Talk:Binche lace

Antwerp, up the river?
Under History: In 1585, when the river Scheldt was closed to shipping, Binche did not suffer a decline in its lacemaking as did others up the river such as Antwerp lace.

Binche is not on the Scheldt itself, but on the ruisseau de Brûle, a tributary of the Haine, itself a tributary of the Scheldt. However, Antwerp is located far down river from the mouth of the Haine into the Scheldt. It is also quite near the historic point where the United Netherlands barred the Scheldt to shipping when they seceded from the Habsburg Netherlands; as a sea harbour (the most prominent one of Western Europe at the time), Antwerp would be most affected, to the advantage of the harbours in Holland, Zeeland and Zeelandic Flanders.

Maybe the text should be changed to “…Binche did not suffer a decline… as did others down the river…”? — Tonymec (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

joedkins: What is down and what is up? Perhaps upstream disambiguates better. Jo Pol (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

page of binche image
joedkins: Could you perhaps add the page number of the Binche sample on ? I skimmed through the whole online document linked in the article, but did not see it. Jo Pol (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added the plate/page number, but it comes from Palliser's History of Lace - my paper copy. I didn't realize that it's online! My version is a Dover Publication reprint - they say they haven't changed anything except where the plates go, so the page number may not be that useful. Joedkins (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

joedkins, Then the reference function must have auto-magically created a link. I found a completely different piece of Binche: fig 64 between page 122 and 123. By the way, do you know about this repository? -- 80.101.169.143 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol Yes, I know about the Arizona documents! I haven't investigated them much. I found the picture of the Barmen machine there. You have to be careful - not all their stuff is out of copyright! By the way - about the earlier comment above (which I missed) I didn't write this article! I haven't even read the text. I just added the picture. I feel strongly that an article on lace ought to have a good picture of the lace - not just a picture of someone making it or wearing it, if you can't see the details. Palliser's pictures aren't perfect, but better than nothing. If you know a better one, do add or replace. Joedkins (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)