I'm not entirely sure what the academics' objection is to the term "reproduction" - especially as it has been a term in use for a very long time. It describes exactly what the sampler is, it's a modern copy of an old textile item. What's the problem with that? This current fad for one sector of society telling everyone else which words they should use makes me very uncomfortable - as another poster said, it is a form of gatekeeping, and we have historic examples of where this has had serious repercussions far outside the original scope of the argument. In a nutshell - academics, mind your own beeswax!
Hallo Nicola You raise some very valid points about “reproduction” samplers. This has been a discussion for as long as I can remember stitching samplers. Here are some of my thoughts… First off, I want to say right up front, I am not an “exact reproducer”. Some of my “reproductions are exact but some are not. I know I step on many toes with this comment, especially those that feel that they only want to stitch exact reproductions. That is totally fine, (thank goodness there are so many of us creating these beauties). However, if one really wanted to be so exact in the recreation of these samplers, we definitely would need to have a completely different line-up for fabric. Why is it “required” by some stitchers to have the exact stitches and not the exact fabric. I remember one of my reproductions, (one that was exact in stitches) looked completely different once stitched on modern fabric. The original fabric was 22 over 36 count, so, I don’t think there ever is a real authentic reproduction. I like the term “adaption”, but hardly ever use it because nobody ever searches for a “sampler adaptation” when looking for a pattern. I also really feel deeply about just “copying”, reproducing or whatever the term, someone else’s work. These girls have no voice any longer and we all assume they are okay having their work copied and mass produced. I sometimes wonder what they would say if they were given a choice. I often add some of my own creativity to a sampler, because they are so far gone and I need to make up the lost stitches or I want to “fix” the symmetry of a border. So, in closing, if museums and such have issue with the word they need to give us an alternative. You can’t just ask someone not to do something without giving them some option. I like “creative reproduction” as a term. Kindly, Birgit The Wishing Thorn
I cannot believe you were able to acquire Mary and Grace’s samplers together. An amazing acquisition. It must have been a wonderful experience for Grace to follow in Mary’s work stitch by stitch, as she *reproduced* her sampler. Reproduction is the only fitting word. We must not allow people in ivory towers dictate the words we use to describe the work we do. That type of behaviour is called gate keeping and it drives people away from needlework.
Betty Ring was very emphatic on this issue. She had no problem using the word “reproduction” and as she knew how very very careful many of us were and are in reproducing as closely as possible an antique piece of needlework, she advised us to put our own names and dates somewhere in a discreet part of our sampler so it would not be mistaken for an antique in future. Too many academics delight in trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I personally do not appreciate an academic instructing me on my nomenclature, particularly if said academic has never picked up a needle or attempted to work the pieces we do. I’m quite sure Linda Eaton, no slouch in the scholarly department herself, would have agreed with this stance as well.
Thank you, Nicola, for yet another informative video about samplers. I learn something from you every week! My parents were avid collectors of fine antiques and my Mother taught me early on the importance of knowing the difference between an original piece of older furniture or object and a “reproduction”. A reproduction is a copy and we stitch a copy of a sampler you have charted so skillfully from the original through HATS - we reproduce her. A “restoration” is not a “reproduction”. Neither is it a “reconstruction”. My mother had her shabby and stained Coats and Clark thread chest “restored” , “reconstructed” but not “reproduced”. She was a customer of a gentleman who business was to “restore” and “reconstruct “ some pieces she brought to him. And he was so skillful, he also sold “reproductions” he made of “original” antiques. While we are on the topic, You taught me the proper usage of “reproduction vs. adaptation” when you charted our antique sampler Alethia Saunders 1831. Because you did not have the original in your possession at the time you charted her, she is an “adaptation” not a “reproduction”. When we took the original Alethia Saunders out of her frame, we did not clean, or mend her - she was not “restored” or “reconstructed” Restoration and reconstructed implies returning an object to its actual original state. Reproduction means creating a copy of the original.
Hello Nicola! Another enjoyable and thought-provoking video! I’ve been thinking about your “contentious question” and even read some of the other comments before writing this. A few others seem to have the same question that I did while listening today…just what objection do academics have to “reproduction sampler?” As an academic myself (albeit in a totally different field, biology), I feel it’s important to know and try to understand others point of view. As a scientist, my view is to go with the choice or explanation that the data support best. In this case, I found it very helpful that you gave definitions of the words that have been suggested. Based on those definitions but lacking any knowledge of the objections to its use, “reproduction sampler” appears to best describe what you and the rest of the HATS team produces. I hope in a future video you will explain why the academics in this field object to the use of the term in the way we needleworkers use it. Love the Turner samplers…original and reproduction!😊
While taking studio classes at university - drawing, painting, and especially printmaking - I learned the difference between "print" and "reproduction" as it relates to two-dimensional media. When people say they have a print of the Mona Lisa hanging in their dining room, what they really mean is they have a reproduction of the Mona Lisa because the word "print" should be reserved for two-dimensional prints (lithograph, screen print, etc.) made wholly by hand while "reproduction" refers to a new product made in an effort to represent an older original, whatever the means of production. My Hannah Campbell is not an exact replica (that word does not fit our process either) but she is a reproduction as I am using a graph that has faithfully recorded her original stitches regardless of the fact that I am using a different base material and threads from those that Hannah used. I don't think any other term fits this process and if I were to read "reinterpretation" or "reimagining" on a chart, this would suggest to me that conscious changes have been made and the chart does not faithfully document the original sampler maker's stitches. Thank you for all the thought, care, and effort you put into your work, Nicola, and for bringing this discussion to us. Looking forward to the HH retreat in October! ❤
Hi Nicola thank you for today and I love your raising the current debate on what we call reproduction samplers. For me the word reproduce defines what we do in our craft to carefully stitch a sampler as per the original and to celebrate and bring into our homes samplers we would otherwise not have the joy of seeing today. Maria from UK 🇬🇧
A wonderful video! And such lovely samplers. The fact that this “contentious issue” is even an issue is what the world is dealing with everywhere. I believe Mr. Webster was correct in his definitions all these many years, and your reading the definitions in this video further indicate that “reproduction” is the correct term to be used when stitching a sampler from another’s work. None of the other words hit that very specific term of what we do like the word “reproduction” does. Replication would be the closest, but it means the same thing. The word “reproduction” has been used for many, many years in the world of furniture and in samplers, and I do not see the need to change it because “academics” think it should change. Let’s let stitchers describe what we do!! (And Dee agrees with me - my non-stitching husband!!!) Let’s continue to get the word out that what we’re doing IS reproducing samplers!!
I so agree with Melissa! And the others above. I wish I understood what the academics’ objection is to that term…I will keep reading the comments to see if anyone knows. I also agree with Melissa that we are living in a world where it is often hard to have a rational discussion with someone we disagree with. So sad.
I am no expert, but when I want to stitch a sampler as closely as possible to an historic original, I think I am working on a reproduction sampler. Any other word other than "reproduction" says to me that the designer may use motifs or other inspiration from an historic sampler, and may indeed create something gorgeous that I'd like to stitch, but unless it is painstakingly close and faithful to the original, it is not a reproduction sampler. I will be interested to hear what others think.
Many sampler experts as well as museums use the word reproduction when referring to antique samplers that have been carefully reproduced. The Loara Standish Sampler is referred to as a reproduction right on the box. The Francis Burrwell sampler is also referred to as a reproduction right on the box. Both samplers owned by museums who gave permission for the samplers to be reproduced. There really isn’t a better term to describe a sampler that has been carefully studied to chart it as closely as possible to the original. If I stitch a reproduction sampler and change the colors, motifs and name; then it becomes an adaptation of the original. However it doesn’t really matter what the individual does once they purchase the chart and stitch it. But the sampler that has been painstakingly reproduced and charted should be called a reproduction. It has been the proper term for many years, no need to change it now.
Precisely my thoughts. Also, when reproductions are charted, sometimes the colors are taken from the back and other times from the front. Since we as the reproducers do not usually have access to the original piece, we do the best we can with the information provided on the chart. If I don't like copying the faded colors from the front, I don't have a moments hesitation in reaching for a deeper shade. After all, I seriously doubt that the girls made their samplers in 20 shades of beige and tan so I suppose in those instances I am creating an adaption. BTW, I purchased the Loara Standish sampler to work with silk threads; it will be so lovely when completed.
The world is full of semantics now. Every time a " word" gains a negative connotation (or causes a negative reaction in a few people or triggers a few people) , academics and politicians try to change the word. I would think samplers would be immune to this nonsense, but of course, people in perceived higher societal levels need "something" to complain about. In medicine, we have the same issues with names of diseases , techniques, and instruments( often named for specific physicians who created them). OR, perhaps these intellectuals are just bored and need something to justify their existence as experts in their fields. . I like the word "Reproduction" since that's exactly what we are doing. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Hi Nicola, thanks for bringing up this really interesting discussion. As part of my work I used to be sometimes involved with creating thesauri and nomenclatures. What was always considered really important was the common understanding that users would have of a certain name and its context and use. The common consistent understanding and especially agreement, was sometimes more important than the word itself and how it may be used in a different context. I think Reproduction Samplers has by now gained a widespread understanding of what is meant by the community that is most invested in the naming - it would be a pity I believe to have to change what seems to work well by now for the most part for those most using the term?
Great discussion! I too am curious about the root of this debate. What are the issues with our current terminology? Based on your episode, I feel that reproduction accurately defines the ‘faithful recording’ of the original, stitch by stitch. So your charts are reproductions. I feel that what stitchers do with your charts creates the quandary…if they ‘faithfully follow the chart’ with the most similar materials available, it could be a reproduction. But, how many changes (intentional or not) are allowed before it becomes an adaptation? Thanks for including us in the discussion 😊
Hello Nicola! I think that "reproduction" is a perfect term to define when you have the chart of a old salmpler and you stitch it as it was. Obvioulsy it can reproduced in the same exact way, as threads fabric and even light will be different. You can call it copy, recreation, reimagination or even forgery, but what it really is is a reproduction. Some time Academics are too much academic, methinks! Thank you for your flosstube! It's always a joy to visit with you on sunday!
