Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[davefoc]

Here's the exact wording of the cited source:


I think we can say with some confidence that the source used by Benford/Marino is quite specific about what is entailed by 'invisible' weaving.

It uses material from the existing fabric and as such I think we can say it would not affect the C14 dating.

Breakfast time?

I can't find something to that effect in this source:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

The issue here is what the invisible patch hypothesis is for the shroud and I didn't see any such restriction put forth by Benford/Marino. The fact that Ehrlich may reuse threads from the original garment when he implements the technique doesn't mean that it is a requirement of the technique or that he is claiming that it is. And why is it necessary to limit the invisible patch hypothesis with such a restriction? It is an implausible hypothesis with or without the idea that the thread must be from the garment to be patched.

The simplest answer is that no other possibility has been demonstrated thus far. A quick Google search yields a number of companies that do this technique, and they all say "We use threads/patches from the cloth we are repairing". No other technique has been described, and the specific technique (french re-weaving) is just that: a specific technique, one of several possible ones, which uses specific methods to accomplish specific goals. What Jabba is attempting to do is to make us, through verbose obfuscation, forget that what he's proposing is at best seriously flawed and at worst an attempt to use an unknown and unproven mechanism to cast doubt on expert analysis (something you simply don't get to do in science).

So asking why threads from the cloth have to be used is sort of like asking "Why is a football field 100 yards?" The answer is, that's how it's done. And while it's not a very satisfying answer, until someone demonstrates another technique it is a sufficient answer.

The fact that this is the way that it is done does not preclude the possibility that it could be done some other way. The Fleury-Lemberg claim is that it isn't done at all in the sense of the shroud invisible patch hypothesis. That is, nobody today or in the past could have made a patch that would have escaped detection by her or others that examined the shroud in detail. I think she is right.

 

[Dinwar]

The issue here is what the invisible patch hypothesis is for the shroud and I didn't see any such restriction put forth by Benford/Marino. The fact that Ehrlich may reuse threads from the original garment when he implements the technique doesn't mean that it is a requirement of the technique or that he is claiming that it is.

Jabba specifically proposed the French reweaving technique. Every company that I've seen that does this technique (the references are in this thread) utilizes threads from the cloth itself. There are numerous reasons for this (it's impossible to match patters using different cloths, cloth will always age differently depending on use, etc), but even without those the SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE proposed does, in every case, use threads from the same cloth. Thus, we can conclude that it's diagnostic of THAT TECHNIQUE. It doesn't matter that threads from other cloths COULD be used; the simple fact of the matter is that in this technique they AREN'T used. Again, not a very satisfying answer perhaps, but a sufficient one none the less.

Simply put, to say that the French reweaving could be done another way is akin to saying that basketball can be played by kicking the ball. Sure, the concept is somewhat arbitrary--but that doesn't negate the definition. The French technique utilizes fibers from the same cloth. If the technique doesn't, it's not the French technique.

As far as OTHER reweaving techniques go, there are two problems: 1) they're not what Jabba proposed (and most of us are fed up with his games and are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt), and 2) they are nebulous and as-yet undescribed, even by the numerous experts I've looked into. The only exception to this is reweaving using a patch, but you run again into the fact that every company that does that uses a patch from the same cloth (for the reasons I touched on above). For us to accept their existence would be to commit the same error as we'd have to commit to accept the existence of imps, faries, chupicabras, etc.--it could only be a matter of faith, because no evidence is presented, even by Jabba and his side!

If Jabba wants to propose a new reweaving technique, that's fine. He can't call it French reweaving--that name refers to a specific process, one that uses threads from the original cloth. Second, he must demonstrate the plausibility of the technique before he can expect anyone else to accept it. It's not sufficient to say that maybe it could be done--such a hypothesis demands testing before it becomes viable in archaeological discussions. It's extremely doubtful that any such technique exists, however. Jabba is not only proposing that an as-yet undefined technique was used on the shroud in the specific place where the sample was taken (an obvious post-hoc justification for rejecting the C14 dates, but whatever)--he's also proposing that the only time it was ever used (because no one has provided a single other cloth that it was done on) was on the shroud of Turin. This is simply insanity. I know what it took to make some of the cloth present in the Middle Ages--if there was a technique to keep it around longer heralds in particular would have jumped on it eagerly. It may not be proof that such a novel technique is possible, but it's certainly something Jabba needs to explain.

