"Bought from the Bock collection in 1863, at which time the velvet was thought to be Spanish and the embroidery German. In 1883 Revise, the embroidery was described as Flemish.\n\nHistorical significance: What is remarkable here is the survival of a full semi-circle of velvet of this date in such good condition. Often copes or chasubles of this date were cut into the smaller post 1600 fiddle shape, thus losing their connection with their original use. Whether put together at the end of the 15th century or later, the cope demonstrates how trade in this period brought together textiles from different parts of Europe, and allowed their fabrication into a single garment which was probably used in one geographical and ecclesiastical location. Note, for example, the number of pieces in the Lehman Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY in similar silk but in fiddle shape form. (Christa C. Mayer Thurman. European Textiles in the Robert Lehman Collection. Princeton: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 35-172)."@en . "Bought from the Bock collection in 1863, at which time the velvet was thought to be Spanish and the embroidery German. In 1883 Revise, the embroidery was described as Flemish.\n\nHistorical significance: What is remarkable here is the survival of a full semi-circle of velvet of this date in such good condition. Often copes or chasubles of this date were cut into the smaller post 1600 fiddle shape, thus losing their connection with their original use. Whether put together at the end of the 15th century or later, the cope demonstrates how trade in this period brought together textiles from different parts of Europe, and allowed their fabrication into a single garment which was probably used in one geographical and ecclesiastical location. Note, for example, the number of pieces in the Lehman Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY in similar silk but in fiddle shape form. (Christa C. Mayer Thurman. European Textiles in the Robert Lehman Collection. Princeton: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 35-172)."@en . . . .