Thank you Nicola for a very thought-provoking video. Reproduction seems to most accurately describe samplers that have been reproduced exactly as the original stitcher. I have never felt that reproduction of a sampler included the linen or whatever the sampler was stitched on, nor did I believe it included the threads that we use to stitch the reproduction (beyond as close a colour likeness as possible for linen and thread). I will be interested to hear more about this debate. The grandmother/grand-daughter samplers are gorgeous and I look forward to the grandmother's sampler being reproduced. Thanks as always and happy stitching.
I am comfortable with the word Reproduction representing the charting of an old sampler. If there were to be a sea change in the industry, then Replica or Replication would also carry the same designation. I so enjoyed my visit to NZ, AU, and Tasmania on a cruise back in 2016. I am so envious. My favorite port of call was in Tasmania, a lovely place. Wish I could go again.
Nicola, lovely chat this afternoon. I love the new release and am inspired that someone older than me stitched it. I believe reproduction is the best description for samplers that have been reproduced exactly from the original sampler.
Thank you again for educating us in this contentious issue. To me, charting an original sampler enabling others to stitch it again exactly, is reproduction. And, PLEASE do chart Grace Turner! I swooned when I saw these two❤️
I so love your videos. You are such a "Lady". If I lived near you I would invite you to tea and we could talk endlessly about stitching and the joy we find in our hobby. I love the thought of stitching reproduction samplers. I think whilst stitching just maybe the original stitcher is watching from Heaven and encouraging me to finish my project. I deligt in your videos. Thank You for making them.
I always learn something when I watch your videos. When I hear a sampler is a reproduction, that term tells me that I will be stitching a copy of an existing sampler. One FlossTuber I watch sometimes takes motifs or sections from an antique sampler and reimagines these elements to create a new sampler. Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge about samplers. I wondered if girls/women had patterns for the samplers they stitched! Loved the book you showed.
Hi Nicola, I don't often comment on your videos but your question prompted me to respond. I personally think that a "Reproduction" suggests that something is being done based not only on the actual stitch used as well as the materials to create a close recreation of the original. When selling or promoting a "Reproduction Sampler" I think it is important not only to chart as the sampler had originally been stitched using the stitches in the same position with same/similar color and type of threads on same/similar fabric type/count. Since it is next to impossible to get the materials used in the original sampler, notations stating the deviations should be included by the person designing/promoting the sampler. I realize this is the "strictess" version of the term "Reproduction" in our field, but this what I believe the term means to me. Words/terms can not only vary in their meaning by country, but can further have alternate meaning, by local within a country. Great, thought-provoking discussion!
I love these discussions! My take is: IF you have three exact cars to make one working car, of that model, you have a restoration of 1 car using all original parts. Reproduction is when you roll those cars off of today's assembly lines that look exactly the same, runs the same, just using modern materials. Recreation is when you assemble something resembling the original but have made artistic or mechanical changes that suit the person recreating the vehicle with their personal preferences. So to ME When I buy a chart of a sampler, if the stitches have been recorded the same, the colors matched as carefully as possible, and the stitch count of the fabric is the same of the original piece, I will have a reproduced item with today's available materials. The moment I change a color or stitch count of the fabric or change words or motif in the piece, I have recreated said piece to my personal preferences. Designers can give us exact reproductions or if they put in personal preferences, change something, we get recreations. Now, I stitch for joy, my hobby, my stitching will most likely end up at the thrift store when I pass, and definitely not in a museum, so. this seems like a discussion not to be taken passionately, just food for thought.
If the samplers are stitched as you have charted, they are reproductions. If we change the design or omit/add something, they are interpreted. You are a gift, Nicola. The cross stitch community is better for having your influence and care!
Thank you for posing an interesting question. I have referred to my work stitching a sampler originally stitched in 1790 by my 2nd cousin six times removed as an attempt to replicate it. Since it is impossible to completely reproduce it or copy it due to the uncertainty of original colors, missing segments, etc., I can merely portray it as best I can based on educated assumptions. That said, my work is also more than an adaptation as I am not making deliberate changes to personalize it and make it my own. Consequently, I began using the term “replication” in order to avoid “reproduction” or “adaptation” even though there may only be slight differences in semantics. Ultimately, regardless of what we choose to call it, what matters most is that we are honoring the stitchers who came before us and paying tribute to the treasures they left behind.
Loved your comments Nicola! I have always referred to stitching a sampler faithfully as a reproduction! No change is made. Stitching duplicates the original!
Hi Nicola, in my opinion Reproduction is the correct terminology, we are stitching Samplers that have been reproduced from an original Sampler, the same way that Grace reproduced her Sampler from her Grandmother.
Just for my own historical interest, I would love a little more information given about the actual historical pieces themselves. What was the thread count of the fabric of the original? What type of fabric and threads were used in the original? I certainly understand that I could make it anyway I want to, but I would love to know what the original was in any of these patterns. 😊
Hi - I would like to understand the basis on which academics and others have objected to the term “reproduction”. Hearing the other side of the argument will make my opinion more informed and well-rounded.
Mary and Grace’s samplers are a great find. It is important to show that reproductions have been around for longer than we thought. I believe reproduction is the best word for the samplers that we stitch. Recreate and restoration do not adequately define what we do when we stitch a sampler.
So, here is what I think about the vocabulary surrounding these samplers. I think that casually, reproduction or recreation are fine terms. You are reproducing or recreating something that already existed. From what I understand though, in historian circles, reproduction is saved for something that would be made from the same pattern, on the same equipment, using the same materials, just made now instead of then. I think "interpretation" is more accurate for what is actually going on here. It is an interpretation of an existing object, especially if one uses a different type of thread, different color of thread, and/or different count of fabric or different content of fabric. I personally think this changes the artwork into an interpretation of the stitcher. So yeah, I think technically "interpretation" would be the correct term, however I think the casual use of "reproduction" or "recreation" is just fine.
Reproduction sampler makes sense, to me! It’s a pattern/chart created from close inspection of an antique sampler and faithfully and meticulously, *reproduced.* I’ll leave it at that, I think.
Hi😊 from Raleigh,NC,USA. It has always been my understanding that the term reproduction in most cases mean the same thing as in Samplers, it is making something just as the original, just with new materials. Current materials. That had always been my understanding. 🐕🦺😎
A very thought provoking question. I listened intently to the definitions, and was surprised that I thought “facsimile” was the closest to what we do. In that we use different materials and usually make a different size. But I also think that “reproduction” is firmly set in our lexicon as what we do. I have to confess that most of my pieces are “unintentional adaptations” 😂
I look so forward to listening to you on Sunday afternoons here in Florida USA. You are very calming very knowledgeable and just delight to listen to. Thank you for taking the time to speak to all of us about this special special hobby.
I am entirely comfortable with "academics" developing definitions and terms that will help people communicate clearly. For example, if an academic group determines through discussion, research, or whatever other means, that the term "psychology" is appropriate to be applied to one thing, and "psychiatric" to be applied to another, I think that is good - it is helpful, and contributes to our ability to talk about something in a meaningful and effective way. So I don't mind at all that there is discussion and debate about the term "reproduction" when it comes to samplers. For myself, I think that a deep dive into a "reproduction" would include using the same fibers, the same ground cloth, in the same count, and with the same degree of technique (such as carrying or not carrying thread behind the word). What I do is not, therefore, a "reproduction" of an antique sampler even if the chart I am using is a faithful, stitch-by-stitch record of the placement and colors of the antique. I am stitching a representation of an antique sampler because I am using a different count and a different fiber. Another thing that I think is a worthwhile topic of discussion among needleworkers and sampler charters (I avoided the word there) is what colors should be charted? Some of us want to have something on our walls that looks like we own the antique itself. Some of us want to have the original colors that the stitcher used, so it looks as good as new, and all of the ravages of time are rolled back. Unless there is a way to get at the back of a sampler it is very hard to know very clearly what the original linen color was or what the original thread colors were - so I understand that most charts are based on the colors in the antique. A "reimagining" would be to take the antique with all of its stains and fading and use linen and thread colors that are what we imagine the original stitcher would have chosen. (Or even the thread colors that we prefer, that go with our decor, etc.) Thanks for this interesting video and the interesting question, Nicola!
I define Reproduction whether it is a sampler, furniture, or other artwork as an item that is an exact replica of the original item used as a model for the Reproduction. I've seen another term used such as recreation or replication, but i can't remember the exact word but when i see that word i don't think it's an exact match to the original.
While antique samplers can't be reproduced exactly, due to the fabrics and threads no longer being available, when you map out an old sampler you are creating a reproduction (it's not called a duplicate). Whether academics or others have issues with the terminology, it seems to best describe them within the needlework field. I appreciate, though when designers not that they aren't trying to do exact reproductions, but not all do that. I bought a pattern I really like that I thought was a reproduction but then saw a picture of the original, which was included with the pattern. The original was gorgeous and most of it could have been reproduced but the pattern had been simplified and some colours quite changed. So whatever approach designers are taking, it's good if it's noted on the pattern. Having spent many years within the antiques business, a restoration is a repair to something original (whether it's having frayed needlepoint canvas repaired or a porcelain figurine, etc.) If you are taking your original samplers in to have repairs done, that's restoration; what you're doing as a designer isn't. Interesting topic, and likely one where no everyone is going to agree on verbiage.
I think reproduction is appropriate, even understanding the materials used are modern (or of the current time) if one is reproducing a sampler from a "purist" approach. I mean this to say each piece of the whole is reproduced like for like. In our case, stitch for stitch. That said, my own stitching may be an adaptation due to mistakes I make or variation of color choices. Gee, I'm sorry for sounding so wordy this morning--perhaps I shouldnt have had that last cup of coffee. 😁 Thank you for all you do.