 

[pakeha]

I can't find something to that effect in this source:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

The issue here is what the invisible patch hypothesis is for the shroud and I didn't see any such restriction put forth by Benford/Marino. The fact that Ehrlich may reuse threads from the original garment when he implements the technique doesn't mean that it is a requirement of the technique or that he is claiming that it is. And why is it necessary to limit the invisible patch hypothesis with such a restriction? It is an implausible hypothesis with or without the idea that the thread must be from the garment to be patched.

I'm surprised by your difficulty with this.
Let's go to
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf

the authors contacted the
president and owner of Without A Trace, Inc. (www.withoutatrace.com) in Chicago, IL,
Mr. Michael Ehrlich. Without A Trace has provided invisible mending services for over
20 years. Mr. Ehrlich’s response to Flury-Lemberg’s statement was that the modern-day,
time-saving technique for large repairs, called “Inweaving,” would indeed be invisible
from the surface but easily recognizable from the back as she claimed. However, the
technique used in 16th Century Europe, called “French Weaving,” is an altogether
different technique from Inweaving. French Weaving, now only done on small
imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side
“invisibility.” According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread
restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century
owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and
expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French
Weave for repairs.

From here, let's go to the link mentioned in the text
www.withoutatrace.com

And at this site we find:

Quote:
French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

The point is that this is what the leading expert in the field, a professional, has to say on the subject.

The fact that Ehrlich may reuse threads from the original garment when he implements the technique doesn't mean that it is a requirement of the technique or that he is claiming that it is.

Yes, he does.
In fact, it is the basis of the definition of an invisible or French weave, davefoc. In fact, Benford/Marino link to and depend on Ehrlich's opinion on the subject.

According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-bythread restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French Weave for repairs.

Have I been unclear? If so, I'm sorry. I had no intention of making a simple thing difficult to understand.

 

[davefoc]

Since there is overwhelming agreement between us on the main points of this issue and this is at best a small disagreement on an academic point I promise this will be my last post on this.

I don't see any thing in the Benford/Marino paper where they state it is a requirement of their hypothesis that thread from the existing shroud be used.

I haven't found a definition of French reweave technique that requires that thread from the existing garment be used.

At least one of the French reweave sites I saw mentioned the use of microscopes. Benford/Marino presumably didn't intend to put forth an hypothesis that required microscopes for the technique. Just because microscopes are used with the technique today doesn't mean that Beford and Marino are required to include the use of a microscope in their hypothesis.

The idea that the hypothetical medieval people doing the invisible patching managed to make medieval thread look like thread that was theoretically 1500 or so years older is another element of the overall implausibility of the invisible patch hypothesis, but claiming that the invisible patch hypothesis as put forth by Benford/Marino includes the requirement that the patch material must be derived from the shroud imposes on them a requirement for their hypothesis that I don't believe they intended and I don't believe is in their article.

 

[pakeha]

Since there is overwhelming agreement between us on the main points of this issue and this is at best a small disagreement on an academic point I promise this will be my last post on this.

I don't see any thing in the Benford/Marino paper where they state it is a requirement of their hypothesis that thread from the existing shroud be used.

I haven't found a definition of French reweave technique that requires that thread from the existing garment be used.

At least one of the French reweave sites I saw mentioned the use of microscopes. Benford/Marino presumably didn't intend to put forth an hypothesis that required microscopes for the technique. Just because microscopes are used with the technique today doesn't mean that Beford and Marino are required to include the use of a microscope in their hypothesis.

The idea that the hypothetical medieval people doing the invisible patching managed to make medieval thread look like thread that was theoretically 1500 or so years older is another element of the overall implausibility of the invisible patch hypothesis, but claiming that the invisible patch hypothesis as put forth by Benford/Marino includes the requirement that the patch material must be derived from the shroud imposes on them a requirement for their hypothesis that I don't believe they intended and I don't believe is in their article.

Benford/Marino specifically mention a particular technique as cited by an expert and link to the expert's own site for the definition of it.
In fact, the expert explains it is a 16th century technique.

I haven't found a definition of French reweave technique that requires that thread from the existing garment be used.

The link given in the Benford/Marino paper does. I've quoted it several times.

At least one of the French reweave sites I saw mentioned the use of microscopes.

It would have been courteous to give the links, don't you think?

 

[davefoc]

http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/

 

[Dinwar]

but claiming that the invisible patch hypothesis as put forth by Benford/Marino includes the requirement that the patch material must be derived from the shroud imposes on them a requirement for their hypothesis that I don't believe they intended and I don't believe is in their article.

