• May 2025 Turning Challenge: Long Neck Hollowform! (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Phil Hamel winner of the April 2025 Turning Challenge (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Paul Hedman and Donna Banfield for "Fire and Ice" being selected as Turning of the Week for 5 May, 2025 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Boxes You May Have Never Seen Before POLL

Which Box Do You Like?

  • No. 1 Ringed Gidgee Round Bottom Box

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • No.2 Beeswing Narra Elegant Box

    Votes: 32 74.4%

  • No. 3 Figured Bocote Round Bottom Box

    Votes: 8 18.6%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Gabriel Hoff

Gabriel Hoff

Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
789
Likes
4,182
Location
Beavercreek, OH
Website
www.ovwg.org
When I post my work I like to space out my postings. This makes you guys wait in suspense for my next box! So not every box I make gets posted in the Gallery.
So.....here are three boxes you have never seen before on the Forum.....I making this a poll to see which box is most popular!! Have fun!

No. 1 Ringed Gidgee Round Bottom Box
No. 2 Beeswing Narra Elegant Box
No. 3 Figured Bocote Round Bottom Box

Let me know what you think!

Ringed Gidgee Round Bottom Box.JPGBeeswing Narra Elegant Box.JPGBocote Round Bottom Box.JPG
 
Michael Anderson said:
I like the Gidgee box the best overall. How did the Gidgee turn? Hard wood!
Click to expand...
Oh it's pretty hard Michael! I had to sharpen before the cuts and the Hunter tool struggled a bit to hog out the interior. Not the hardest wood I have worked with, that would be Verawood related to Lignum Vitae. I too like the Gidgee box because of the unique coloring and figure.
 
If I have to choose one, I'd say #3, but only because the grain is so unique . They're all excellent and I'd be immensely proud of any of them.
 
Are we supposed to judge solely on the basis of the box and ignore the wood/grain? That's what I chose to do.

If I looked at any of these individually, I would find them all excellent, but for reasons I cannot explain, next to the bocote box, the narra box looks obese, even a little dumpy. This surprises me, cuz I normally like curves, a lot. With a little more distance and subtler curves, the gidgee looks OK, but the bocote still surpasses. Maybe it's the proportions. Maybe it's the lack of a chamfered edge on top.

If I include the wood, I find I don't care as much for the bocote as I do for the gidgee, which is wonderfully warm and appealing.

As always, art is in the eye of the beholder, and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
 
Dean Center said:
Are we supposed to judge solely on the basis of the box and ignore the wood/grain? That's what I chose to do.

If I looked at any of these individually, I would find them all excellent, but for reasons I cannot explain, next to the bocote box, the narra box looks obese, even a little dumpy. This surprises me, cuz I normally like curves, a lot. With a little more distance and subtler curves, the gidgee looks OK, but the bocote still surpasses. Maybe it's the proportions. Maybe it's the lack of a chamfered edge on top.

If I include the wood, I find I don't care as much for the bocote as I do for the gidgee, which is wonderfully warm and appealing.

As always, art is in the eye of the beholder, and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
Click to expand...
Bingo.....I thought the same thing about the Narra box. A little too much curve maybe!!??? I'm still liking it, but maybe shave off a 1/16" or so.
 
Since you asked.....

These are boxes, I'm viewing them as utilitarian objects. But that doesn't mean they can't be attractive. The bases are all too small, when I put something down on a surface I don't want any chance it will tip. #3 looks especially bad in this sense.

Why are the lids so tall?

Without getting too much into photo editing I've snipped the tall lids on #1 and #2 for improvement. #3, I don't see a way to improve. I would continue the base curve into the lids as I've modified them the reverse curve shows a bit. As modified my favorite is #1.

box 1.JPGbox 2.JPG
 
Last edited:
Doug Rasmussen said:
Since you asked.....

These are boxes, I'm viewing them as utilitarian objects. But that doesn't mean they can't be attractive. The bases are all too small, when I put something down on a surface I don't want any chance it will tip. #3 looks especially bad in this sense.

Why are the lids so tall?

Without getting too much into photo editing I've snipped the tall lids on #1 and #2 for improvement. #3, I don't see a way to improve. I would continue the base curve into the lids as I've modified them the reverse curve shows a bit. As modified my favorite is #1.

View attachment 64598View attachment 64599
Click to expand...
Well, I don't really turn my boxes for utilitarian purposes, but the boxes are very secure on the bases, each base is probably 5/8" diameter. Also the lids are 1/3--2/3 proportions

(EXAMPLE the Gidgee box's base is 1 1/8" tall and the lid is 1/2" tall so pretty much perfect in the rations department)

so the way you edited the photos kind of messes up that golden ratio......but hey thanks for the suggestions and ideas!
 
