Template talk:Lace types

2005 discussions
I have made a lot of changes and additions to the list of lace types and I am open to suggestions to modify it further. My basis for putting the Point Ground Bobbin laces after the Continental is that the Point Ground laces were "simplifications" (if you can believe it) of Mechlin in particular. Very often, you have to see the mesh stitches to determine if a lace is Mechlin or Point Ground because the lacemakers and designers making Point Ground literally copied Mechlin designs. PattyD 05:58, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is great. The next step is to create the stubs for all of these! Most of the links, especially those that are also place-names need to be modified to go directly to the lace type, not the place, in those cases where a disambiguation page already exists we can an entry for the lace type. I'm going to get started on that! -- pcrtalk 06:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like this organization better. Where would some of the contemporary laces, such as the artistic pieces currently made in Czechoslovakia, or Kortelaati's laces, fit? Do we need yet another category, or is there some way to categorize them within these categories? -- Julie E. 22:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Single Stitches are woven, knotted, looped or buttonholed. These four cover the vast majority of laces. As for the Czech laces and Kortehahti and the Swedish Guild (I've worked a couple) they are predominantly bobbin lace and fall under guipure, tape, Torchon or part laces. Their style is different, but their technique is not. As a matter of fact, I remember the day when I was looking at a picture of a piece of Honiton and came to the conclusion that it was essentially a tape lace (especially the degenerate designs called Slugs and Snails - eewwww! not very appealing!). I was shocked and amazed, but part laces ARE essentially tape forms. My, my, the lace world is getting smaller. The real point is that small differences in technique can appear to be much more significant than they really are. When you distinguish between the STYLE of a lace and the TECHNIQUE of a lace, the categories seem to stay more manageable.

On my way to the scanner to get some pictures going, after roughing out a template for the lace stubs.

Whaddya think? I always, always want to see a close enough picture to see the paths of the threads. So I think a picture box at the top of the form (probably half the width of the page). I also like a diagrammmatic layout of essential info (which, of course, we have to decide exactly what they are!)

Essential characteristics: Technique, Place, Time, Style, Fiber, Origins, ????

Which reminds me, we need stubs for general discussions of the principal techniques of lace. Chronologically ~ Lacis, Needle Lace, Bobbin Lace, Knit Lace, Crochet, Tatting

Crochet and Tatting are relatively young (19th Century). At first Crochet was the great imitator. Irish Crochet began as an interpretation of Gros Point de Venise, in sewing size thread and infinitely small hooks made from a sewing needle whose eye was cut to make a hook. Last week I went to see the Irish Crochet exhibit at Lacis in Berkeley, CA. Amazing. And they have (almost) everything in the open so you can get your nose an inch away. Heaven.

I have worked a piece of Crochet that is in imitation of Reticella (from Dillmont's Encyclopedia of Needlework). You really do have to look twice. It is really only in the 20th Century that Crochet found its own voice to sing with, using techniques and designs that are intrinsically rooted in the technical possibilites of Crochet.

Well, there I go again. PattyD 02:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vibeke Ervo is drafting an article on freehand lace for us. Maybe it will be clear where it belongs once we see the article--but I think a lot of it is very Torchon-like, except that it is made without pins other than at the footsides. Which made me notice we're missing Torchon, and I'm not positive about where it belongs in this scheme--am I right that it should be under Continental? -- Julie E. 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture box / form
I wonder what kind of form or box they were talking about. Jo Pol (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Navigation is not a classification
Hello joedkins

Note that this is a navigation template intended to quickly navigate between closely related pages. It is neither a taxonomy nor a classification page. As for the subcategories of bobbin lace I guess less is more. As cutwork is a link it stands less out as a category, so we may need an alternative layout, see the second example under "subgroup tests" of Template:Navbox/testcases. Jo Pol (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Jo Pol
 * I'm quite happy with it for the moment. I think some type of classification is very useful, even if it was intended as a navigation aid! I plan to make the bobbin lace sub-groups into pages in their own right, and make them into links - similar to Lace Machine. Lacemakers find these distinctions (part lace, guipure, etc) extremely important, after all, and they are helpful to lace collectors, and a good introduction for anyone interested in lace. I may change some of the sub-groups later, but I intend to move slowly, and check what I am doing with experts (past experts in books, and current experts IOLI)