If they use the French reweaving technique it's assumed that they used the same threads, for the same reason that we assume pastry dough is used in beef welington. Several people--myself included--have given links in this thread showing that the French reweaving technique does in fact require the use fo threads from the same cloth. If your research hasn't found that, all I can say is that you must be looking at different sources than us.

At least one of the French reweave sites I saw mentioned the use of microscopes. Benford/Marino presumably didn't intend to put forth an hypothesis that required microscopes for the technique. Just because microscopes are used with the technique today doesn't mean that Beford and Marino are required to include the use of a microscope in their hypothesis.

This is an obviously flawed comparison. French reweaving is defined by the technique, and using fibers from the original cloth is part of that technique. Using a microscope is not.

Again, I've no problem entertaining a different reweavinig method--but you have to propose what it is and demonstrate that it works before you can use it as an explanation of anything, and you can't call something by an inapplicable name. If you don't mean French reweaving, don't SAY French reweaving, and this problem will go away.

I don't see any thing in the Benford/Marino paper where they state it is a requirement of their hypothesis that thread from the existing shroud be used.

There is part of your problem: you're artificially limiting the bredth of your search. I didn't find the data in the Benford/Marino paper either. I found it on websites of people who get paid to do French reweaving. Again, I'm happy to entertain the notion that the authors misspoke, erroniously applying the name of a specific technique when in fact they meant a more general one, but then again you run into the issue of establishing what specific technique they ARE talking about, and they have to admit (or at least we all have to accept) that they used the wrong term.

I'd also like to point out that with the inweaving technique it's invisible from a distance, but very obvious when you examine the cloth. It's "invisible" in that under normal conditions no one will notice--but it's not invisible in the sense that you can't detect it.

 

[Giordano]

davefoc,

I understand your willingness to accept that hypothetically there may be some method of (less than easily visible) weaving that does not use fibers from the same cloth. But I gather that you believe it implausible that such a method would be used for this obscure corner of the Shroud, and such a repair would truly be invisible. Am I correct?

More broadly if we are willing to propose a truly invisible repair using a method not known to modern day experts, then we might as well propose a miracle by which monks praying over the damaged Shroud caused a 15th century cloth to merge invisibly into the Shroud and to assume its texture, weave, and composition. Neither can be argued against scientifically.

 

[pakeha]

http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/

Thanks, davefoc.
From your link:

Using a "Piece Weave" or "Over Weave", a square of fabric slightly larger than the damage is taken from another area of the garment and woven into the damaged area using the same pattern as damaged area, Provided there is enough fabric available, a damage from one to two inches square can be repaired using this method. Anything larger depends and the material available.

Rather the same as is said on the site linked to in the Benford/Marino article, don't you think?

 

[tsig]

Translation: You're looking for yet another excuse to ignore the basic facts of the matter.

It's very simple, Jabba: There is NO way to patch the shroud without it being detectable. None. Zero. The set is empty. It is impossible. It cannot be done.

Give it up.

The undetectable patch done by unknown weavers, by unknown methods, for unknown reasons at an unknown time.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Garrette]

The undetectable patch done by unknown weavers, by unknown methods, for unknown reasons at an unknown time.

Sounds reasonable to me.

At least they are known unknowns.

 

[tsig]

At least they are known unknowns.

True it's the unknown unknowns that are hard to know.

 

[dafydd]

True it's the unknown unknowns that are hard to know.

Especially when they are on the other side of the event horizon of the formless. How I miss a certain forum member!

 

[pakeha]

The undetectable patch done by unknown weavers, by unknown methods, for unknown reasons at an unknown time.

Sounds reasonable to me.

It all makes sense now!

 

[davefoc]

davefoc,

I understand your willingness to accept that hypothetically there may be some method of (less than easily visible) weaving that does not use fibers from the same cloth. But I gather that you believe it implausible that such a method would be used for this obscure corner of the Shroud, and such a repair would truly be invisible. Am I correct?

More broadly if we are willing to propose a truly invisible repair using a method not known to modern day experts, then we might as well propose a miracle by which monks praying over the damaged Shroud caused a 15th century cloth to merge invisibly into the Shroud and to assume its texture, weave, and composition. Neither can be argued against scientifically.