Wonderful video as always. And what an interesting question and opportunity for discussion. What if the answer is not one thing? Perhaps the charting of the antique is the reproduction and since anyone who chooses to stitch from that chart, and chooses their own contemporary fabric and thread to stitch with, then the end result of the stitching of the chart is a recreation?
The question of the use of the word "reproduction" is (if you will forgive me) rather unimportant in comparison to the explanation of what process you have completed. HATS produces a chart based on someone's sampler and then provide the historical context of the pattern and the individual. That is to my mind a completely acceptable use of the word reproduction. I do agree that when stitching a reproduction chart - individuals should somehow note their own date and time as the lady from Witney Antiques suggested. Anyone can take a chart and re-interpret it by changes of colors - names - elimination or addition of patterns. That is the creative part of our work where the heart of the stitcher comes into play. Terminology can become quite interchangeable over a period of time which is why most academics define the pertinent terns utilized in their papers at the beginning of the paper.
I wasn't aware of the controversy, but it seems to me that what we do is reproduce old samplers because of our love of and enthusiasm for these pieces. Using the word "reproduction" in my mind simply differentiates them from the original antique pieces. Nothing more, and nothing less. The resulting pieces are faithful reproductions of the originals, although some stitchers do personalize or modify charts to their liking.
Nicola, I think that what you do can be rightly called reproduction. Your attention to stitch type and color places your charts in that category for me. I recently stitched both the Jane Bostocke Sampler and the Loara Standish Sampler, but made significant changes to color. I also stitched Loara over 2 rather than over 1. I signed both samplers as Adaptation by Margaret Bramlett. They were not reproductions, but the charts are reproductions. That is how I define it.
Hi Nicola :-))In my opinion the term reproduction is a very clear and precise term to use when one stitches a sampler exactly as it was stitched so long ago.. I also wanted you to know I did purchase Rachael’s sampler today and so very pleased to have this reproduction in my collection!!
To me a piece of furniture that is a reproduction is an identical use of materials fashioned or built in an identical way. My Stickley reproduction furniture is made of oak like the original and built using the same joinery as the original. Samplers are stitched on different fabric with different floss than the original because those materials are no longer available in most cases. I can understand the quibble over the use of the word reproduction if that is what the issue is but as far as I am concerned I still refer to a copy of an old piece to be a reproduction or a faithful reproduction or perhaps an adaptive reproduction or an adaptation. Words do matter but I'm not sure that this is one that we need to discard at this time
Is the question really about the name or the word as much as the trends of dishonesty? I would like to understand the reason the museums, etc. are raising the issue. Possibly the issue of falseness or being dishonest in sales,etc is causing issues and those groups are trying to curtail these issues. This is a really interesting discussion.
I would say that reinterpretation could be an appropriate word to use for what do. Yes, we do work on pieces that are designed and stitched by someone else. Ours work is different even if it’s as exact of a “reproduction “ as you can make, it won’t (I believe) ever be a copy or duplicate. We don’t have the same access to the tools that they used. Our linens and flosses are such a joy to work with but they are different. I also change the colors, and sometimes I also change the stitches a little bit (sometimes intentionally or more often unintentionally). I make “errors” and these can be worked into the new design or sometimes I need to frog them out because it throw the whole design off. This is why for me and how I work, reinterpretation is appropriate. I truly appreciate all the work that you do and all of your contributions to this community. I am excited to start on my new HATS project soon!
I’m wondering how hard would it be to add a tiny mark( a star, a french knot, etc.) after the name of the stitcher on the fabric for the sampler being reproduced? For example, stitched in the year 1853 by Jane Doe* This tiny addition would serve as notice that this is not an original sampler but a faithful copy. When the “reproduction” sampler is then viewed, we would know it was a copy because the original stitchers name has been tagged. Stitchers could always add their own name and date to the sampler as well. When I have copy a painting, I say it is “Sunflowers In the style of Van Gogh” so that viewers will understand this it is a copy. I may write that on the back of the canvas as well. I am guessing that some people might take advantage by trying to pass off a reproduction sampler as an original. Is that the real issue here?
Ooooh, I love a good “argument” when such thoughtful people engage in good faith. As others have mentioned, not knowing exactly what the objections are, it’s a little challenging to debate the precise points. Nevertheless, I can see there might be degrees of “reproduction” where qualifiers could be warranted. For example, a “faithful” reproduction could mean the same stitches in the same places; or, it could also mean using the same fabric (linen? Silk? Gauze? Of precisely the same thread count?) and same thread ( silk? Wool? Cotton?) as the original on which the chart is based? Is it a reproduction design when you fill in some alphabet stitches, for example, that age may have eroded in the original? This is a great topic and fun to tease out. My assumption is that colors, stitches and design are as close to the original as one could get with thorough investigation of the front and back of the original and research on available colors/design motifs/alphabets used during the particular period. Thanks for I allowing my long comment and for this forum!
I would like to add that I think the primary reason designers use the term reproduction is to make the distinction between a sampler that is a designer’s original design from an antique that a designer has charted. Maybe if the academics would consider this reasoning, they might be able to give a bit of artistic freedom in the use of these terms instead of being sticklers.
I love when you present these thought provoking points in your videos. My mom and I have been debating all morning about it, and as two stitchers who are interested in archives at a semi-academic level we both take issue with NOT using the word reproduction. As long as the samplers are reproduced faithfully (within reason, of course) it doesn’t make sense to use any other word. Copy, to me, implies something of equal value to the original. My example has been a reproduction of Van Gough, as you can buy to put into your home. It may be lovely, but it doesn’t have the same monetary or academic value as the original. Restoration, a word I frequently associate with vintage furniture, implies you are purchasing an original item that has been cleaned and preserved in some manner. I suppose duplicate could work, but even that word implies a direct 1 to 1 copy, which takes us back to my original issue with the word copy. Ultimately, language is such a complex thing, and I feel it’s important to consider the common use of words and look at other craftspeople/markets for comparison. And the common word used is reproduction. You mentioned reproduction furniture, and that’s an example of what I mean. American Duchess is another, as they refer to their historical shoes as reproductions. HATS and so many other designers put the time and effort into researching, studying, and collecting the information on these samplers to present to a wider audience, in my opinion /you/ are all the experts here!
In my humble opinion, reproduction is the appropriate name for samplers such as the ones HATS produces. Based on the definitions you read for the other words that are synonyms for "reproduction", it is even more clear and convincing that reproduction is indeed the correct term.
Thank you for sharing, I just had to purchase a physical copy of Rachael Sheard, it's beautiful and I love the words. I also opted to purchase my first Bristol sampler and Ann Campion too because I adore it. Tom's Foolery is my only acquisition from yourself so far which was a PDF so it is a real treat to order these booklets. 💗
I definitely think that the faithful creation of a chart based off an antique sampler is a reproduction. I suppose, especially given the definitions you gave, that a stitched version of an antique sampler on a different count than the original could be called a facsimile but as a child of the email age, I don't think I've ever used the word 'facsimile' in a sentence until now haha. I'm all for academics and correct terminology, but this debate honestly feels a bit too deep into the weeds. "Reproduction" is a perfectly good term and things shouldn't change. I'm glad to see Rachel available and look forward to stitching her up at some point!
In my opinion ‘reproduction’ is the appropriate word just as you mentioned ‘reproduction’ furniture. Replica could also work. I think that caution needs to be used when leaving off the word reproduction- as we are obviously making a new piece by using exact standards from the original. Lastly- I feel that this issue is worthy of discussion but not argument.
Hi Nicola, when a person sings a song of an original artist and records it and uploads it onto RUclips they called it a cover. The word cover could be used as well pertaining to a sampler recreated from an original work. Have a great week. TTFN
I like the term reproduction because it accurately describes the process of recharting an antique sampler so stitchers can reproduce it. I do believe that applies to only the stitch by stitch accurate to the original sampler. Any other term, unnecessarily creates confusion. We seem to be living in a period of time where facts like to be obfuscated and word salad proliferates. If we stick to dictionary meanings, everyone understands what is being described.
Hi Nicola. Here are my thoughts on the use of the word, reproduction, as it relates to stitched samplers: According to the dictionary on my iMac desktop, to reproduce means to produce a copy or create something very similar to the original. For me that interprets as: As close as possible to the original. Relative to samplers, I take that to mean the stitches are charted to be in the exact positions and of the same types as the original. But these stitches will be put on ground fabric that is not exact and will use threads that are also not exact - because how could one possibly get the exact fabric and threads used by the original stitcher? As for thread colors, that is also a subjective choice. Does the reproduction designer use the possibly faded out colors on the front of the piece or the more conserved colors on the back - IF that is at all possible? All in all, the use of the word "reproduction" when referring to stitched samplers, is the correct term to indicate a work that is as close to the original as humanly possible.
I so enjoy your videos and what I learn. Thank you. Grace and Mary’s sampler history is so interesting. My only word for the samplers we are stitching is “reproduction.” No way it’s anything else!
I think reproduction is correct and I have no idea why it should be an issue but if it’s use is causing a problem in some areas what about using replication - the act of making or doing something again in exactly the same way, or something that is made or done in this way. There’s also duplication or imitation but my choice would be replication. Now I’m off to reproduce, replicate, duplicate or imitate Nancy Cook 😁
Reproduction is the correct term in my opinion. I choose your samplers because they are "reproductions." I feel like I am honoring the original stitcher by reproducing her work as she had done it. Excellent video, as always.
