If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA:: Mira Silverstein’s Guide to Combination Stitches, TPB | Number1Fred | Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 04 08:34 PM |
FA:: Mira Silverstein’s Guide to Slanted Stitches, TPB | Number1Fred | Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 04 08:33 PM |
FA: Mira Silverstein’s Guide to Combination Stitches, TPB | Number1Fred | Marketplace | 0 | October 29th 04 08:47 PM |
FA: Mira Silverstein’s Guide to Slanted Stitches, TPB | Number1Fred | Marketplace | 0 | October 29th 04 08:45 PM |
Have I lost it? | starlia | Beads | 22 | October 21st 04 10:30 AM |