Lost Stitches

Hi everybody,

With my luck, this is a question that only museum employees or
needlework historians will know. Have any stitches been lost over the
years. I mean, we have cross stitch, algerian eye, gross point, daisy
stitch etc. But are there any stitches from history that have been
forgotten over time?

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.
--
Maureen Miller C.H.

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C. wrote:

Have any stitches been lost over the
years. I mean, we have cross stitch, algerian eye, gross point, daisy
stitch etc. But are there any stitches from history that have been
forgotten over time?

Definitely yes.

My source is Samplers from the Victoria and Albert Museum by Jennifer Wearden
and Clare Browne, copyright 1999. Their source was "The School Mistris Terms
Of Art For All Her Ways Of Sowing", published in 1688. That book listed, among
stitches with familiar names, the following:

Fore-stitch
Gold-stitch
New-stitch
Bread-stitch
Finney-stitch
Fisher-stitch
Mow-stitch

As 17th century samplers are studied, "new" stitches are found. What were the
original names of Standish Stitch, Alternating Double-back Stitch, and
Williamsburg Stitch?

While 16th & 17th century pattern books still exist, has a stitch book ever
been found?

HTH



Nancy Sue,
Professional Project Starter

Maureen in Vancouver asked an interesting question:
With my luck, this is a question that only museum employees or
needlework historians will know. Have any stitches been lost over the
years. I mean, we have cross stitch, algerian eye, gross point, daisy
stitch etc. But are there any stitches from history that have been
forgotten over time?


From what I've read (not as much as some, more than others), I don't
think so, Maureen. grin

We have a pretty good record going back several hundred years. When
textiles are found with embellishment, they get the "best" textile
historians to go over them. Some of them are relatively "new" in the
grand scheme of how long humans have been around.

A few years back, I was exchanging emails with a textile professor. Her
comment was that often stitches are wrongly identified, because often
times, unless you rip it apart, you can't tell how it was actually made.
So, sometimes they will take fragments that are useless and take those
apart. Even then, wrong identification is not uncommon.

In the book I just purchased, it was mentioned that a particular stitch
is often mistook for a French knot. It isn't anything LIKE a Fr. knot,
but according to the author, unless you "know your stuff" and if you see
it from a little distance, you can mistake the stitch (I think it was
Pekinese stitch . . . can't remember).

Names of stitches vary from region to region and get "munged" through
time - as does the technique with which a stitch is made (French knot,
again, is a good example). And some rather plain stitches, such as stem
stitch - whch goes way back to the Bayeau embroidery [tapestry] - are
often employed differently depending upon regional ways of doing it and
new discoveries of how a stitch looks different if done slightly
differently.

Techniques come and go through time, but they're never really lost, I
don't think. There's usually someone around who keeps it going somehow
until interest finds it again.

I mean, I'm a prime example. I'm trying to keep the twisted knot stitch
alive and well. big grin

I look forward to hearing from those with large libraries who might know
more about this.

Dianne

Interesting question , Maureen.
I have heard sewing people from Paris complain that some Old knowledge
has disappeared , i have in my possesion an embrodered doily , that
nobody can undestand How it was Done ,, i showed it to munerous
experts. I assume that some techniques did disappear, And also that
some techniques just changed their names or that some old names were
applied to new[er] techniques, and thus we assume the technique hasn`t
been lost , but in actuality it disappeared .
Have a look at some Older books and see if you recognize all the names
or all the drawen techniques.
mirjam

Maureen in Vancouver asked an interesting question:
With my luck, this is a question that only museum employees or
needlework historians will know. Have any stitches been lost over the
years. I mean, we have cross stitch, algerian eye, gross point, daisy
stitch etc. But are there any stitches from history that have been
forgotten over time?


From what I've read (not as much as some, more than others), I don't
think so, Maureen. grin

We have a pretty good record going back several hundred years. When
textiles are found with embellishment, they get the "best" textile
historians to go over them. Some of them are relatively "new" in the
grand scheme of how long humans have been around.