Hello Nicola, i think it could be helpful to know the reasons behind the academic world raising the issue with the term itself. Is it to do with the materials we use as they aren't antique linen and threads? Recreation is possibly a better term then, however I see nothing wrong with the word " reproduction ". Since it is an established term, I see no reason why it should be charged. Also any language is a living thing that is constantly changing. In the English language dictionaries are updated on a regular basis. If some scholars feel the term " reproduction sampler " is incorrect, perhaps its definition could be edited? 🌷
Hello Nicola. Thank you for another very interesting video. I had not heard any of the buzz about the word "reproduction" being criticized as an inaccurate description of what sampler designers/reproducers such as yourself are doing, as I always considered the term to refer to something being produced or made again from the original example. As I pondered this however, I suppose that the very pure essence of a reproduction would be to make each and every element exactly the same as the original (size, colors, materials, etc) and of course that is the attempt, but time and distance makes true purity impossible. Add to that the individual expression of the needleworker who uses the pattern to make their own copy, and the finished piece becomes more of an adaptation or derivative of the original. Perhaps using the term "Sampler Re-creation" would be accurate, but I am not a bit troubled by the term Reproduction.
Years ago I was asked to "replicate" a School Girl Sampler for my local NC-USA Museum, and the Museum Curator was very clear on calling the piece I was to do a "Replication", meaning error in stitch count by error in stitch count, color by color. The Curator advised me that a "Replication" was an exact copy of the historical piece. She also stated that when the original is not "replicated" as stitched and is changed in some way, either colors of floss, type of floss/silk and the ground fabric changed yet keeping true to the pattern then it would be a "Reproduction" and or "Re-imagined" piece. I am currently working on Erna Hiscocks Mary Catherine Harris and since I re-positioned all of the "extra" motifs and spelled out her name, omitted the D in aged, it is no longer a replication but a re-imagined reproduction. Hope this helps a bit Nicola. Cheers
So there you go, Grace reproduced Mary's sampler. Reproduction is the perfect word to describe what she did and what a lot of us stitchers do. Grace made Mary's sampler again, stitch by stitch, except - luckily - the name and date. If academics etc want to make a fuss about it, they are more than welcome to it, we can't stop them from doing so , but we can decide to ignore the fuss and just enjoy stitching our reproduction samplers. On another note, how splendid you have both samplers and that they will remain together as a pair. Wonderful.
As someone low in the food chain of information, would like to know more about the arguments and concerns of the opposing group of academicians. The word reproduction originated from Biology, and the meaning there is to create something that is similar to oneself. So extrapolating the definition to needleart, we know HATS to be famous for is reproducing samplers similar to the original. Definitely not with the materials that weee produced and or created the same way as those used in the original. That said, the thought of reproduction samplers always begs me to think what part of it is original then? Can any part of the sampler be trademarked as all the originality is probably with the teacher who directed the girls to make the sampler.. Where I need clarity is what are the arguments of the other side?
I also agree that the word "reproduction " is exactly what these samplers should be called.. maybe those in their "ivory towers" should take a lesson in needlework. I enjoyed your video today, as always.
I believe in some cases reproductions faithfully reproduce damage as well. I personally don’t think that’s common enough to warrant abandoning the term. We all know it means a modern copy of an antique original. Perhaps replica is slightly more appropriate but I think that’s splitting hairs.
I agree that restoration is not the correct term to use. I do think that reproduction is the correct term to use as one is producing the sampler again for others to stitch. Recreate has too much leeway for improvisation.
I feel that 'reproduction' is the correct term .... By definition it just seems fitting. I do enjoy listening to your discussions about samplers and can't wait for the Tasmanian retreat ❤
Hi Nicola. Thanks again for your very interesting video. 💐. I watched Becky’s interview and a few days later watched a video where they were debating whether to initial a sampler they were stitching with a name and date already on. I quoted what Becky said about putting your own initials and date on and got a lovely reply thanking me for sharing and confirming they agreed. I did mention her name and Whitney Antiques. I hope that was ok. You make me want to learn so much more and visit museums but alas it is not possible to go to retreats now we are retired. Keep on inspiring us Nicola. 🌻💐❤️
Like others have expressed, I'm a bit confused as to the "reproduction" term objection. Your definitions and my own understanding of the vocabulary are right along with you. Is/are there any journal or newspaper articles relating to the academics' argument. I'd love to read up about what is being said.
Good morning from NY. I have always considered a reproduction as one where the original is copied stitch by stitch honoring the original colors as best that can be determined. So here’s a question. I agree that Grace used the same colors as her ancestor, but her sampler is a different size and she put her own name on it. Does that change what we call it? I have done what was called a “reimagined” sampler by the designer, borrowing most of the original design but changing the colors and some of the stitches. I also changed the motto on it so there was no question I would stitch my name on it as well as the name of the original stitcher. I think when I do one of your HATS reproductions my name will only be on an information card on the back. You must be so thrilled to have be able to get both samplers. They certainly should always be together. See you at HH in October.
As many other have said, we are stitching reproductions. Are not the girls creating their samplers from some other model, thus coping their own motif by motif? I don’t understand the need to change what has been stablished and just add confusion. The words yiou define are clear and each have specific meaning. Those means bring clarity to what we are purchasing when it comes to patterns. Thanks for all you do for this community! I love your talks and the longer the better in my opinion.
I have always considered the "reproduction" of an antique sampler to be the proper title and description of what I was stitching. The curators of the original sampler pieces would agree that it is a reproduction. I do believe it is important to have the stitcher who is reproducing the original sampler to have documentation of the date and initials on the reproduction sampler for future admirers to know it is a reproduction not the original. Our masters of samplers should be the ones who decide what we call these reproduction samplers, not just some social judge.
Hi Nicola! Not sure why the academics are meddling with this topic but what you are doing is reproducing a sampler pattern. What me and all the rest are doing when we stitch one of your patterns are stitching a reproduction of a sampler. If we make a change we are stitching an adaptation.
I think reproduction is fine I do wonder if people in years to come will be confused at to how many copies there could be of the original and the copy could be sold as the original. unless people make sure to label it as as copy or reproduction. I have noticed how needle workers are replacing the original persons name either their own name or a loved one’s name . If an artist makes copies of his original artwork he will mark it as such. 1 of a certain amount. In the end it’s up to the needle worker to put a note on the sampler .
I've got nothing against the word reproduction, but I do feel recreation is far more fitting when we stitch old Samplers as new pieces. Recreation may just be a better fitting word after all! It is very interesting to hear the original word is a contention, but I guess I can understand where they are coming from....yes, recreation fits much better! Not that I believe the original word should be changed - as a side note here! Lol! Thank you, Nicola! I love your videos and look forward to watching them every Sunday! Yours is the first one I watch as I have my coffee, stitch, and wake up! Enjoy your stitching...till next Sunday! See you then!
Some people are so fussy and like to create tension. Reproduction has been used for goodness a very long time. How many times have we heard of reproduction jewelry and garments. If these items are reproductions, that brings fiber art mediums as reproductions. If the use of reproduction being used only recently for fiber art the debate would have a reasonable one. However, use of the word as it applies to fiber arts and therefore needlework. My belief is that we should continue to use the word reproduction.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the term “reproduction” as applied to samplers. The word implies an exact copy to the best of the person’s ability who is charting the sampler. Type of fabric, threads, and embellishments, if any, are the choice of the stitcher. Other designers take elements from antique samplers and create new samplers. This is a reimagined sampler. If they are worried about dishonest sellers there are ways to date materials so you aren’t getting sold a fake piece.
I agree with everyone that reproduction is the right word to use as it has been defined. I too would like to know what the reasons the academics have for not using this word.❤
For me it’s paper reproduction. And I think that this word is used in beaux arts for invaluable art object. It means respect for something old or historic. And it’s what I feel for these old samplers.
I think I am OK with the word "reproduction" when we try to mimic a design - stitches in the positions they originally were with colors as close as possible. Our readily available threads and linen are of a different quality than the old samplers of which we want our own copies. We're not making exact copies. To make an exact copy is like a "replicate" or even a forgery, trying to have accurate old materials and techniques for the time period of the sampler. When stitching samplers from charts, sometimes I change colors so they show better on the linen, correct original "mistakes", or add my own "oops" so it is not exactly the same as the original in addition to using new materials. I think it's these little common changes that may be not fitting what some define as a "reproduction". I was inspired by the original sampler, mostly "reproduced" it, and I am happy to sign below the sampler as "Stitched by" me and not worry about what to call my process technically. Stitching should be about the joy and calm found with the needle and thread. Also love the Grandma - Granddaughter samplers!
I think the term "reproduction" is appropriate for samplers stitchers stitch now who mimic, copy or reproduce older samplers. I started stitching reproductions since I loved the antiques but couldn't afford to buy originals when i was in my 20's, so I stitched my own, and am still stitching them in my 60's. I think the only problem is if someone tried to fraudulently palm a modern stitched reproduction as an antique for ill gotten gains. I usually work my own initials and date in somewhere in the sampler to mark that I did it, and when. I see no fault with using the term reproduction in this context.
Je ne sais pas pourquoi les universitaires et les musées pensent que "reproduction" n'est pas le bon mot pour dire ce que nous faisons. Alors difficile pour moi d'avoir un avis sur le sujet ;-)
It’s seems the way of the world lately. To me it’s quite silly to want change a word that identifies something correctly. When someone says something is a reproduction I immediately know that something has been produced to look like the original and so is a reproduction. Nicola, you use the term reproduction correctly when describing the charts. We all know exactly what you mean, so I’ll just get on with my stitching and enjoy my reproductions. Blessings.
I'm not entirely sure what the academics' objection is to the term "reproduction" - especially as it has been a term in use for a very long time. It describes exactly what the sampler is, it's a modern copy of an old textile item. What's the problem with that? This current fad for one sector of society telling everyone else which words they should use makes me very uncomfortable - as another poster said, it is a form of gatekeeping, and we have historic examples of where this has had serious repercussions far outside the original scope of the argument. In a nutshell - academics, mind your own beeswax!
You beautifully said exactly what I was thinking.
