose ground. I don't want to describe them all! I've taken out the reference to pins - is this better? I wanted to describe the 5 holes, to explain its name.

Do you want to add Flemish ground as distinct to rose ground? If so, could you do it? And find a picture? I don't know enough about Flemish ground.

Perhaps I ought to take out the reference to pins in Point ground - but it is so distinctive a feature of Point ground (the lack of a pinhole). What do you think? This article is, I suspect, going to cause trouble as it's quite an overview. So please feel free to edit if you want. Joedkins (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins A problem with your sample are the relatively large pinholes. The samples of "the Torchon lace workbook" by Bridget M. Cook uses thicker threads or thinner pins. Same applies to the 1875 samples in Emily Reigate's "Illustrated guide to lace". The smaller pinholes make it easier to recognise the five holes that give their name to the the ground. On the other hand is it hardly possible to recognise the pinholes where the worker wraps around the pin. I didn't do much Torchon, mainly started a sampler halfway were it got more complicated to stay ahead of my students, that was beyond the rose ground. So I don't have a better sample for you. Jo Pol (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the sample you gave me for Mesh_grounded_bobbin_lace better shows the five holes. Jo Pol (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol - The standard Torchon rose ground (the way I was taught) is half stitch, pin, half stitch at each pin, and cloth stitch and twist at each corner. Since cloth stitch and pin is two half stitches, this means that all the stitches are exactly the same, but some have pins in the middle. It makes a more spaced out shape than some other variants. My book of Lace Stitches has three different ways of working rose ground, and Mary Niven has even more. I've added a picture of a different rose ground, so we now have two. I don't have any more examples of different types. Is the rose ground part of the article now OK? I do NOT want to make the Torchon rose ground to dominate the description, as the Flemish ground is important.

In fact, I thought that the 'five holes' referred to the pin holes rather than the corners, but I think you're right. I've taken any reference to pins out of the article altogether. I think it's too technical. Joedkins (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

how to continue

joedkins, I'm not sure how to continue. I uploaded a sampler to show the difference between cloth stitch and half stitch, we will need more, for example winky pins, and different types of picots. All items for a glossary that covers more than grounds. It will be needed for the infobox template that is still under construction. I'm a bottom up thinker (tend to end with the TOC, were others start with it) what makes it a bit chaotic. It would be good to have some needle lacers to discuss whether a single template might work for needle lace and bobbin lace info boxes. Jo Pol (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, Well, I think we need to work out why we're doing these pages, which leads us to who is reading them. I have been think of people who want to identify lace, rather than people who make it. I think that is closer the readers who just have heard of a type of lace and want to know what it is, or looks like. Which I guess is the standard Wikipedia readership. So we may need to be careful about how much goes into this glossary. Or whether it is worth putting up other general pages, similar to the Grounds page. A page on footsides? A page on toile (dense areas or motifs or patterns) which would cover cloth stitch/half stitch? That might be useful in individual styles of lace, plus sorting out the different categories. A page on headsides? That couldn't give all possible headsides, but could define the term and give some typical ones. I'm not sure about different types of picots. Are they that important? There is already an article on Picot.

I am certainly a bottom-up thinker, if you mean - put in the details, then figure out the structure later. Part of the problem with the original lace types table was that people had worked very hard on that, then obviously got bored, and not written the articles! If they had written the articles first, then the readers could have found them. But a structure is useful, of course.

Needle lace - oh dear - their articles mostly look a bit empty, don't they! I'm afraid that I know NOTHING about needle lace! IOLI tend to laugh at me about it, since I kept asking them (of my lace collection) "Is this needle lace?" and they'd say, No... You might get some advice from them, but I don't think they have enough technical ability or inclination to edit Wikipedia. And I don't know any needle lacers. Joedkins (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, I've added Honeycomb after all. Got a new (old!) book which gives more laces that use it than just Bucks Point. Joedkins (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

joedkins, I don't think we should create an article for every detail. When adding the lace fences I saw the "structure" section of Bobbin lace would be a fine place to show in a gallery what it is talking about. At least as far things can be covered in one or two images. Let us start small and see when we really need more. Jo Pol (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, OK, Joedkins (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Grounds etc.

Jo and Jo -- First, an answer to your question "who uses the pages"? In this page I just found the explanation to my puzzle over 5-hole ground, roseground, and Flanders ground, thank you very much! I am a lacemaker as well as lace collecter, and teacher I suppose since I needed this clarification for a minor point I am making in a lecture on the structure of handmade laces. I don't think you can put too much detail in these pages because their readership spans the range from general reader to near-expert checking a point. If the page is structured such that there's a more general introductory section written in layman's terms, then followed by technical details, and the same structure is used in each section and even sub-section, then all types of readers will be able to get something out of it.

My second comment is that I think Mechlen ground and Val ground should perhaps be put in a category "Braided Grounds", with round vs. square Val grounds differentiated, and the ground added that is the same as the Mechlen ground but the number of half stitches in the braids differ by one. (I can't remember right now what it is called nor if it's one more or one less half-stitch). I can find this info and revise the page, but I want to make sure first that this seems reasonable to you two.

NancyANeff (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)