Opinion on form

[Dean Center]

Darryl just posted a vase and asked for comments on dealing with the neck and a bead, and that reminded me that I've been meaning to do something similar.

Here are 2 honeylocust boxes of similar concept, from the same long billet. (They're straight and square and sitting flat on the board--it's my phone that's crooked)
There are subtle differences in form and detail. Which do you like better? Why?

Dean

 

[Phil Hamel]

They both look great! My eye is drawn to the cleaner lines and smoothness of the one on the left.

 

[Bill Blasic]

I have made both of these forms with the difference being the ones I did were straight sided through the whole piece. Both of these look like the top is a little fatter above the base. Could that be an instance where you have straight sides and it just looks like the tops are bigger I don't know. I think most will like the one on the left better not only because the flow of your cut but the flow of the unbroken grain look. The idea of both is fine for me.

 

[Darryl Fective]

Both are very nice, but personally, I think a rounded top with no center point might look best. There's a suggestion of it on the right one the way the outline continues thru.

 

[Tim Hunter]

Left for sure over the right.

 

[Dan Stromberg]

I'll be the odd one out. I like the one on the right, except for the point on top.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Left is better in my view, but I would put a bead near the top of the base, and curve the bottom of the lid in more, this will provide a nice separation from the top and bottom. Here is one of my boxes in a similar style using those suggestions.... Nice grain match though!!

English Yew Raffan Style Box

• Gabriel Hoff
• Jun 8, 2025
• 1
• english yew raffan style

In this month's American Woodturner magazine, there was a great feature on Richard Raffan...

 

[Mark Jundanian]

I like the crisper point on the top of the right box.
For me the form on the left looks something like (but not enough like) an onion dome.

 

[Mike Selser]

The one on the right. I like the top detail better and the flow from the top to the base isn’t as abrupt as on the left.

 

[Dean Center]

From your comments, I realized I must have turned these butt to butt or top to top. Here's a view of the right box, with the same grain showing as the left box.

Bill, the sides are not quite straight and the tops are very slightly larger diameter than the base. How does that work for you?

I'd like to ask those who said which they liked, but not why they liked it to take another look and try to figure out what makes their choice preferable.

 

[Dave Landers]

Nice boxes.

A few things, but I am in a jet-lagged fog compounded by remnants of a a cold. So I might be hallucinating all of this....

Both have a discontinuity at the joint, which is not bad, but does break the curve. But the lid on the left-hand one has a slightly more subtile curve - just a tiny bit less bulbous than the other.

The right-hand lid looks a little too wide and its max-diameter is higher - so there's more distance to make more of a curve between there and the joint.

I like Gabriel's suggestion of a bead or something at the joint to make the discontinuity more intentional.

I like the pointed top of the left-hand one better. I think it's because the curve of the lid flows into the point better. The curve of the right-hand one is headed toward a flat top and imo would look better without the added point.

 

[Ron Solfest]

Dean, the second one looks much more appealing with the grain match in the last picture. Still, to my eye I prefer the left one. I like that the bottom section is a little shorter, and that the top is a gentle arch up to the point as opposed to the rounder top on the right with the separate top center decoration. Also to my eye I’d look for a slight flair at the base instead of straight sides, probably so that the base diameter matched to top diameter at the widest point. A *small* bead at the intersection might also enhance it, but I wouldn’t try and mimic Raffan’s as I like the simpler form that you have which shows off the beautiful grain.

My two cents

 

[Bill Blasic]

From your comments, I realized I must have turned these butt to butt or top to top. Here's a view of the right box, with the same grain showing as the left box.

Bill, the sides are not quite straight and the tops are very slightly larger diameter than the base. How does that work for you?

I'd like to ask those who said which they liked, but not why they liked it to take another look and try to figure out what makes their choice preferable.

View attachment 77796

Dean the bit larger top is fine and the grain match makes it a better comparison between the two. I think they are both well done and I really would have no preference of one over the other. I'm sure you will find that most like the left over the right because of the unbroken line of the top.

 

[John K Jordan]

I like both of them, both look elegant. My opinion and I'm sticking with it.

(They're straight and square and sitting flat on the board--it's my phone that's crooked

I see no problem with that. The eye adjusts. They are sitting flat but one is closer to the front of the board and the camera changing the perspective of it a little.

They do both lean a bit outward but it's not an issue. There are ways to eliminate this if you don't like it. Let me know if you want a list.

But I like the photo as is! The eye and brain automatically correct for the perspective. As for the design, that's a personal thing. We are our own worst critic (as it should be!)

I like both boxes and the photo. It's not an entry in a photo contest or a juried guild submission.

I'm sure whoever gets either box will love it.

Oh, one more method to evaluate form which don't recommend for your finished beautiful and valuable pieces: spray paint each piece matte black so the color, figure, grain don't distract the eye. I think it was Mark Gardner I heard recommend turning a series of variations on a design, paint all black, set them all in a row on a shelf at eye level with a contrasting background and even lighting, study each and sort by preference! Box forms would not have to be hollowed.