This seems close. I don't think that a repair in an area of the shroud as large as the C14 sample area is possible that would have been undetected by the people that have examined the shroud*. That conclusion is based on my common sense and the Flury-Lemberg arguments in her article with regard to this issue. And even if it is possible to make such a repair today with modern microscopes which according Flury-Lemberg it is not for this kind of cloth, it is wildly unlikely that such a technique would have been possible without microscopes.

The fact that the repair would have had to have been with material of medieval origin for the Bedford/Marino theory to make any sense adds another level of difficulty to what already looks like it is impossible to me.

I think the dispute here is the conclusion that Bedford/Marino either by accident or by intention included a restriction in their hypothesis that only material from the shroud itself could be used in the repair. It seems clear that they didn't intentionally include such a restriction because their hypothesis would be nonsense on the surface with such a restriction. However as I understand it what people participating in this thread are claiming is that Bedford/Marino unintentionally included such a restriction in their hypothesis because they repeated a claim by Ehrlich that a truly invisible repair could be done using the French reweave technique which they claim Ehrlich defined elsewhere in such a way as to require that the source of the repair material is from the original garment.

My view on that is that if Ehrlich included such a constraint in his definition of French reweave it doesn't mean that the Bedford/Marino hypothesis needs to include such a constraint. And I haven't seen where Ehrlich puts such a constraint on the definition of French reweave. Finding a lot of people that do French reweave with thread from the original garment is not the same thing as finding a credible source that specifically defines the French reweave technique to use only threads from the original garment.

Thanks, davefoc.
From your link:

Using a "Piece Weave" or "Over Weave", a square of fabric slightly larger than the damage is taken from another area of the garment and woven into the damaged area using the same pattern as damaged area, Provided there is enough fabric available, a damage from one to two inches square can be repaired using this method. Anything larger depends and the material available.

Rather the same as is said on the site linked to in the Benford/Marino article, don't you think?

The section you quoted seems to not be about the French reweave process that Ehrlich described. There seems to be no dispute by anybody that snipping a piece of fabric from some place on the shroud and attaching the piece into the shroud by weaving around the edges would have been detected by everybody that examined the shroud.

I realize that I promised that my previous post on this issue was my last. My justification for breaking my promise was that there were some responses made directly to me. I really believe this is my last post unless somebody produces a credible definition of French reweave that includes the requirement that by definition a French reweave repair must be done with material from the original garment, in which case I will make a brief post to concede that I was at least partially wrong.

*This is only one of several reasons that I believe that the invisible patch hypothesis is wrong. Quite awhile ago I put together a list of arguments and references that were mostly extracted from this thread constituting proof, I believe, that the invisible patch theory is wrong and posted it in this thead.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Davefoc what kind of knife do you use for your hair splitting?
You sound like a jabba apologist, but i have the impression you don't want to be one.
Your argument about the definition of the French reweave is so pointless that i want to scream at you.
What's your problem?

 

[IanS]

The undetectable patch done by unknown weavers, by unknown methods, for unknown reasons at an unknown time.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yep. I think that should be the main point here.

The whole issue of claims about an "invisible" patch is spurious at best (and dishonestly deceptive at worst).

Afaik, none of these people ever suggested any invisible patches on the shroud, until after they knew the C14 had found the date to be c1260-1390. So at best this is their attempt to dream up some possible reason to cast suspicion on a C14 result which does not suit them.

Also, I suspect that none of these re-weaving techniques can ever be truly invisible. They may be hard to spot with the naked eye. But I very much doubt if they are ever "undetectable" under the sort of high power microscopes that are used in a Univ. C14 research lab.

And - if we leave aside the Rogers paper for a moment, then afaik there is no evidence of any such patching anyway, ie it is nothing more than shroud believer’s speculation. If we include consideration of Rogers paper, then we have already discussed to death why his claims of what he thought he could see under his home microscope, are tenuous and unconvincing in the extreme.

So there actually is no good evidential reason ever to entertain unsupported religious claims of invisible patches anyway.

Frankly, shroud believers can easily dream up a hundred different disingenuous and frivolous claims about the shroud every week (and they actually seem to be in the permanent business of doing just that). And it is quite absurd for any scientists, or anyone trying to take a more scientific objective view of the shroud, to be drawn into discussing their numerous claims and beliefs as if that were anything other than a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to waste everyone's time.

