Can I use … instead?

This post refers to information presented in my previous post about the supplies you’ll need for stitching early-style Hardanger embroidery.

Ok, I know that I’m going to get this question and ones like it a lot (and if you’ve been thinking it, don’t feel bad, because I’m sure many others have too):

Can I use [insert name and count of your favourite fabric] and pearl cotton instead of the 36 count linen fabric and the linen thread?

I’m going to refer you to the first paragraph in “Early-Style Hardanger” (which I know you won’t have read yet, because the book isn’t out yet):

Forget everything you know or think you know about Hardanger embroidery. Early-style Hardanger embroidery is very different to what most of us recognise as Hardanger today. If you don’t know anything about the embroidery, that’s a great place to start.

Don’t think of this as a style you’ve already done. Think of this as a new-to-you style of embroidery. It IS different to contemporary Hardanger. Very different.

So maybe you’re used to using 22 count fabric and pearl cotton for Hardanger. Maybe you’re used to using 25 count fabric and pearl cotton for Hardanger. Maybe you’re used to using 28 count fabric and pearl cotton for Hardanger. FORGET THAT.

This is not the same sort of embroidery.

Let’s address scale first
For early-style Hardanger they used very fine counts of fabric and linen thread. So that’s what we’re going to use too. One of the important features of early-style Hardanger is its scale. It is small and dainty. They were emulating lace. Lace is small and dainty, so that is the scale they worked on too.

All the projects in the book (bar two and a half) have been designed on 36 count linen. They are designed on that count, and they work on that scale. If you stitched my cushion, designed on 36 count linen, on your favourite 22 count fabric, it’s going to be almost double the size! If you stitch the collar and cuffs for the shirt on your favourite 25 count linen, you’re going to need a long, wide neck, and long, wide wrists. Some things you just can’t scale up successfully, and even if you do, they’re not going to have the same effect.

“But I can’t see 36 count.” I know this is going to be an issue for some people. I truly believe that for many people, it is a matter of what you are used to. If you’re used to stitching small, then you can stitch small. Maybe you’re going to have to work your way up the fabric counts to smaller and smaller counts, in an effort to get your eyes used to it.

But don’t forget, magnification and lighting helps. And the right spectacles. Many optometrists just don’t understand what we needleworkers want to do. So when you go for your next check up, take your embroidery, and show the optometrist what you do, where you hold it, and what scale you’re working on. Then they KNOW and can prescribe appropriately. I know that some people have specific glasses JUST for their embroidery. That could be an expensive little exercise, but think how many hours of pleasure you will get from it! Over the life of the spectacles, that cost may be much more palatable.

Hardanger is a drawn and pulled thread type of embroidery. As well as cutting threads, it involves pulling threads together to create holes in the fabric. Many people simply don’t pull their threads enough (this is a bug bear for me!). As an example, an eyelet is a hole, and therefore it should have a pronounced hole, not a tiny little pin prick. If you get tiny little pin-prick holes, you’re not pulling your thread enough.

When you stitch with linen thread, it stays where you put it. Because, as we all know, linen creases well, you can use that to your advantage in Hardanger embroidery. Pull your threads, pinch and pull to tighten, and *they stay where you put them*! It’s a different experience than stitching with a thread that does not crease, and moves back to its own state of relaxation as soon as you take your hands off it.

Because of its unique properties, stitching Hardanger with linen thread is an advantage. Make use of that advantage by using linen thread. TRY IT! 🙂

Some people may be hesitant to try linen thread because they saw and maybe tried that horrible linen stranded thread that DMC put out some years ago. I’ll say it, and I’ll say it loud: “That was horrible thread and it was like stitching with straw.” No, I can understand that you don’t want to use a thread like that, because neither do I!

The linen threads specified in my book (Londonderry linen thread is one, but there are others) are not like that. They are smooth and they don’t feel like rope or straw. Some even have a little sheen to them.

So, can I use … thread and fabric?
Maybe I haven’t convinced you. Maybe you’re still set on using your favourite fabric count with pearl cotton. Well, obviously you can. But don’t think that you’re working traditional, early-style Hardanger, because you won’t be. You’re simply going to get different results. You’re particularly going to have to address issues of scale, because most likely everything will end up much bigger than I have designed it.

If I was introducing a style of traditional, culturally based embroidery that used red bouclé thread on white huckaback fabric, then that’s what you would use, because anything else would give you such a different appearance that it wouldn’t be the same. You wouldn’t try stitching in green pearl cotton on 22 count linen, because it wouldn’t look anything like it. You wouldn’t get the effect or feel of the bouclé and you wouldn’t get the effect of the uniqueness of the huckaback fabric.

Think about this the same way. Without using the “right” thread and the “right” fabric, you’re not getting the full experience of a new embroidery. You’re also not giving it the respect it deserves in honour of the cultural history of the embroidery.

So yes, you *can* use your favourite fabric and your favourite thread which is different from what is specified, but for me, personally, I wouldn’t. I hope you can understand this.

I’m fully expecting a bit of push-back on this, so I’d love to hear what you think.