--Joedkins (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello joedkins
 * Now that I've thrown out the odd ecclesiastical lace (which seemed only to be there to support a former red link in a gallery on bobbin lace) I think you can combine ancient and French/Flemish into something like continuous. Thus we get less confusion with Flemish bobbin-tape lace, whatever that may be. Note that I had to create stubs for former redirecting pages: guipure and raschel knit -- Jo Pol (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Jo Pol
 * I am glad that you've got rid of ecclesiastical lace! I was wondering what that was.
 * What I am doing at present is putting up pages for the bobbin lace categories, and trying to MAKE them proper categories! I'm starting with the ones that I know something about, and nibbling away until only the confused categories are left, then try to sort them out. I'm liaising with IOLI as I'm doing it, which will slow things down! But hopefully will mean that the categories end up acceptable. At present, we are 'discussing' whether bobbin tape lace is a part lace or not! They have the attitude, which I agree with, that the categories ought to be based on how the lace is actually made. Which is why I am starting with Part lace, which is made in bits, utterly unlike the continuous lace.
 * There does seem to be some confusion in modern lace classification about Part lace. The current Wikipedia classification makes it different from bobbin tape lace, which I approve of. Bruges is already under Part lace - I think it ought to be under bobbin tape lace. I've got a modern "How to" book, and Bruges lace (in that book) seems to be largely arrangements of tapes. But it also has added motifs. So perhaps this is where "Flemish bobbin tape lace" comes from - the less ornate Bruges lace (under the idea that Bruges used to be part of Flanders the country, or is in the modern Flanders area. I agree that this is a silly name!)
 * I would prefer to keep Part lace (possibly with a different name - Motif lace?) to signify Honiton and (I am told) Brussels or Duchesse lace - that is a lace where you make the little motifs, then combine them into the lace later with a ground or plaits. And Bobbin tape lace to signify making one or more bobbin tapes which are joined with a crochet hook, possibly with additional fillings (NOT needle lace fillings - that would be just tape lace). I realize that there are laces which might be hard to place as they are tape but with plaits as well - but this can be sorted out in the articles themselves. And get rid of Flemish bobbin tape lace, and possibly move Bruges to bobbin tape lace (or possibly not). But I have practically no knowledge of the lace of Belgium or Flanders (or indeed practically anything outside England) so you can see that I'm treading very cautiously here. I do NOT want to impose an Anglo-centric viewpoint! I do understand Honiton lace, though.
 * The lace types box is starting to look very pretty! Well done. Putting the background for the categories of bobbin lace is much better. I'll expand the Guipure lace article, if you like. This includes Bedfordshire lace and Maltese lace, which I do know about, and I can provide a picture, and some references.
 * A question for you. Some people get confused between bobbin tape lace (where the tape is made with bobbins at the same time as the rest of the lace) and 'tape lace' which is made with an existing tape - often machine made. There are, unfortunately, different terms used by British and Americans, which does not help! Wikipedia so far has 'bobbin tape lace', and 'tape lace', which is OK, but ends up with the term 'tape lace' in two different places. When I discussed this with IOLI, one idea was 'bobbin tape lace' and 'mixed tape lace' (as the second category uses two techniques - one for the tape and one with the joinings and fillings). I would like to do this, but I am hesitant, as it sounds a bit like 'original work', which is, of course, banned in Wikipedia. So I have left the term 'tape lace' as the category name, but mentioned 'mixed tape lace' in the article (it IS used, but not as much as 'tape lace') Do you think that we can change the name to Mixed tape lace? To distinguish it from Bobbin tape lace? Or even create a complete new main division of Mixed lace (meaning mixtures of techniques) and put 'tape lace' under it. That would put both types of tape lace at the same level. 'Hand-run gimps' could be put under Mixed lace' as well - that is a mixture of hand-made and machine made.
 * Sorting out the different ground continuous lace is going to be a challenge. I know about Bucks Point, of course. Is the use of a gimp (thick outlining thread) important of not? It is something that styles seem to either use or not. If this is acceptable, then it would be a way of breaking down the large number of continuous ground lace into smaller groups (but not too small!)
 * Is Torchon really an ancient lace? All examples I have seen are fairly modern, 19C or later. Has someone decided that since it is a 'peasant lace', it must therefore be primitive and so old? I am not sure that I like the 'ancient' category at all, to tell the truth. We are starting to get into bobbin lace history. Antwerp lace is old, I agree, but surely there ought to be some Italian lace in there!
 * That is a lot of questions and ideas, so I'll sign off. (I have introduced myself on my talk page.)
 * --Joedkins (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ancient
Indeed a lot of questions above. May be try to split them in separate sections, perhaps even on the relevant pages, so we can tackle them one by one. But at least I see we agree about getting rid of "ancient". Now a proper title for the combination. We can leave it a wanted page until someone comes with inspiration. Jo Pol (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Raschel / Guipure and interlanguage links
Hello Jo Pol

