In another thread, Bill from Detroit admitted that he liked a finial
that he had turned and he planned to keep it. I sure liked reading that
and I think his is a refreshing voice for many of us.


I know I'm not a voice of wisdom crying in the wilderness and I'm most
likely wrong as I often am. That admitted, I wonder about woodturning's
current emphasis on "proper" shape, weight and conformity to classical
proportions that makes it a no-no to wander from today's turning dogma.


It sometimes seems as if purity of finial
and compliance of collar is the tail that wags the dog and crtiques of
an adjunct part are more important and more interesting to woodturners
than the turning process and object itself. Can micro- critique become
macro-absurdity? I think so and I'm betting the pendulum will swing
before we are smothered in our attempts to decide perfection and comply
with it. (maybe this reflects my frustration in not 'matching up') I
hope none of you are frustrated by believing that you 'failed'.

We all insist that we truly believe that "Art is in the eye of the
beholder", "We turn the when, what and way we like", "The most
important thing is to just have fun", "Somebody will like anything we
turn", etc. etc. I have to wonder tho, how much is lip service and how
much is in the breech if we are turning for the knee-kick advice and
condescending praise of our appointed betters.

Yep it's off plus or minus 0.001 mm. and 0.000 mg. and the golden ratio
is tarnished, but it's only a finial not the holy grail. Anyway it's
mine and I like it and as with Bill, I plan to keep it. Do I really
need to agonize over it or ask others to?


OK, if this doesn't stir someone's pot how about: "Buckeye is good wood
for turning". "GO, BIG BLUE" Win this afternoon in Ohio.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:25:30 -0500, Arch wrote:

In another thread, Bill from Detroit admitted that he liked a finial
that he had turned and he planned to keep it. I sure liked reading that
and I think his is a refreshing voice for many of us.


Thank you, Arch .... coming from a crustly ole' curmudgeon like yourself I
consider that a high compliment, indeed!

;-)

I posted the bowl in question on ABPW as "BE finial".

The candlesticks pictured with it ARE up for sale on eBAy even as I write
this. They are good ... possibly even very good ... but they don't quite
tug at my heart like the bowl does.

The candlesticks do accede to the Golden Mean (or nearly so) in both their
longitudinal sections (long section is ~ 1.618 times the short one) and
through their thickness (the thickest part, just below the bead, is ~1.618
times the thinnest part of the neck.)

It was too austere for me without the bead ... so it got one.

If I could afford to, I'd buy all three pieces ... but I'd give as much
for the bowl by itself as I would for the set of candlesticks ... mebbe
more.

Bill

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:54:08 +0000, Bill wrote:

I posted the bowl in question on ABPW as "BE finial".

BTW, in keeping with current rules regarding such, the bowl is a
relatively uniform 1/8" or less thick until just before it meets the base.
Am contemplating drilling a hole in the end of the finial and adding a
piece of 3/16" brass rod all the way through the lid, sanded and polished
just as a man-made accent point to some truly intriguing grain.

Contemplating ... but not yet decided.

When I met the wood, about 18 months ago, it was still oozing sap.

Bill

--who 'plays by the rules' when it suits him ;-)

Totally agree. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though guidelines
can assist,
not restrict.
In any case, not everyone is fine tuned to appreciate golden ratios, so
if you're off, there'll be plenty of satisfied beholders, also off, but
in sync with you.
Indeed, trying to match three digit accuracy blemished the part called
fun.
PS. Buckeye?! Interesting burl. Check out some web sources.
; )