Thursday, February 10, 2011

Yikes! It's triplets! Or maybe even quads!

Things are getting just a little spooky here in blogging cyberland.  A couple of days ago I sat down to productively waste some time catching up with my favorite blogs and there on the Needleprint blog was a devilishly enticing post about an upcoming auction of 17th century needlework. . . complete with links to the on-line catalogue.

Well, who could resist?  Certainly not me.  So a-clicking I did go. . . and I'll be darned, look what I found!  It's yet a THIRD Jane Turner sampler. . . this one fully embellished like Jane's with virtually IDENTICAL stitches and colors.  Here's that link:

Here's the same embellished band I focused on in my last post:

And here are the lady and the trees band and close ups of the lady herself:

Now, don't get me wrong.  Although I am thoroughly enjoying stitching on Jane's sampler, it isn't my VERY VERY VERY FAVORITE piece of all times.  But the coincidences are really striking aren't they?  And I have learned a little more from each piece.  With triplet number three, I was able to get a much better image of how the original dress was actually done -- the only photo I have of Jane's original sampler is a very small one in a catalogue from the Burrell Collection.

Interestingly, the little blurb in the Burrell catalogue says "the design is similar to another sampler made by Mary Lawley, dated 1668, now in a private collection".  Is this Mary's sampler?  There are no dates, names, or initials on the sampler itself. . . and the auction description says nothing about Mary. . . so I'm thinking probably not.  The "outline" sampler with the same pattern has the initials M.C.. . .which would argue that it isn't Mary's sampler either.  So maybe there are actually FOUR extant copies of this sampler design.  Fascinating.


  1. It is very exciting! I got in touch with Claire Browne today and she was kind enough to send me a large detail pic of the sampler. Do myou know where Mary Lawley can be viewed?

  2. Wow! Great that you got a better picture. And, no, I know nothing about the Mary Lawley sampler other than that brief mention in Patterns of Childhood: Samplers from the Glasgow Museums by Rebecca Quinton (see p. 25). I did a quick google search, but didn't turn up anything promising.

  3. Neither did I. Claire Browne is sending me a catalogue of the exhibit the 'new' sampler is in...I am looking forward to that as I haven`t really had time to look at the rest of the items being offered for sale. I am also reading your posts re;Jane Turner with great interest as I am stitching her too.

  4. I can`t find your email, so am contacting you here. A comment was left on my blog that 'Tideswell' is a village in Derbyshire UK', but the name on the sampler was Teethwell, wasn`t it?

  5. Hi MJ,
    Be looking for an e-mail from me with my address. In the meantime, that is an interesting observation...but the name appears to be pretty clearly Teethwell. Looking back at the photo, I first was seeing 2 names - Mary Thomas and A---- Teethwell. I am still puzzled by the "A" word. It sure looks like "alias," but I really wonder whether that is what was intended. Maybe I can get my sister to check her copy of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and see what the history of the use of the word "alias" is, and whether it was in common use in the late 17th century. It still looks to me like it might be an odd spelling of a name.

  6. I have to agree about 'Alias'. I have been wondering about how to find out the origin of the word. GMTA!!!! I will be very interested to see what you find out.