Hallo Nicola
You raise some very valid points about “reproduction” samplers. This has been a discussion for as long as I can remember stitching samplers. Here are some of my thoughts…
First off, I want to say right up front, I am not an “exact reproducer”. Some of my “reproductions are exact but some are not. I know I step on many toes with this comment, especially those that feel that they only want to stitch exact reproductions. That is totally fine, (thank goodness there are so many of us creating these beauties). However, if one really wanted to be so exact in the recreation of these samplers, we definitely would need to have a completely different line-up for fabric. Why is it “required” by some stitchers to have the exact stitches and not the exact fabric. I remember one of my reproductions, (one that was exact in stitches) looked completely different once stitched on modern fabric. The original fabric was 22 over 36 count, so, I don’t think there ever is a real authentic reproduction.
I like the term “adaption”, but hardly ever use it because nobody ever searches for a “sampler adaptation” when looking for a pattern. I also really feel deeply about just “copying”, reproducing or whatever the term, someone else’s work. These girls have no voice any longer and we all assume they are okay having their work copied and mass produced. I sometimes wonder what they would say if they were given a choice. I often add some of my own creativity to a sampler, because they are so far gone and I need to make up the lost stitches or I want to “fix” the symmetry of a border.
So, in closing, if museums and such have issue with the word they need to give us an alternative. You can’t just ask someone not to do something without giving them some option. I like “creative reproduction” as a term.
Kindly,
Birgit
The Wishing Thorn
I cannot believe you were able to acquire Mary and Grace’s samplers together. An amazing acquisition. It must have been a wonderful experience for Grace to follow in Mary’s work stitch by stitch, as she *reproduced* her sampler. Reproduction is the only fitting word. We must not allow people in ivory towers dictate the words we use to describe the work we do. That type of behaviour is called gate keeping and it drives people away from needlework.
So well stated! I can't agree more!
Betty Ring was very emphatic on this issue. She had no problem using the word “reproduction” and as she knew how very very careful many of us were and are in reproducing as closely as possible an antique piece of needlework, she advised us to put our own names and dates somewhere in a discreet part of our sampler so it would not be mistaken for an antique in future. Too many academics delight in trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I personally do not appreciate an academic instructing me on my nomenclature, particularly if said academic has never picked up a needle or attempted to work the pieces we do. I’m quite sure Linda Eaton, no slouch in the scholarly department herself, would have agreed with this stance as well.
Thank you, Nicola, for yet another informative video about samplers. I learn something from you every week!
My parents were avid collectors of fine antiques and my Mother taught me early on the importance of knowing the difference between an original piece of older furniture or object and a “reproduction”. A reproduction is a copy and we stitch a copy of a sampler you have charted so skillfully from the original through HATS - we reproduce her.
A “restoration” is not a “reproduction”. Neither is it a “reconstruction”. My mother had her shabby and stained Coats and Clark thread chest “restored” , “reconstructed” but not “reproduced”. She was a customer of a gentleman who business was to “restore” and “reconstruct “ some pieces she brought to him. And he was so skillful, he also sold “reproductions” he made of “original” antiques.
While we are on the topic, You taught me the proper usage of “reproduction vs. adaptation” when you charted our antique sampler Alethia Saunders 1831. Because you did not have the original in your possession at the time you charted her, she is an “adaptation” not a “reproduction”.
When we took the original Alethia Saunders out of her frame, we did not clean, or mend her - she was not “restored” or “reconstructed”
Restoration and reconstructed implies returning an object to its actual original state. Reproduction means creating a copy of the original.
Hello Nicola! Another enjoyable and thought-provoking video! I’ve been thinking about your “contentious question” and even read some of the other comments before writing this. A few others seem to have the same question that I did while listening today…just what objection do academics have to “reproduction sampler?” As an academic myself (albeit in a totally different field, biology), I feel it’s important to know and try to understand others point of view. As a scientist, my view is to go with the choice or explanation that the data support best. In this case, I found it very helpful that you gave definitions of the words that have been suggested. Based on those definitions but lacking any knowledge of the objections to its use, “reproduction sampler” appears to best describe what you and the rest of the HATS team produces. I hope in a future video you will explain why the academics in this field object to the use of the term in the way we needleworkers use it. Love the Turner samplers…original and reproduction!😊
While taking studio classes at university - drawing, painting, and especially printmaking - I learned the difference between "print" and "reproduction" as it relates to two-dimensional media. When people say they have a print of the Mona Lisa hanging in their dining room, what they really mean is they have a reproduction of the Mona Lisa because the word "print" should be reserved for two-dimensional prints (lithograph, screen print, etc.) made wholly by hand while "reproduction" refers to a new product made in an effort to represent an older original, whatever the means of production. My Hannah Campbell is not an exact replica (that word does not fit our process either) but she is a reproduction as I am using a graph that has faithfully recorded her original stitches regardless of the fact that I am using a different base material and threads from those that Hannah used. I don't think any other term fits this process and if I were to read "reinterpretation" or "reimagining" on a chart, this would suggest to me that conscious changes have been made and the chart does not faithfully document the original sampler maker's stitches.
Thank you for all the thought, care, and effort you put into your work, Nicola, and for bringing this discussion to us. Looking forward to the HH retreat in October! ❤
Hi Nicola thank you for today and I love your raising the current debate on what we call reproduction samplers. For me the word reproduce defines what we do in our craft to carefully stitch a sampler as per the original and to celebrate and bring into our homes samplers we would otherwise not have the joy of seeing today. Maria from UK 🇬🇧
A wonderful video! And such lovely samplers. The fact that this “contentious issue” is even an issue is what the world is dealing with everywhere. I believe Mr. Webster was correct in his definitions all these many years, and your reading the definitions in this video further indicate that “reproduction” is the correct term to be used when stitching a sampler from another’s work. None of the other words hit that very specific term of what we do like the word “reproduction” does. Replication would be the closest, but it means the same thing. The word “reproduction” has been used for many, many years in the world of furniture and in samplers, and I do not see the need to change it because “academics” think it should change. Let’s let stitchers describe what we do!! (And Dee agrees with me - my non-stitching husband!!!) Let’s continue to get the word out that what we’re doing IS reproducing samplers!!
I so agree with Melissa! And the others above. I wish I understood what the academics’ objection is to that term…I will keep reading the comments to see if anyone knows. I also agree with Melissa that we are living in a world where it is often hard to have a rational discussion with someone we disagree with. So sad.
I am no expert, but when I want to stitch a sampler as closely as possible to an historic original, I think I am working on a reproduction sampler. Any other word other than "reproduction" says to me that the designer may use motifs or other inspiration from an historic sampler, and may indeed create something gorgeous that I'd like to stitch, but unless it is painstakingly close and faithful to the original, it is not a reproduction sampler. I will be interested to hear what others think.
Many sampler experts as well as museums use the word reproduction when referring to antique samplers that have been carefully reproduced. The Loara Standish Sampler is referred to as a reproduction right on the box. The Francis Burrwell sampler is also referred to as a reproduction right on the box. Both samplers owned by museums who gave permission for the samplers to be reproduced. There really isn’t a better term to describe a sampler that has been carefully studied to chart it as closely as possible to the original. If I stitch a reproduction sampler and change the colors, motifs and name; then it becomes an adaptation of the original. However it doesn’t really matter what the individual does once they purchase the chart and stitch it. But the sampler that has been painstakingly reproduced and charted should be called a reproduction. It has been the proper term for many years, no need to change it now.
Precisely my thoughts. Also, when reproductions are charted, sometimes the colors are taken from the back and other times from the front. Since we as the reproducers do not usually have access to the original piece, we do the best we can with the information provided on the chart. If I don't like copying the faded colors from the front, I don't have a moments hesitation in reaching for a deeper shade. After all, I seriously doubt that the girls made their samplers in 20 shades of beige and tan so I suppose in those instances I am creating an adaption. BTW, I purchased the Loara Standish sampler to work with silk threads; it will be so lovely when completed.
The world is full of semantics now.
Every time a " word" gains a negative connotation (or causes a negative reaction in a few people or triggers a few people) , academics and politicians try to change the word. I would think samplers would be immune to this nonsense, but of course, people in perceived higher societal levels need
"something" to complain about.
In medicine, we have the same issues with names of diseases , techniques, and instruments( often named for specific physicians who created them).
OR, perhaps these intellectuals are just bored and need something to justify their existence as experts in their fields. . I like the word "Reproduction" since that's exactly what we are doing.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Hi Nicola. I feel the word reproduction is a perfect word. We are producing it AGAIN. Making it again - most often stitch by stitch.
Hi Nicola, thanks for bringing up this really interesting discussion. As part of my work I used to be sometimes involved with creating thesauri and nomenclatures. What was always considered really important was the common understanding that users would have of a certain name and its context and use. The common consistent understanding and especially agreement, was sometimes more important than the word itself and how it may be used in a different context. I think Reproduction Samplers has by now gained a widespread understanding of what is meant by the community that is most invested in the naming - it would be a pity I believe to have to change what seems to work well by now for the most part for those most using the term?
Great discussion! I too am curious about the root of this debate. What are the issues with our current terminology? Based on your episode, I feel that reproduction accurately defines the ‘faithful recording’ of the original, stitch by stitch. So your charts are reproductions. I feel that what stitchers do with your charts creates the quandary…if they ‘faithfully follow the chart’ with the most similar materials available, it could be a reproduction. But, how many changes (intentional or not) are allowed before it becomes an adaptation? Thanks for including us in the discussion 😊
Hello Nicola! I think that "reproduction" is a perfect term to define when you have the chart of a old salmpler and you stitch it as it was. Obvioulsy it can reproduced in the same exact way, as threads fabric and even light will be different. You can call it copy, recreation, reimagination or even forgery, but what it really is is a reproduction. Some time Academics are too much academic, methinks! Thank you for your flosstube! It's always a joy to visit with you on sunday!
Reproduction sampler seems totally apt and a perfect definition to me! Happy stitching Nicola :)
Thank you Nicola for a very thought-provoking video. Reproduction seems to most accurately describe samplers that have been reproduced exactly as the original stitcher. I have never felt that reproduction of a sampler included the linen or whatever the sampler was stitched on, nor did I believe it included the threads that we use to stitch the reproduction (beyond as close a colour likeness as possible for linen and thread). I will be interested to hear more about this debate.