A few years back, I was exchanging emails with a textile professor. Her
comment was that often stitches are wrongly identified, because often
times, unless you rip it apart, you can't tell how it was actually made.
So, sometimes they will take fragments that are useless and take those
apart. Even then, wrong identification is not uncommon.

In the book I just purchased, it was mentioned that a particular stitch
is often mistook for a French knot. It isn't anything LIKE a Fr. knot,
but according to the author, unless you "know your stuff" and if you see
it from a little distance, you can mistake the stitch (I think it was
Pekinese stitch . . . can't remember).

Names of stitches vary from region to region and get "munged" through
time - as does the technique with which a stitch is made (French knot,
again, is a good example). And some rather plain stitches, such as stem
stitch - whch goes way back to the Bayeau embroidery [tapestry] - are
often employed differently depending upon regional ways of doing it and
new discoveries of how a stitch looks different if done slightly
differently.

Techniques come and go through time, but they're never really lost, I
don't think. There's usually someone around who keeps it going somehow
until interest finds it again.

I mean, I'm a prime example. I'm trying to keep the twisted knot stitch
alive and well. big grin

I look forward to hearing from those with large libraries who might know
more about this.

Dianne

I wrote:

As 17th century samplers are studied, "new" stitches are found. What were
the
original names of Standish Stitch, Alternating Double-back Stitch, and
Williamsburg Stitch?

Dianne replied:
Are they truly "new" or are the people studying them just unfamiliar
with every single embroidery stitch known to be used?

They are truly "new" meaning that, while they were worked in the 17th century,
no stitch diagrams survived and no one knew the stitching sequence.

Joanne Harvey was the first to publish a stitch diagram for Standish Stitch in
her sampler entitled "The Embroideress," copyright 1986. From her
instructions, "The 10th band is a stitch found on 17th Century Band Samplers.
We shall call it the Standish Stitch. The technique was learned while
examining and stitching the Loara Standish sampler for Pilgrim Hall. . . This
band is reversible and appears on other 17th century pieces."

Joanne had to throw out a year's worth of work on Loara, because she hadn't
seen the back. When Pilgrim Hall decided to have the sampler cleaned, she was
allowed only a few hours to study the back and her husband, Alan, a museum
photographer, took pictures. That is when she learned how truly reversible
this sampler was, even though she suspected it.

Neither Mrs. Christie nor Jacqueline Enthoven published a stitch diagram for
Standish Stitch under any other name. Louisa Pesel did not publish a stitch
diagram for Standish Stitch under any other name, although I do believe she
represented the stitch in a pattern published in "English Embroidery (Vol 2) -
Cross stitch."

Therese de Dillmont did not publish a stitch diagram for Standish Stitch under
any other name. She did publish something called "entre-deux á double face,"
which, at a casual glance, looks like Standish Stitch. But it does not have
the same structure on the front and looks rather like a closely worked
herringbone with vertical stitches thrown in. The reverse side looks something
like a feather stitch, but it has separate stitches instead of loops.

Darlene O'Steen did publish a stitch diagram (The Counted Thread Sampler,
copyright 1986) which, on the front, looks like Standish Stitch, but she
diagramed it as diagonal cross-stitch. On the reverse side, it is missing the
diagonal stitches, so it is not exactly the same on the front and back as is
Standish Stitch.

Double backstitch was published by Christie & Enthoven, but not in the form
used on 17th century samplers. Theirs had stitches of the same length, while
the 17th century version had a long and short stitch, similar on the front to
long-armed cross-stitch.

But no one published Alternating Double Backstitch prior to Darlene O'Steen's
use of it in "Our English Heritage Sampler", copyright 1987. She had to study
the stitch closely to see the horizontal compensating stitch that allowed the
stitch to be reversible. I'm not sure when that horizontal compensating stitch
was changed to a diagonal stitch, the way Darlene diagramed it in "The Proper
Stitch", copyright 1994.

