I hear it all the time: “Hardanger fabric was traditionally used for Hardanger embroidery.” (Or something like that.)
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
It wasn’t.
Hardanger, or Oslo fabric is a 22 count cotton fabric. It was NOT used in traditional Hardanger embroidery.
Let me explain how I know this to be true.
Hardanger or Olso fabric
Linen fabric
Fabric count
When I was in Norway, I spent some time studying old, historical examples of Hardangersaum in museums. The count of the fabric used was anywhere from about 35 count up to 55 count. Let me say that again: 35 – 55 count.
Does 22 count fit within that range? No, it doesn’t. 22 count is much, much larger; even double the scale of some Hardangersaum.
Traditional, early-style Hardanger was fine, delicate and dainty because it was worked on such a high count of fabric. Working on 22 count changes the scale completely and takes away the fine, delicate, and dainty nature of it.
Fabric fibre
Linen threads and fabric were traditionally used for early-style Hardanger. Cotton didn’t grow well in Norway, due to the climate. Linen did grow there. They therefore used linen for their thread and fabric. They did not use cotton fabric.
Fabric weave
All the historical examples that I saw in museums were on a plain weave linen. A plain weave means single threads going over and under each other in a normal, regular weave.
“Hardanger” or “Oslo” fabric uses a double or basket weave. The threads are paired, and go over and under each other in pairs.
There is no historical evidence that I know of that points to a double weave linen being used for historical Hardanger embroidery.
Product history
The fabric that many believe is the right one to use for Hardanger embroidery only started to be marketed as such in about the early 1900s. In the early 1900s many thread and fabric companies started to see opportunities in the marketplace for using their products in ways they might not have been used before.
This is how we came to see Mountmellick silk being marketed for Mountmellick embroidery (actually, Mountmellick embroidery only ever used white, sturdy cotton thread with no shine!), and Oslo fabric being marketed for Hardanger embroidery. It was because of opportunistic thread and fabric companies wanting to sell more of their products!
Given that Hardanger embroidery had been around since the 1700s, a fabric that only started being produced in the 1800s (mass production of cotton started in the nineteenth century) could not have been traditionally used that many years before. Of course, here I am talking about a mass produced product, but we have no evidence that this sort of fabric was produced on home looms either, due to the historical record found in museum collections.
So please, can we now put to rest this idea that Hardanger fabric was traditionally used for Hardanger embroidery and is supposed to be used for Hardanger embroidery?
If you would like to know what should be used, particularly for early-style Hardanger, please see my earlier post on what to use.
White Threads is the blog of Yvette Stanton, the author, designer, publisher behind Vetty Creations' quality needlework books and embroidery products.
Thanks Yvette for a very informative explanation. Your research using historical sources should put the matter to rest. It’s really interesting to see what impact on our understanding textile companies played in changing the look of a number of techquies.
Thanks Michelle. Can you suggest some others that they affected? Obviously I’ve mentioned Mountmellick – though I’m not sure the idea of using coloured silks really took off! I think candlewicking might be another. The skinny thread that is marketed as candlewicking thread is nothing like the actual candlewicks they would have used in pioneering times.
Great rant Yvette, really interesting thank you. Although I think I would go blind working on a 35/45 count, mostly use 25 or 28 count linen. I love counted work.
Thank you for de-mystifying something for me. I had an old pattern, and a very old tatty picture of what it was supposed to look like. I did a sample on 22 count and it looked horrible and much more oversized compared to the picture. I didn’t pursue the pattern as I was very disappointed with my sample. Not sure what happened to that experiment…….
I love counted work too, Marguerite, but you can probably already tell that… 🙂
Glad to have helped, Joanne!
Thanks for writing this Yvette. I shudder when I see or hear of people teaching hardanger with this fabric, what an absolute waste of time. I started with lugarno, one piece only, then onto 32ct then 36 ct and on to 40 ct. Unfortunately my eyes aren’t as good as they should be so I do very little hardanger now.
A large number of ‘traditional’ styles suddenly become popular at the time that needlework magazines and the big cotton firms are at their most successful – late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Across Europe, there were already charitable embroidery schemes set up to provide employment for women in farming communities (to keep them on the land), as fundraising for schools and convents, and as employment for ‘distressed gentlewomen’. These often included adapting a traditional regional embroidery to produce saleable items – or even inventing a new style from scratch. Then along come the thread spinners and cotton mill owners and the periodical publishers and everything possible is turned into a hobby craft: stripped of much of its skill and given its own ‘special’ threads, tools and fabrics. Large scale work means more fabric and more thread used, cheaper materials (at ‘specialist’ prices, of course) mean more profit… These days, I think we’re all a little more respectful of true tradition and skill.
If there’s a moral in this, it’s not to believe everything that manufacturers of threads and fabrics tell you – not without checking!
Thanks for your great input, Sue!
Thanks Yvette, I agree entirely. 22 count is too “floppy” anyway, I did try it (ages and ages and ages ago!), but will only use linen now.
Good news for me is that a little bird told me that I will getting your new book for my birthday! Was it only last year that I received the Sardinian one?? I am getting quite a collection!
I am glad I will be using linen thread, when I started lacemaking I thought I must use linen thread, so got a few reels. Then as I advanced I began using cotton threads, not because they are better than linen, but because my work became finer and finer. If you make Honiton lace with 180 thread, you cant get linen thread anywhere near this fine size. Good news is I can practice the patterns in the new book with my linen threads that I already have!
One question, I have read that linen thread can be brittle if it dries out too much, some people spray their lace occasionally with a bit of water to hydrate the linen thread, is that necessary??
Great news all around, Julie! As for linen threads being brittle, it isn’t something that I’ve experienced, however I live in Sydney where it is always wet and humid…
Good … I’m glad you have addressed this, because I have never liked the look of the double weave fabric. I have only done a little Hardanger embroidery, but I always preferred to change to a linen fabric. The Oslo fabric just looked so coarse by comparison and I didn’t want to waste my time on it. Your new book is one I have my eye on as I’ve always liked the delicate, lacy look achieved with the finer fabrics for Hardanger.
Thanks Kathryn. I hope you enjoy the book when you get it!
Interesting. I’m wondering how the marketing folks came up with the idea the 22 count Oslo would be best marketed as Hardanger fabric. It cuts and draws quite well for the modern work I’ve done. Maybe the manufacturing company boss had a pile of samples taped on the wall and wrote down style names onto a bunch of darts… *ka-thunk* “22 count/Hardanger. Are you writing this down, Sam?”
You’re hilarious, Eve! 🙂
I’m very much a beginner but I just don’t like the look of the double-weave fabric, just as I don’t like the look of aida for cross-stitch and other counted work. It’s reassuring to know that I’m not alone and that these fabrics are newfangled interlopers.
Yvette – are you really sure about this? 🙂
The one thing I’ve noticed when a technique is revived – it seems it’s often it’s brought back with coarser, larger materials. I’m not always sure if it’s because the finer materials don’t exist any longer (or just in certain parts of the world), or if it’s a playing into the faster/quicker/easier trend. If not available at all, or difficult to make, I wonder if manufacturers don’t simply push to use existing products, rather than go through the expense when they don’t know how long there will be a demand.