The grandmother/grand-daughter samplers are gorgeous and I look forward to the grandmother's sampler being reproduced.
Thanks as always and happy stitching.
I am comfortable with the word Reproduction representing the charting of an old sampler. If there were to be a sea change in the industry, then Replica or Replication would also carry the same designation. I so enjoyed my visit to NZ, AU, and Tasmania on a cruise back in 2016. I am so envious. My favorite port of call was in Tasmania, a lovely place. Wish I could go again.
Nicola, lovely chat this afternoon. I love the new release and am inspired that someone older than me stitched it. I believe reproduction is the best description for samplers that have been reproduced exactly from the original sampler.
Thank you again for educating us in this contentious issue. To me, charting an original sampler enabling others to stitch it again exactly, is reproduction. And, PLEASE do chart Grace Turner! I swooned when I saw these two❤️
I so love your videos. You are such a "Lady". If I lived near you I would invite you to tea and we could talk endlessly about stitching and the joy we find in our hobby. I love the thought of stitching reproduction samplers. I think whilst stitching just maybe the original stitcher is watching from Heaven and encouraging me to finish my project. I deligt in your videos. Thank You for making them.
I always learn something when I watch your videos. When I hear a sampler is a reproduction, that term tells me that I will be stitching a copy of an existing sampler. One FlossTuber I watch sometimes takes motifs or sections from an antique sampler and reimagines these elements to create a new sampler. Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge about samplers. I wondered if girls/women had patterns for the samplers they stitched! Loved the book you showed.
Hi Nicola, I don't often comment on your videos but your question prompted me to respond. I personally think that a "Reproduction" suggests that something is being done based not only on the actual stitch used as well as the materials to create a close recreation of the original. When selling or promoting a "Reproduction Sampler" I think it is important not only to chart as the sampler had originally been stitched using the stitches in the same position with same/similar color and type of threads on same/similar fabric type/count. Since it is next to impossible to get the materials used in the original sampler, notations stating the deviations should be included by the person designing/promoting the sampler. I realize this is the "strictess" version of the term "Reproduction" in our field, but this what I believe the term means to me.
Words/terms can not only vary in their meaning by country, but can further have alternate meaning, by local within a country.
Great, thought-provoking discussion!
I love these discussions! My take is: IF you have three exact cars to make one working car, of that model, you have a restoration of 1 car using all original parts. Reproduction is when you roll those cars off of today's assembly lines that look exactly the same, runs the same, just using modern materials. Recreation is when you assemble something resembling the original but have made artistic or mechanical changes that suit the person recreating the vehicle with their personal preferences. So to ME When I buy a chart of a sampler, if the stitches have been recorded the same, the colors matched as carefully as possible, and the stitch count of the fabric is the same of the original piece, I will have a reproduced item with today's available materials. The moment I change a color or stitch count of the fabric or change words or motif in the piece, I have recreated said piece to my personal preferences. Designers can give us exact reproductions or if they put in personal preferences, change something, we get recreations. Now, I stitch for joy, my hobby, my stitching will most likely end up at the thrift store when I pass, and definitely not in a museum, so. this seems like a discussion not to be taken passionately, just food for thought.
If the samplers are stitched as you have charted, they are reproductions. If we change the design or omit/add something, they are interpreted. You are a gift, Nicola. The cross stitch community is better for having your influence and care!
Thank you for posing an interesting question. I have referred to my work stitching a sampler originally stitched in 1790 by my 2nd cousin six times removed as an attempt to replicate it. Since it is impossible to completely reproduce it or copy it due to the uncertainty of original colors, missing segments, etc., I can merely portray it as best I can based on educated assumptions. That said, my work is also more than an adaptation as I am not making deliberate changes to personalize it and make it my own. Consequently, I began using the term “replication” in order to avoid “reproduction” or “adaptation” even though there may only be slight differences in semantics. Ultimately, regardless of what we choose to call it, what matters most is that we are honoring the stitchers who came before us and paying tribute to the treasures they left behind.
Loved your comments Nicola! I have always referred to stitching a sampler faithfully as a reproduction! No change is made. Stitching duplicates the original!
Hi Nicola, in my opinion Reproduction is the correct terminology, we are stitching Samplers that have been reproduced from an original Sampler, the same way that Grace reproduced her Sampler from her Grandmother.
Just for my own historical interest, I would love a little more information given about the actual historical pieces themselves. What was the thread count of the fabric of the original? What type of fabric and threads were used in the original? I certainly understand that I could make it anyway I want to, but I would love to know what the original was in any of these patterns. 😊
Hi - I would like to understand the basis on which academics and others have objected to the term “reproduction”. Hearing the other side of the argument will make my opinion more informed and well-rounded.
Mary and Grace’s samplers are a great find. It is important to show that reproductions have been around for longer than we thought. I believe reproduction is the best word for the samplers that we stitch. Recreate and restoration do not adequately define what we do when we stitch a sampler.
So, here is what I think about the vocabulary surrounding these samplers. I think that casually, reproduction or recreation are fine terms. You are reproducing or recreating something that already existed. From what I understand though, in historian circles, reproduction is saved for something that would be made from the same pattern, on the same equipment, using the same materials, just made now instead of then. I think "interpretation" is more accurate for what is actually going on here. It is an interpretation of an existing object, especially if one uses a different type of thread, different color of thread, and/or different count of fabric or different content of fabric. I personally think this changes the artwork into an interpretation of the stitcher. So yeah, I think technically "interpretation" would be the correct term, however I think the casual use of "reproduction" or "recreation" is just fine.
Since Louise Coulimore produced that beautiful sampler…I will be reproducing it soon.
Reproduction sampler makes sense, to me! It’s a pattern/chart created from close inspection of an antique sampler and faithfully and meticulously, *reproduced.* I’ll leave it at that, I think.
Hi😊 from Raleigh,NC,USA. It has always been my understanding that the term reproduction in most cases mean the same thing as in Samplers, it is making something just as the original, just with new materials. Current materials. That had always been my understanding. 🐕🦺😎
A very thought provoking question. I listened intently to the definitions, and was surprised that I thought “facsimile” was the closest to what we do. In that we use different materials and usually make a different size. But I also think that “reproduction” is firmly set in our lexicon as what we do. I have to confess that most of my pieces are “unintentional adaptations” 😂
I look so forward to listening to you on Sunday afternoons here in Florida USA. You are very calming very knowledgeable and just delight to listen to. Thank you for taking the time to speak to all of us about this special special hobby.
I am entirely comfortable with "academics" developing definitions and terms that will help people communicate clearly. For example, if an academic group determines through discussion, research, or whatever other means, that the term "psychology" is appropriate to be applied to one thing, and "psychiatric" to be applied to another, I think that is good - it is helpful, and contributes to our ability to talk about something in a meaningful and effective way. So I don't mind at all that there is discussion and debate about the term "reproduction" when it comes to samplers. For myself, I think that a deep dive into a "reproduction" would include using the same fibers, the same ground cloth, in the same count, and with the same degree of technique (such as carrying or not carrying thread behind the word). What I do is not, therefore, a "reproduction" of an antique sampler even if the chart I am using is a faithful, stitch-by-stitch record of the placement and colors of the antique. I am stitching a representation of an antique sampler because I am using a different count and a different fiber.
Another thing that I think is a worthwhile topic of discussion among needleworkers and sampler charters (I avoided the word there) is what colors should be charted? Some of us want to have something on our walls that looks like we own the antique itself. Some of us want to have the original colors that the stitcher used, so it looks as good as new, and all of the ravages of time are rolled back. Unless there is a way to get at the back of a sampler it is very hard to know very clearly what the original linen color was or what the original thread colors were - so I understand that most charts are based on the colors in the antique. A "reimagining" would be to take the antique with all of its stains and fading and use linen and thread colors that are what we imagine the original stitcher would have chosen. (Or even the thread colors that we prefer, that go with our decor, etc.)
Thanks for this interesting video and the interesting question, Nicola!
absolutely love the harddanger its beautiful!!!!
I define Reproduction whether it is a sampler, furniture, or other artwork as an item that is an exact replica of the original item used as a model for the Reproduction. I've seen another term used such as recreation or replication, but i can't remember the exact word but when i see that word i don't think it's an exact match to the original.
While antique samplers can't be reproduced exactly, due to the fabrics and threads no longer being available, when you map out an old sampler you are creating a reproduction (it's not called a duplicate). Whether academics or others have issues with the terminology, it seems to best describe them within the needlework field. I appreciate, though when designers not that they aren't trying to do exact reproductions, but not all do that. I bought a pattern I really like that I thought was a reproduction but then saw a picture of the original, which was included with the pattern. The original was gorgeous and most of it could have been reproduced but the pattern had been simplified and some colours quite changed. So whatever approach designers are taking, it's good if it's noted on the pattern. Having spent many years within the antiques business, a restoration is a repair to something original (whether it's having frayed needlepoint canvas repaired or a porcelain figurine, etc.) If you are taking your original samplers in to have repairs done, that's restoration; what you're doing as a designer isn't. Interesting topic, and likely one where no everyone is going to agree on verbiage.
I think reproduction is appropriate, even understanding the materials used are modern (or of the current time) if one is reproducing a sampler from a "purist" approach. I mean this to say each piece of the whole is reproduced like for like. In our case, stitch for stitch. That said, my own stitching may be an adaptation due to mistakes I make or variation of color choices. Gee, I'm sorry for sounding so wordy this morning--perhaps I shouldnt have had that last cup of coffee. 😁 Thank you for all you do.
Wonderful video as always. And what an interesting question and opportunity for discussion. What if the answer is not one thing? Perhaps the charting of the antique is the reproduction and since anyone who chooses to stitch from that chart, and chooses their own contemporary fabric and thread to stitch with, then the end result of the stitching of the chart is a recreation?