From "The Proper Stitch", "This stitch was named Williamsburg stitch because it
was first found on a seventeenth-century sampler in the collection at the
DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Gallery in Williamsburg, Virginia."
Williamsburg Stitch is a variation of double backstitch, with an overlaying
half cross-stitch in a contrasting color. If no one published the 17th century
version of double backstitch, they couldn't have published this variation.

So the question remains, "What were the original names of Standish Stitch,
Alternating Double-back Stitch, and Williamsburg Stitch?"

So, is fore-stitch new or just a way of doing/using a familiar stitch?

We don't know, because apparently there is no record of what fore-stitch was in
the 17th century. It could be something we use everyday (four-sided stitch? -
spelling was not standardized in the 17th century), or a stitch so obscure,
today's embroidery historians haven't found and deciphered it.


Nancy Sue,
Professional Project Starter

Not to mention educated! I had no idea such records were kept. I
wonder if I'll be able to come up with another question that
intelligent! )

Maureen In Vancouver, B.C.

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

I'm so impressed with this. I saved it. What an interesting post! I
remember a previous conversation about the stitch you so well described
(the Standish sampler).

Thanks so much!!! However, I'm STILL wondering if the stitch isn't
being practised "somewhere" without our knowing it. huge grin Boy,
Maureen certainly brought up an interesting topic. Thanks again for
taking the time to type all that out. It was a treasure to read.
Dianne

NancySue wrote:
I wrote:


As 17th century samplers are studied, "new" stitches are found. What were

the

original names of Standish Stitch, Alternating Double-back Stitch, and
Williamsburg Stitch?


Dianne replied:

Are they truly "new" or are the people studying them just unfamiliar
with every single embroidery stitch known to be used?


They are truly "new" meaning that, while they were worked in the 17th century,
no stitch diagrams survived and no one knew the stitching sequence.

Joanne Harvey was the first to publish a stitch diagram for Standish Stitch in
her sampler entitled "The Embroideress," copyright 1986. From her
instructions, "The 10th band is a stitch found on 17th Century Band Samplers.
We shall call it the Standish Stitch. The technique was learned while
examining and stitching the Loara Standish sampler for Pilgrim Hall. . . This
band is reversible and appears on other 17th century pieces."

Joanne had to throw out a year's worth of work on Loara, because she hadn't
seen the back. When Pilgrim Hall decided to have the sampler cleaned, she was
allowed only a few hours to study the back and her husband, Alan, a museum
photographer, took pictures. That is when she learned how truly reversible
this sampler was, even though she suspected it.

Neither Mrs. Christie nor Jacqueline Enthoven published a stitch diagram for
Standish Stitch under any other name. Louisa Pesel did not publish a stitch
diagram for Standish Stitch under any other name, although I do believe she
represented the stitch in a pattern published in "English Embroidery (Vol 2) -
Cross stitch."

Therese de Dillmont did not publish a stitch diagram for Standish Stitch under
any other name. She did publish something called "entre-deux á double face,"
which, at a casual glance, looks like Standish Stitch. But it does not have
the same structure on the front and looks rather like a closely worked
herringbone with vertical stitches thrown in. The reverse side looks something
like a feather stitch, but it has separate stitches instead of loops.

Darlene O'Steen did publish a stitch diagram (The Counted Thread Sampler,
copyright 1986) which, on the front, looks like Standish Stitch, but she
diagramed it as diagonal cross-stitch. On the reverse side, it is missing the
diagonal stitches, so it is not exactly the same on the front and back as is
Standish Stitch.

Double backstitch was published by Christie & Enthoven, but not in the form
used on 17th century samplers. Theirs had stitches of the same length, while
the 17th century version had a long and short stitch, similar on the front to
long-armed cross-stitch.

But no one published Alternating Double Backstitch prior to Darlene O'Steen's
use of it in "Our English Heritage Sampler", copyright 1987. She had to study
the stitch closely to see the horizontal compensating stitch that allowed the
stitch to be reversible. I'm not sure when that horizontal compensating stitch
was changed to a diagonal stitch, the way Darlene diagramed it in "The Proper
Stitch", copyright 1994.