These people are not trying to determine any real objective truth about the shroud. They are not interested in the truth about it. What they are interested in, and what they are doing, is trying to support and promote their religious beliefs, regardless of whatever may be true or false. In fact the whole issue of the shroud is actually about that - it's a Christian religious exercise in maintaining faith over truth/honesty.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with all religious arguments, claims and discussions - objective truth and genuine evidence is rendered almost completely irrelevant. And the only thing that is relevant is a lifetime spent trying to distort, avoid, and misrepresent anything which appears to undermine the Christian religion (ditto arguments from Islamic believers).

 

[catsmate]

- After more careful reading, it appears (as you guys imply) that Rogers, Benford, Marino and Pryor haven't taken into account a particular aspect of the Frenway method of reweave (to which they seem to be referring)...

- “First, you must be let in on a trade secret: Except in rare cases, you get thread to reweave a damaged place from hidden parts of the garment itself, from some place where the appearance and strength of the garment is not harmed in any way.” (From http://www.shrouduniversity.com/frenchreweavinginstructionbook.pdf, page 38)
- And then, “The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on PRISTINE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL (my emphasis) to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth.” (from page 7 of the Thermochimica Acta article by Rogers at http://www.metalog.org/files/shroud/C14.pdf)

- Rogers was apparently not tuned into the part about threads “of the garment itself.”
- But then, I’m still hoping to find a desirable explanation to this apparent inconsistency, and
- I will be back.

--- Jabba

You've had this pointed out several times and yet you're only now accepting it?

Yep. I think that should be the main point here.

The whole issue of claims about an "invisible" patch is spurious at best (and dishonestly deceptive at worst).

Afaik, none of these people ever suggested any invisible patches on the shroud, until after they knew the C14 had found the date to be c1260-1390. So at best this is their attempt to dream up some possible reason to cast suspicion on a C14 result which does not suit them.

Exactly. It's part of the shroudie attempt to explain away the radiocarbon dating, by whatever means they can dream up. Like the "contamination" red herring and the magic Jesus radiation burst.

Also, I suspect that none of these re-weaving techniques can ever be truly invisible. They may be hard to spot with the naked eye. But I very much doubt if they are ever "undetectable" under the sort of high power microscopes that are used in a Univ. C14 research lab.

Another excellent point. The shroud was extensively examined before both samples were taken (in 1973 and 1988) using various techniques. Any patch would have been seen. As the write-up of the 1988 process states:

The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas

And - if we leave aside the Rogers paper for a moment, then afaik there is no evidence of any such patching anyway, ie it is nothing more than shroud believer’s speculation.

Well there are a number of visible patches on the shroud (about thirty) from the repairs done after the fire of 1532, when the backing cloth was also replaced.

If we include consideration of Rogers paper, then we have already discussed to death why his claims of what he thought he could see under his home microscope, are tenuous and unconvincing in the extreme.

Rogers' never demonstrated the provenance of his supposed shroud threads.
His vanillin test was shown to be worthless.
His techniques have been critiqued in detail and shown to be worthless.

So there actually is no good evidential reason ever to entertain unsupported religious claims of invisible patches anyway.

Nope.

Frankly, shroud believers can easily dream up a hundred different disingenuous and frivolous claims about the shroud every week (and they actually seem to be in the permanent business of doing just that). And it is quite absurd for any scientists, or anyone trying to take a more scientific objective view of the shroud, to be drawn into discussing their numerous claims and beliefs as if that were anything other than a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to waste everyone's time.

These people are not trying to determine any real objective truth about the shroud. They are not interested in the truth about it. What they are interested in, and what they are doing, is trying to support and promote their religious beliefs, regardless of whatever may be true or false. In fact the whole issue of the shroud is actually about that - it's a Christian religious exercise in maintaining faith over truth/honesty.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with all religious arguments, claims and discussions - objective truth and genuine evidence is rendered almost completely irrelevant. And the only thing that is relevant is a lifetime spent trying to distort, avoid, and misrepresent anything which appears to undermine the Christian religion (ditto arguments from Islamic believers).

Believers seem to need such crutches to support their weak faith.

 

[pakeha]

^

...Rogers' never demonstrated the provenance of his supposed shroud threads.
His vanillin test was shown to be worthless.
His techniques have been critiqued in detail and shown to be worthless.

Yes, the story of Rogers' analysis is peculiar in the extreme.
A recognised expert in his field, how could he possibly put aside the importance of provenance?
Or imagined that experiments done in his kitchen could be replicable.