Last edited:
If you use the proven mathematics to set the position of features in the boxes, the tall lid makes the bulge too low and the lid look wrong. That is why the elegance comment comes out. The bulge should be at the 3/5 to 2/5 height position and the lid be above that. I know I'll get the, but you can make it to what you want, buy just saying that's exactly why #3 speaks with that elegance.
 
I'm leaning toward #2, but I really like #1 as well. I love the ogee profile of them and they're more appealing to me than #3 shape. (but #3 wood color/grain is very attractive)
 
First thing; I wish l could do so good.
This discussion has shown that the "golden 1.618" can be applied differently to the same piece. On #3, l think l would have considered the weight of the 2 sections. I think the shape of #3 works, but it seems top heavy.
 
I would have loved to see the wood in box #3 turned in the shape of Box #2. In woodturning we tend to compare a lot of apples to oranges. Sometimes it's the form, sometimes it's the wood. When they come together it's nirvana. But that's just one old white haired guys opinion.
 
For pleasing proportions of turned objects the golden rectangle seems a good method IMO. Draw a rectangle around the turned object. The longest edge of the rectangle divided by the shortest edge should be near. 1.618.

I just happened to see this in the refrigerator that seemed to have pleasing proportions. Measuring as near as possible with a tape measure the numbers come out to 1.6 +/- which is very close to a perfect golden rectangle. Do you suppose those proportions were coincidental or was it designed that way? My thought is it was purposely proportioned that way.

golden rectangle.JPG

This was my intent in snipping Gabriel's pictures. I didn't make any attempt at perfection in snipping, just somewhat close to what I found attractive.

Gabriel mentions using the rule of thirds.
 
Curt Fuller said:
I would have loved to see the wood in box #3 turned in the shape of Box #2. In woodturning we tend to compare a lot of apples to oranges. Sometimes it's the form, sometimes it's the wood. When they come together it's nirvana. But that's just one old white haired guys opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, I have some wood left from #3, I may give it a shot and try #2's shape on #3's wood.
 
Mike Zip Hamilton said:
First thing; I wish l could do so good.
This discussion has shown that the "golden 1.618" can be applied differently to the same piece. On #3, l think l would have considered the weight of the 2 sections. I think the shape of #3 works, but it seems top heavy.
Click to expand...
Agree, that piece is older so my form was not as top notch as it is now.
 
The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.
But, I could not do that as they all are pretty nice.
#1 could have been a piece of figured Claro Walnut.
#2 I do not like the way the insert fits on the top. There seems to not be a smooth transition.
#3 I think I like this one the best.
But, I have to agree that the lids are all a bit high.
Is the break line supposed to fit the Golden Mean? Or is the width vs height supposed to fit the Golden Mean?
I would take any of them as they are all nice. But, in the end....#3.
This whole discussion is very interesting. What we look for in shape and color and size of the foot, etc.
Not sure this is worth 2 cents.......but that is what I think.
 
Hugh said:
The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.
But, I could not do that as they all are pretty nice.
#1 could have been a piece of figured Claro Walnut.
#2 I do not like the way the insert fits on the top. There seems to not be a smooth transition.
#3 I think I like this one the best.
But, I have to agree that the lids are all a bit high.
Is the break line supposed to fit the Golden Mean? Or is the width vs height supposed to fit the Golden Mean?
I would take any of them as they are all nice. But, in the end....#3.
This whole discussion is very interesting. What we look for in shape and color and size of the foot, etc.
Not sure this is worth 2 cents.......but that is what I think
Click to expand...
Well there are no inserts in any of the boxes, they are all one piece of wood, and yes the line defines the 1/3---2/3 method I use. Width and height don't matter, I prefer a squat box over a tall box.
 
Hugh said:
The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.
Click to expand...
Definitely something to be said for Hugh's opinion. The best design advice I ever received was to come up with a design that stands by itself without concern for the piece's grain.

I recall an Ellsworth video where he claims he puts a piece of wood in the lathe and lets the wood determine the turning's design. To me that's totally silly. I want to control the design. Design your piece before the wood gets onto the lathe. Pick a piece of wood that has your design in it. Let the turning process only remove the wood that's not part of your design.
 
Doug Rasmussen said:
I recall an Ellsworth video where he claims he puts a piece of wood in the lathe and lets the wood determine the turning's design. To me that's totally silly. I want to control the design. Design your piece before the wood gets onto the lathe. Pick a piece of wood that has your design in it. Let the turning process only remove the wood that's not part of your design.
Click to expand...
I am more in the Ellsworth camp. I recently put a log on in spindle orientation between centers. Turned it down a bit intending to make a hollow form. After looking at the grain and checks I decided this piece needed to be something else. I cut off one side with the chainsaw, changed the axis of rotation between the centers and ended up making a box. That is how it goes with much of what I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top