The question of the use of the word "reproduction" is (if you will forgive me) rather unimportant in comparison to the explanation of what process you have completed. HATS produces a chart based on someone's sampler and then provide the historical context of the pattern and the individual. That is to my mind a completely acceptable use of the word reproduction. I do agree that when stitching a reproduction chart - individuals should somehow note their own date and time as the lady from Witney Antiques suggested. Anyone can take a chart and re-interpret it by changes of colors - names - elimination or addition of patterns. That is the creative part of our work where the heart of the stitcher comes into play. Terminology can become quite interchangeable over a period of time which is why most academics define the pertinent terns utilized in their papers at the beginning of the paper.
I wasn't aware of the controversy, but it seems to me that what we do is reproduce old samplers because of our love of and enthusiasm for these pieces. Using the word "reproduction" in my mind simply differentiates them from the original antique pieces. Nothing more, and nothing less. The resulting pieces are faithful reproductions of the originals, although some stitchers do personalize or modify charts to their liking.
Nicola, I think that what you do can be rightly called reproduction. Your attention to stitch type and color places your charts in that category for me. I recently stitched both the Jane Bostocke Sampler and the Loara Standish Sampler, but made significant changes to color. I also stitched Loara over 2 rather than over 1. I signed both samplers as Adaptation by Margaret Bramlett. They were not reproductions, but the charts are reproductions. That is how I define it.
Hi Nicola :-))In my opinion the term reproduction is a very clear and precise term to use when one stitches a sampler exactly as it was stitched so long ago.. I also wanted you to know I did purchase Rachael’s sampler today and so very pleased to have this reproduction in my collection!!
Nicola, you are our cross stitch expert. I'm all in for your use of the words "reproduction" and "adaptation" as they pertain to cross stitching. :-D
To me a piece of furniture that is a reproduction is an identical use of materials fashioned or built in an identical way. My Stickley reproduction furniture is made of oak like the original and built using the same joinery as the original.
Samplers are stitched on different fabric with different floss than the original because those materials are no longer available in most cases.
I can understand the quibble over the use of the word reproduction if that is what the issue is but as far as I am concerned I still refer to a copy of an old piece to be a reproduction or a faithful reproduction or perhaps an adaptive reproduction or an adaptation.
Words do matter but I'm not sure that this is one that we need to discard at this time
Is the question really about the name or the word as much as the trends of dishonesty? I would like to understand the reason the museums, etc. are raising the issue. Possibly the issue of falseness or being dishonest in sales,etc is causing issues and those groups are trying to curtail these issues. This is a really interesting discussion.
I would say that reinterpretation could be an appropriate word to use for what do. Yes, we do work on pieces that are designed and stitched by someone else. Ours work is different even if it’s as exact of a “reproduction “ as you can make, it won’t (I believe) ever be a copy or duplicate.
We don’t have the same access to the tools that they used. Our linens and flosses are such a joy to work with but they are different.
I also change the colors, and sometimes I also change the stitches a little bit (sometimes intentionally or more often unintentionally). I make “errors” and these can be worked into the new design or sometimes I need to frog them out because it throw the whole design off. This is why for me and how I work, reinterpretation is appropriate.
I truly appreciate all the work that you do and all of your contributions to this community. I am excited to start on my new HATS project soon!
I’m wondering how hard would it be to add a tiny mark( a star, a french knot, etc.) after the name of the stitcher on the fabric for the sampler being reproduced? For example, stitched in the year 1853 by Jane Doe*
This tiny addition would serve as notice that this is not an original sampler but a faithful copy. When the “reproduction” sampler is then viewed, we would know it was a copy because the original stitchers name has been tagged.
Stitchers could always add their own name and date to the sampler
as well.
When I have copy a painting, I say it is “Sunflowers In the style of Van Gogh” so that viewers will understand this it is a copy. I may write that on the back of the canvas as well.
I am guessing that some people might take advantage by trying to pass off a reproduction sampler as an original. Is that the real issue here?
Ooooh, I love a good “argument” when such thoughtful people engage in good faith. As others have mentioned, not knowing exactly what the objections are, it’s a little challenging to debate the precise points. Nevertheless, I can see there might be degrees of “reproduction” where qualifiers could be warranted. For example, a “faithful” reproduction could mean the same stitches in the same places; or, it could also mean using the same fabric (linen? Silk? Gauze? Of precisely the same thread count?) and same thread ( silk? Wool? Cotton?) as the original on which the chart is based? Is it a reproduction design when you fill in some alphabet stitches, for example, that age may have eroded in the original? This is a great topic and fun to tease out. My assumption is that colors, stitches and design are as close to the original as one could get with thorough investigation of the front and back of the original and research on available colors/design motifs/alphabets used during the particular period. Thanks for I allowing my long comment and for this forum!
I would like to add that I think the primary reason designers use the term reproduction is to make the distinction between a sampler that is a designer’s original design from an antique that a designer has charted. Maybe if the academics would consider this reasoning, they might be able to give a bit of artistic freedom in the use of these terms instead of being sticklers.
I love when you present these thought provoking points in your videos. My mom and I have been debating all morning about it, and as two stitchers who are interested in archives at a semi-academic level we both take issue with NOT using the word reproduction.
As long as the samplers are reproduced faithfully (within reason, of course) it doesn’t make sense to use any other word.
Copy, to me, implies something of equal value to the original. My example has been a reproduction of Van Gough, as you can buy to put into your home. It may be lovely, but it doesn’t have the same monetary or academic value as the original.
Restoration, a word I frequently associate with vintage furniture, implies you are purchasing an original item that has been cleaned and preserved in some manner.
I suppose duplicate could work, but even that word implies a direct 1 to 1 copy, which takes us back to my original issue with the word copy.
Ultimately, language is such a complex thing, and I feel it’s important to consider the common use of words and look at other craftspeople/markets for comparison. And the common word used is reproduction. You mentioned reproduction furniture, and that’s an example of what I mean. American Duchess is another, as they refer to their historical shoes as reproductions.
HATS and so many other designers put the time and effort into researching, studying, and collecting the information on these samplers to present to a wider audience, in my opinion /you/ are all the experts here!
In my humble opinion, reproduction is the appropriate name for samplers such as the ones HATS produces. Based on the definitions you read for the other words that are synonyms for "reproduction", it is even more clear and convincing that reproduction is indeed the correct term.
Thank you for sharing, I just had to purchase a physical copy of Rachael Sheard, it's beautiful and I love the words. I also opted to purchase my first Bristol sampler and Ann Campion too because I adore it. Tom's Foolery is my only acquisition from yourself so far which was a PDF so it is a real treat to order these booklets. 💗
I definitely think that the faithful creation of a chart based off an antique sampler is a reproduction. I suppose, especially given the definitions you gave, that a stitched version of an antique sampler on a different count than the original could be called a facsimile but as a child of the email age, I don't think I've ever used the word 'facsimile' in a sentence until now haha. I'm all for academics and correct terminology, but this debate honestly feels a bit too deep into the weeds. "Reproduction" is a perfectly good term and things shouldn't change.
I'm glad to see Rachel available and look forward to stitching her up at some point!
You always give us so much information and history about needle. Thank you for sharing your your knowledge.
Wow, that is a beautiful organizer and personalized.
In my opinion ‘reproduction’ is the appropriate word just as you mentioned ‘reproduction’ furniture. Replica could also work. I think that caution needs to be used when leaving off the word reproduction- as we are obviously making a new piece by using exact standards from the original. Lastly- I feel that this issue is worthy of discussion but not argument.
Hi Nicola, when a person sings a song of an original artist and records it and uploads it onto RUclips they called it a cover. The word cover could be used as well pertaining to a sampler recreated from an original work. Have a great week. TTFN
I like the term reproduction because it accurately describes the process of recharting an antique sampler so stitchers can reproduce it.
I do believe that applies to only the stitch by stitch accurate to the original sampler. Any other term, unnecessarily creates confusion.
We seem to be living in a period of time where facts like to be obfuscated and word salad proliferates. If we stick to dictionary meanings, everyone understands what is being described.
Hi Nicola. Here are my thoughts on the use of the word, reproduction, as it relates to stitched samplers: According to the dictionary on my iMac desktop, to reproduce means to produce a copy or create something very similar to the original. For me that interprets as: As close as possible to the original. Relative to samplers, I take that to mean the stitches are charted to be in the exact positions and of the same types as the original. But these stitches will be put on ground fabric that is not exact and will use threads that are also not exact - because how could one possibly get the exact fabric and threads used by the original stitcher? As for thread colors, that is also a subjective choice. Does the reproduction designer use the possibly faded out colors on the front of the piece or the more conserved colors on the back - IF that is at all possible? All in all, the use of the word "reproduction" when referring to stitched samplers, is the correct term to indicate a work that is as close to the original as humanly possible.
I so enjoy your videos and what I learn. Thank you. Grace and Mary’s sampler history is so interesting. My only word for the samplers we are stitching is “reproduction.” No way it’s anything else!
I think reproduction is correct and I have no idea why it should be an issue but if it’s use is causing a problem in some areas what about using replication - the act of making or doing something again in exactly the same way, or something that is made or done in this way. There’s also duplication or imitation but my choice would be replication. Now I’m off to reproduce, replicate, duplicate or imitate Nancy Cook 😁
Reproduction is the correct term in my opinion. I choose your samplers because they are "reproductions." I feel like I am honoring the original stitcher by reproducing her work as she had done it.
Excellent video, as always.