...
I think the dispute here is the conclusion that Bedford/Marino either by accident or by intention included a restriction in their hypothesis that only material from the shroud itself could be used in the repair. It seems clear that they didn't intentionally include such a restriction because their hypothesis would be nonsense on the surface with such a restriction. However as I understand it what people participating in this thread are claiming is that Bedford/Marino unintentionally included such a restriction in their hypothesis because they repeated a claim by Ehrlich that a truly invisible repair could be done using the French reweave technique which they claim Ehrlich defined elsewhere in such a way as to require that the source of the repair material is from the original garment. ...

No, davefoc, that isn't the claim at all.
Bedford/Marino quite intentionally included Ehrlich's understanding of the infamous French reweave.
They wrote to the man, quoted him and included a link to his site within the body of their own argument.
Hardly unintentional, especially since Mr Ehrlich claimed the French reweave was a 16th century technique.

My view on that is that if Ehrlich included such a constraint in his definition of French reweave it doesn't mean that the Bedford/Marino hypothesis needs to include such a constraint. And I haven't seen where Ehrlich puts such a constraint on the definition of French reweave. Finding a lot of people that do French reweave with thread from the original garment is not the same thing as finding a credible source that specifically defines the French reweave technique to use only threads from the original garment.

I'll walk you through it again, davefoc.
Bedford/Marino http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino.pdf use Mr Ehrlich's opinion as the basis for their argument in favour of an invisible weave hypothesis.
This is the link they employ in the body of their article:
www.withoutatrace.com

When you go to this link you find:

Using the lost art of French Weave, Inweaving and Reknitting, we return damaged clothing to its original condition.

We specialize in tailoring and reweaving of fine garments and are experts in leather repairs, leather cleaning, reweaving and weaving, inweaving, sewing alterations and reknitting. In addition to repairing garments from leading department stores and high end retailers like Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus and Men's Warehouse we are experts at repairing priceless couture from Dior, Armani, Versace and Prada.

When we click on the link provided for the definition of French weave http://www.withoutatrace.com/reweaving.html we find

French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

Do you have any reason to think Benford/Marino would have included a link to this definition if they didn't take the author's opinin seriously, davefoc?

The section you quoted seems to not be about the French reweave process that Ehrlich described. There seems to be no dispute by anybody that snipping a piece of fabric from some place on the shroud and attaching the piece into the shroud by weaving around the edges would have been detected by everybody that examined the shroud.

Davfoc, when you go to Ehrlich's site you'll find this:
How does it compare to what was found on your own link?

French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

Here's what I quoted from your own link
http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/

Using a "Piece Weave" or "Over Weave", a square of fabric slightly larger than the damage is taken from another area of the garment and woven into the damaged area using the same pattern as damaged area, Provided there is enough fabric available, a damage from one to two inches square can be repaired using this method. Anything larger depends and the material available.

Do you see the similarity with the technique described as inweaving by Benford/Marino's expert of choice?
And yes, davefoc, of course I was underlining the similarity of what your own link said to what Benford/Marino's textile expert said.

..I really believe this is my last post unless somebody produces a credible definition of French reweave that includes the requirement that by definition a French reweave repair must be done with material from the original garment, in which case I will make a brief post to concede that I was at least partially wrong.

Here you are, davefoc:

Our re-weavers use several methods using the threads from the original garment to match the damaged area. The "French Weave" method is the most unique as each thread is replaced individually. This method can be used if the damage is small--up to 3/8 inch in diameter. Larger damages can be repaired in coarsely woven garments such as tweeds.

http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/

French Reweave
Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results. Anticipated results will be discussed before attempting the weaving.

Inweaving
For larger tears, and when the French reweave is not practical. The reweaver cuts a patch of hidden fabric and places it over the damaged area, matching the fabric’s pattern. The frayed edges are then hand woven into the material. The edges of the repair are invisible to the eye.

http://withoutatrace.com/reweaving.html

French reweaving is one form of invisible reweaving. Unlike other forms of invisible reweaving such as inweaving, it is nearly invisible, without magnification, from both sides of the cloth.

Michael Ehrlich, the owner of a company called Without A Trace offers invisible mending services for expensive fabrics. He explains that inweaving is detectable on the reverse side of the cloth while French reweaving is not. French reweaving was practiced in Europe during the time when it is likely that the shroud would have been repaired in this way before the devastating fire at Chambery in 1534 that did so much damage to the cloth that reweaving was no longer an option.