From "The Proper Stitch", "This stitch was named Williamsburg stitch because it
was first found on a seventeenth-century sampler in the collection at the
DeWitt Wallace Decorative Arts Gallery in Williamsburg, Virginia."
Williamsburg Stitch is a variation of double backstitch, with an overlaying
half cross-stitch in a contrasting color. If no one published the 17th century
version of double backstitch, they couldn't have published this variation.

So the question remains, "What were the original names of Standish Stitch,
Alternating Double-back Stitch, and Williamsburg Stitch?"


So, is fore-stitch new or just a way of doing/using a familiar stitch?


We don't know, because apparently there is no record of what fore-stitch was in
the 17th century. It could be something we use everyday (four-sided stitch? -
spelling was not standardized in the 17th century), or a stitch so obscure,
today's embroidery historians haven't found and deciphered it.


Nancy Sue,
Professional Project Starter

--
Maureen Miller C.H.

Linn Skinner wrote:

I am fascinated by one stitch combination I have never seen except on 17th
century spot motif samplers. Roman Stitch (not Roumanian Couching) and Rice
Stitch (tied cross stitch) in combination. I collect examples of the little
motifs.

I have seen Roman stitch worked as "encroaching satin stitch", and I
have seen it is "Indian stitch" (Mountmellick) being a "couched" stitch
both worked to create the look of a triple row of satin stitch. I'll
have to look up rice stitch so I can see how they might be used together.

Rumanian couching (does anybody really know how to spell that stitch? -
I've seen it 2 ways), actually can be done several ways and is called
"figure stitch" in China. Colcha is a form of Bakhara couching.

Ahhhh, the list goes on. grin

Dianne

I don't know about the stitch, Dianne, but Romania can be spelled
"Rumania," "Roumania," or "Romania" with the last being the preferred
spelling.

Elizabeth

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
Linn Skinner wrote:

I am fascinated by one stitch combination I have never seen except on
17th
century spot motif samplers. Roman Stitch (not Roumanian Couching)
and Rice
Stitch (tied cross stitch) in combination. I collect examples of the
little
motifs.


I have seen Roman stitch worked as "encroaching satin stitch", and I
have seen it is "Indian stitch" (Mountmellick) being a "couched" stitch
both worked to create the look of a triple row of satin stitch. I'll
have to look up rice stitch so I can see how they might be used together.

Rumanian couching (does anybody really know how to spell that stitch? -
I've seen it 2 ways), actually can be done several ways and is called
"figure stitch" in China. Colcha is a form of Bakhara couching.

Ahhhh, the list goes on. grin

Dianne




--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dianne - try this link for some examples I have found

http://www.skinnersisters.com/stitchlesson/

Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
www.skinnersisters.com

I have seen Roman stitch worked as "encroaching satin stitch", and I
have seen it is "Indian stitch" (Mountmellick) being a "couched" stitch
both worked to create the look of a triple row of satin stitch. I'll
have to look up rice stitch so I can see how they might be used together.

Why didn't I *know* that this would be a counted discussion??? huge
grin The way your Roman stitch is presented is like Bakhara couching,
where the couched stitches stay in the same row.

So, proof again that so many of these stitches have little "twists" to
them for different purposes, and often go by several names. :-)

Thanks, Linn. Rice stitch looks like a pain to do, but I'm gonna try it
this afternoon. :-)

Dianne


Linn Skinner wrote:
Dianne - try this link for some examples I have found

http://www.skinnersisters.com/stitchlesson/

Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
www.skinnersisters.com


I have seen Roman stitch worked as "encroaching satin stitch", and I
have seen it is "Indian stitch" (Mountmellick) being a "couched" stitch
both worked to create the look of a triple row of satin stitch. I'll
have to look up rice stitch so I can see how they might be used together.