I've expanded the Guipure page. It's not very long, but has a picture, refers to types of guipure lace, and has references, which I think is all we need.

I'm not sure if I can help with Raschel knit! I've left the machine lace for a bit while I do the handmade lace, as most of the machine lace at least has a sentence or so each.

--Joedkins (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Joedkins
 * Via wikimedia I found some sister pages for Rachel lace and the template, the Dutch template is done by me. Same trick might be possible for more pages. I got the text for the Raschel page from one of your references. Did you see my note on the talk page of guipure? It was nice to read in the glossary of Earnshaw's ID how its meaning changed over time and is not limited to bobbin lace. -- Jo Pol (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Jo Pol
 * As you can probably see, I've done a bit of tidying up of the template and pages coming off it. Buratto had a redirect at the front of a perfectly good article, which meant you never saw it! I think Limerick is considered to be an embroidered lace. Teneriffe and Ñandutí are definitely not Filet lace. They are not really embroidered on anything and they are a very specific shape - round, and they seem to be called Sol laces, so I've put in the category. Battenberg is definitely a tape lace (made of machine tape) not cutwork. Hope you agree with all of this!
 * I've also written pages for guipure (expanded your stub) and bobbin tape lace (made a new article). And I have put links to those category pages for the styles within them. (Well, there aren't any pages for styles of bobbin tape lace yet!) --Joedkins (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mesh grounds
Hello Jo Pol I've come back here in case IOLI get fed up with us!

Embroidered seems more or less straight. Even Lorelei seems fairly happy with it!

I've done a little to (non bobbin) tape lace. I've added a Battenberg article (this used to be a redirect to Renaissance), and added some text, and pictures - general tidy, in fact. There seems to be a conflict as to whether Renaisssance is the name for the whole category or only one type. This is Pat Earnshaw v. The Lace Guild - both heavy-weights! So the article points out the conflict and gives references for each side. To tell the truth, I can't really get excited about this category - it was a hobby craze in the 19C. I think it's covered, apart from Mezzopunto and Romanian point. Earnshaw says Mezzopunto means all sorts of things apart from the tape lace, and quite frankly no-one seems particularly interested in it as a tape lace. I would be quite happy to get rid of it. I don't know anything about Romanian point, but it would be good to keep it as it is lace from somewhere else other than France, Flanders, England....

I've started on mesh grounds. I've tidied up some of the articles, added pictures when I could find them (out of copyright books, so picture quality not good, but they are there, and at least out of copyright!) and a couple of articles. There is no picture for Beveren lace. No-one seems very interested in that, either, but I found a Kantschool which talks about it a bit. The picture for Blonde lace shows a woman wearing it - very charming but short on details. But I can't find a picture in detail of the lace itself. There are two types of lace with no articles yet - I might do these some time. And there are the articles defining the groups, which I will think about.

There is something that I am not happy about. The article on Valenciennes lace has several pictures, which is good, but two of them are machine-made, which is not good. Can I remove them? Machine-made lace is not bobbin lace. --Joedkins (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Joedkins, You don't need to produce resume's of you changes. They are easy to follow via the 'related changes' links on the category page, the navigation template or project page. Jo Pol (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Because of the resume's I overlooked your question at the end. Of course you can remove. Perhaps even add a note on the picture page itself. Jo Pol (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)