According to researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino:

French Weaving, now only done on small imperfections due to its extensive cost and time, results in both front and back side ‘invisibility.’ According to Mr. Ehrlich, French Weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is undetectable. Mr. Ehrlich further stated that if the 16th Century owners of the Shroud had enough material resources, weeks of time at their disposal, and expert weavers available to them, then they would have, most definitely, used the French Weave for repairs . . . the House of Savoy, which was the ruling family in parts of France and Italy, owned the Shroud in the 16th century, and possessed all of these assets.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Definitions/Frenchreweaving.html

One reason that good reweaving seems invisible is that the work is done with yarn from the garment. The reweaver steals threads from inside seams and, occasionally, from hems -- "wherever we can get it," the younger Mr. Schnall said. These threads are woven into the existing fabric in a configuration identical to the original weave's. The only problem occurs when the garment's outer threads have faded.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/garden/where-to-find-it-reweaving-magic-holes-disappear.html

French or “invisible” reweaving is best for tears and holes up to 1/8″ in diameter, no larger. Using this method, individual threads are replaced and are woven back into the garment. It sounds simple. Like tying your own flies for fishing… . French reweaving almost always results in a near invisible repair.

Overweaving or “inweaving” is done by means of a small patch, taken from a hidden part of the garment (an inside seam for instance), being woven into the garment — thread by thread — to reduce the visibility of the damage. Still, the results are a far cry from traditional mending methods.

http://easyandelegantlife.com/2009/02/celebrating-the-invisible-reweaving-returns-to-richmond/

The Art of French Weaving
This technique is used primarily for small bug damage or snags. The weaver takes threads from the garment itself, from hidden seams/areas, and replaces each broken thread, one at a time.
She follows the weave of the garment, using magnifying glasses and a special needle. This type of reweaving usually produces invisible results...

http://www.amazinggarmentrepair.com/french.htm

French Weaving involves weaving yarns by hand into the damaged areas to replace the missing yarns in the damaged area, with this method each yarn/ thread is woven back into the fabric, this method makes the damage invisible .Yarns used for reweaving are taken from an inconspicuous part of the garment or from an outside source. It's a tedious process and can be expensive as a small hole can take up-to 8 hours to fix.

http://www.wedryclean.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=182

French Reweave

This method is also know as the Invisible Weave, a technique applied on select fabrics with small holes, tears and burns. It involves a meticulous process wherein threads are taken from an inside seam of the garment and are hand-woven into the damaged area. The thread strands are replaced individually, creating a new fabric that is visually indistinguishable from the rest of the garment.

http://clothingrepairpittsburgh.com/

Repair Clothes with Reweaving Process


There are three methods of repairing the area. In one, a small piece of fabric is taken from an inconspicuous area on the garment such as the hem, cuff or pocket and strands on the edges of that piece are woven into the surrounding fabric. This method is usually used for larger holes.

In smaller holes the French method is often done where individual threads are used to create a new piece of matching fabric to cover the damaged area.

Under high magnification, special latch needles are used to weave the frayed edges or end threads into the existing fabric stitch by stitch and then the back side is covered with a special patch that will help keep the area from coming undone.

http://www.villageeastcleaners.com/alterations/reweaving-clothing-fabric-repair/

...This is done with the use of a special hand tool. Either a new section of material is taken from a hidden area of the garment and used for the repair, or replacement threads are directly woven into the damaged area.

http://www.fabricmending.com/

And last but not least, Wikipedia:

There are many varieties of fine darning. Simple over-and-under weaving of threads can be replaced by various fancy weaves, such as twills, chevrons, etc., achieved by skipping threads in regular patterns.

Invisible darning is the epitome of this attempt at restoring the fabric to its original integrity. Threads from the original weaving are unravelled from a hem or seam and used to effect the repair. Invisible darning is appropriate for extremely expensive fabrics and items of apparel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darning


Here's a video of an most impressive sempstress actually doing a reweave.
Notice the threads she employs.


Please let me know if I've missed something, davefoc.

 

[IanS]

Why would anyone in the 15th century (or whenever) bother to attempt an invisible repair on a completely insignificant corner of the shroud in a non-image area?

Was it supposed to be trial run to see if it worked well enough to apply to important damaged areas of the image?

Well it certainly seems to have worked well enough, because even now with 21st century science we still can’t detect any such repair.

Or perhaps shroud believers think that the shroud is full of invisible repairs ... do they think we are looking at a shroud which is now just one enormous invisible repair