Hello Nicola, i think it could be helpful to know the reasons behind the academic world raising the issue with the term itself. Is it to do with the materials we use as they aren't antique linen and threads? Recreation is possibly a better term then, however I see nothing wrong with the word " reproduction ". Since it is an established term, I see no reason why it should be charged. Also any language is a living thing that is constantly changing. In the English language dictionaries are updated on a regular basis. If some scholars feel the term " reproduction sampler " is incorrect, perhaps its definition could be edited? 🌷
Hello Nicola. Thank you for another very interesting video. I had not heard any of the buzz about the word "reproduction" being criticized as an inaccurate description of what sampler designers/reproducers such as yourself are doing, as I always considered the term to refer to something being produced or made again from the original example. As I pondered this however, I suppose that the very pure essence of a reproduction would be to make each and every element exactly the same as the original (size, colors, materials, etc) and of course that is the attempt, but time and distance makes true purity impossible. Add to that the individual expression of the needleworker who uses the pattern to make their own copy, and the finished piece becomes more of an adaptation or derivative of the original. Perhaps using the term "Sampler Re-creation" would be accurate, but I am not a bit troubled by the term Reproduction.
Years ago I was asked to "replicate" a School Girl Sampler for my local NC-USA Museum, and the Museum Curator was very clear on calling the piece I was to do a "Replication", meaning error in stitch count by error in stitch count, color by color. The Curator advised me that a "Replication" was an exact copy of the historical piece. She also stated that when the original is not "replicated" as stitched and is changed in some way, either colors of floss, type of floss/silk and the ground fabric changed yet keeping true to the pattern then it would be a "Reproduction" and or "Re-imagined" piece. I am currently working on Erna Hiscocks Mary Catherine Harris and since I re-positioned all of the "extra" motifs and spelled out her name, omitted the D in aged, it is no longer a replication but a re-imagined reproduction. Hope this helps a bit Nicola. Cheers
So there you go, Grace reproduced Mary's sampler. Reproduction is the perfect word to describe what she did and what a lot of us stitchers do. Grace made Mary's sampler again, stitch by stitch, except - luckily - the name and date. If academics etc want to make a fuss about it, they are more than welcome to it, we can't stop them from doing so , but we can decide to ignore the fuss and just enjoy stitching our reproduction samplers.
On another note, how splendid you have both samplers and that they will remain together as a pair. Wonderful.
As someone low in the food chain of information, would like to know more about the arguments and concerns of the opposing group of academicians.
The word reproduction originated from Biology, and the meaning there is to create something that is similar to oneself. So extrapolating the definition to needleart, we know HATS to be famous for is reproducing samplers similar to the original. Definitely not with the materials that weee produced and or created the same way as those used in the original. That said, the thought of reproduction samplers always begs me to think what part of it is original then? Can any part of the sampler be trademarked as all the originality is probably with the teacher who directed the girls to make the sampler..
Where I need clarity is what are the arguments of the other side?
To me, reproduction is the only word that accurately describes a faithful recreation of a sampler.
I also agree that the word "reproduction " is exactly what these samplers should be called.. maybe those in their "ivory towers" should take a lesson in needlework. I enjoyed your video today, as always.
I believe in some cases reproductions faithfully reproduce damage as well. I personally don’t think that’s common enough to warrant abandoning the term. We all know it means a modern copy of an antique original. Perhaps replica is slightly more appropriate but I think that’s splitting hairs.
Reproduction seems an accurate word to me, but the new charts could also be described as "recordings" or "transcriptions" of the original.
I agree that restoration is not the correct term to use. I do think that reproduction is the correct term to use as one is producing the sampler again for others to stitch. Recreate has too much leeway for improvisation.
I feel that 'reproduction' is the correct term .... By definition it just seems fitting. I do enjoy listening to your discussions about samplers and can't wait for the Tasmanian retreat ❤
Is that plexi-glass on the large 'Mary' sampler? It has a horrible sheen/reflection. Am sure you'll have it re-framed. They are lovely.
Hi Nicola. Thanks again for your very interesting video. 💐. I watched Becky’s interview and a few days later watched a video where they were debating whether to initial a sampler they were stitching with a name and date already on. I quoted what Becky said about putting your own initials and date on and got a lovely reply thanking me for sharing and confirming they agreed. I did mention her name and Whitney Antiques. I hope that was ok. You make me want to learn so much more and visit museums but alas it is not possible to go to retreats now we are retired. Keep on inspiring us Nicola. 🌻💐❤️
Like others have expressed, I'm a bit confused as to the "reproduction" term objection. Your definitions and my own understanding of the vocabulary are right along with you. Is/are there any journal or newspaper articles relating to the academics' argument. I'd love to read up about what is being said.
Good morning from NY. I have always considered a reproduction as one where the original is copied stitch by stitch honoring the original colors as best that can be determined. So here’s a question. I agree that Grace used the same colors as her ancestor, but her sampler is a different size and she put her own name on it. Does that change what we call it? I have done what was called a “reimagined” sampler by the designer, borrowing most of the original design but changing the colors and some of the stitches. I also changed the motto on it so there was no question I would stitch my name on it as well as the name of the original stitcher. I think when I do one of your HATS reproductions my name will only be on an information card on the back. You must be so thrilled to have be able to get both samplers. They certainly should always be together. See you at HH in October.
If a Sampler is stitched exactly as the original it is a reproduction in my world. If you take pieces apart it is an adaptation.
As many other have said, we are stitching reproductions. Are not the girls creating their samplers from some other model, thus coping their own motif by motif? I don’t understand the need to change what has been stablished and just add confusion. The words yiou define are clear and each have specific meaning. Those means bring clarity to what we are purchasing when it comes to patterns. Thanks for all you do for this community! I love your talks and the longer the better in my opinion.
I have always considered the "reproduction" of an antique sampler to be the proper title and description of what I was stitching. The curators of the original sampler pieces would agree that it is a reproduction. I do believe it is important to have the stitcher who is reproducing the original sampler to have documentation of the date and initials on the reproduction sampler for future admirers to know it is a reproduction not the original. Our masters of samplers should be the ones who decide what we call these reproduction samplers, not just some social judge.
Hi Nicola! Not sure why the academics are meddling with this topic but what you are doing is reproducing a sampler pattern. What me and all the rest are doing when we stitch one of your patterns are stitching a reproduction of a sampler. If we make a change we are stitching an adaptation.
I think reproduction is fine I do wonder if people in years to come will be confused at to how many copies there could be of the original and the copy could be sold as the original. unless people make sure to label it as as copy or reproduction. I have noticed how needle workers are replacing the original persons name either their own name or a loved one’s name . If an artist makes copies of his original artwork he will mark it as such. 1 of a certain amount. In the end it’s up to the needle worker to put a note on the sampler .
I've got nothing against the word reproduction, but I do feel recreation is far more fitting when we stitch old Samplers as new pieces. Recreation may just be a better fitting word after all!
It is very interesting to hear the original word is a contention, but I guess I can understand where they are coming from....yes, recreation fits much better!
Not that I believe the original word should be changed - as a side note here! Lol!
Thank you, Nicola! I love your videos and look forward to watching them every Sunday! Yours is the first one I watch as I have my coffee, stitch, and wake up!
Enjoy your stitching...till next Sunday! See you then!
Some people are so fussy and like to create tension.
Reproduction has been used for goodness a very long time. How many times have we heard of reproduction jewelry and garments. If these items are reproductions, that brings fiber art mediums as reproductions.
If the use of reproduction being used only recently for fiber art the debate would have a reasonable one. However, use of the word as it applies to fiber arts and therefore needlework. My belief is that we should continue to use the word reproduction.
I feel that using the term "reproduction" is acceptable.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the term “reproduction” as applied to samplers. The word implies an exact copy to the best of the person’s ability who is charting the sampler. Type of fabric, threads, and embellishments, if any, are the choice of the stitcher. Other designers take elements from antique samplers and create new samplers. This is a reimagined sampler. If they are worried about dishonest sellers there are ways to date materials so you aren’t getting sold a fake piece.
I agree with everyone that reproduction is the right word to use as it has been defined. I too would like to know what the reasons the academics have for not using this word.❤
For me it’s paper reproduction. And I think that this word is used in beaux arts for invaluable art object. It means respect for something old or historic. And it’s what I feel for these old samplers.
I think I am OK with the word "reproduction" when we try to mimic a design - stitches in the positions they originally were with colors as close as possible. Our readily available threads and linen are of a different quality than the old samplers of which we want our own copies. We're not making exact copies. To make an exact copy is like a "replicate" or even a forgery, trying to have accurate old materials and techniques for the time period of the sampler. When stitching samplers from charts, sometimes I change colors so they show better on the linen, correct original "mistakes", or add my own "oops" so it is not exactly the same as the original in addition to using new materials. I think it's these little common changes that may be not fitting what some define as a "reproduction". I was inspired by the original sampler, mostly "reproduced" it, and I am happy to sign below the sampler as "Stitched by" me and not worry about what to call my process technically. Stitching should be about the joy and calm found with the needle and thread. Also love the Grandma - Granddaughter samplers!
I think the term "reproduction" is appropriate for samplers stitchers stitch now who mimic, copy or reproduce older samplers. I started stitching reproductions since I loved the antiques but couldn't afford to buy originals when i was in my 20's, so I stitched my own, and am still stitching them in my 60's. I think the only problem is if someone tried to fraudulently palm a modern stitched reproduction as an antique for ill gotten gains. I usually work my own initials and date in somewhere in the sampler to mark that I did it, and when. I see no fault with using the term reproduction in this context.
Je ne sais pas pourquoi les universitaires et les musées pensent que "reproduction" n'est pas le bon mot pour dire ce que nous faisons. Alors difficile pour moi d'avoir un avis sur le sujet ;-)
Hi, Nicola. I totally agree with @MsHopeH, "reproduction is the only fitting word". Happy Stitching! Xoxo, Miriam from Brazil.
It’s seems the way of the world lately. To me it’s quite silly to want change a word that identifies something correctly. When someone says something is a reproduction I immediately know that something has been produced to look like the original and so is a reproduction. Nicola, you use the term reproduction correctly when describing the charts. We all know exactly what you mean, so I’ll just get on with my stitching and enjoy my reproductions. Blessings.
I think that Reproduction is an exact copy. But another question is what do you think about making changes to a published reproduction sampler?
I think that every stitcher should be able to stitch a sampler as they want, making the sampler their own.