JKJ

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

Oh, one more method to evaluate form which don't recommend for your finished beautiful and valuable pieces: spray paint each piece matte black so the color, figure, grain don't distract the eye. I think it was Mark Gardner I heard recommend turning a series of variations on a design, paint all black, set them all in a row on a shelf at eye level with a contrasting background and even lighting, study each and sort by preference! Box forms would not have to be hollowed.

That about sums up my thoughts on form. The form should stand by itself aside from the figure or grain of the wood.

Designing on the computer using graphic software allows all angle viewing helps to evaluate the form . And since my "turning" is done on CNC machines the form has to be determined ahead of time to program the machine. Difficult figure or gnarly wood is not an issue, the machines cut what you design.

As to grain matching, no, I'm not into it. IMO, there's something fake about it. A couple screw boxes I use as containers the top is not at the exact same grain match with what seems like the same reasonable amount of closing force depending on seasonal changes. Sometimes the top is tight sometimes loose to grain match so I have a nuisance tendency to want to adjust it to be a visual match. My preference is to use woods without so obvious grain.

 

[Dean Center]

OK, here's something that no one has mentioned, maybe no one considered. One of the boxes has pretty close to exactly the Golden Ratio proportions. The other was intentionally adjusted to strike my eye as more appealing, even though it was a little off the Golden Ratio.

What do you think of the width to height relationship for the whole box? For the top alone? For the top vs. the bottom? (It's not the Parthenon, but Continuous Quality Improvement is our goal, and even on a simple box, I'm trying to make it as appealing as I can)

 

[Brian Gustin]

OK, here's something that no one has mentioned, maybe no one considered.

I hadnt even considered it really, though Ive been watching the thread, I find neither box appealing to me personally, as neither one looks to be "right" in proportions and I could not put my finger on it , but now that you mention the ratio, just my opinion but they don't exactly LOOK to be (Even though your separation line may be dead on) because of the visual "bulge" on the lids making the top seem larger than the bottom, and with no asymmetry to the rest of the box, nothing to really define where that other portion SHOULD be .... Then scolling back up the thread, the photo Gabriel Hoff posted caught my eye, and THAT, to me, looks to be in proper proportions and far more visually appealing... and comparing yours and his , I seem to feel that while his may have that bulging domed lid, the bottom of the box has that narrow waist just below line of separation and then the flare out to a wider bottom that visually it appears to be far less "top heavy" if you get my meaning? I think the golden ratio is far more than just a line of separation - it is more to do with where the eye is drawn to (Features such as beads, the narrower "waist" just below that flares out to the base, and stuff like that) - with your straight sides the only thing the eye is really drawn to is the very top and makes the whole appear to be "top heavy" like it would fall over if I so much as sneezed , while the box Gabriel posted looks like it would stand up to a hurricane, relatively speaking...

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

I hadnt even considered it really, though Ive been watching the thread, I find neither box appealing to me personally, as neither one looks to be "right" in proportions and I could not put my finger on it , but now that you mention the ratio, just my opinion but they don't exactly LOOK to be (Even though your separation line may be dead on) because of the visual "bulge" on the lids making the top seem larger than the bottom, and with no asymmetry to the rest of the box, nothing to really define where that other portion SHOULD be .... Then scolling back up the thread, the photo Gabriel Hoff posted caught my eye, and THAT, to me, looks to be in proper proportions and far more visually appealing... and comparing yours and his , I seem to feel that while his may have that bulging domed lid, the bottom of the box has that narrow waist just below line of separation and then the flare out to a wider bottom that visually it appears to be far less "top heavy" if you get my meaning? I think the golden ratio is far more than just a line of separation - it is more to do with where the eye is drawn to (Features such as beads, the narrower "waist" just below that flares out to the base, and stuff like that) - with your straight sides the only thing the eye is really drawn to is the very top and makes the whole appear to be "top heavy" like it would fall over if I so much as sneezed , while the box Gabriel posted looks like it would stand up to a hurricane, relatively speaking...

I do agree with what you said about my piece Brian, although it has taken me awhile to train my eye to see form as a whole, not just one part of it. Everything from the top to bottom has to be harmonious with all of the other sections. That is why I post an example piece to encourage others to see a different perspective and idea on design. Top heaviness in a domed lid, curved lid, or even lid thickness is a tricky thing to figure out let alone train your eye to see.

 

[Dean Center]

I hadnt even considered it really, though Ive been watching the thread, I find neither box appealing to me personally, as neither one looks to be "right" in proportions and I could not put my finger on it , but now that you mention the ratio, just my opinion but they don't exactly LOOK to be (Even though your separation line may be dead on) because of the visual "bulge" on the lids making the top seem larger than the bottom, and with no asymmetry to the rest of the box, nothing to really define where that other portion SHOULD be .... I think the golden ratio is far more than just a line of separation - it is more to do with where the eye is drawn to (Features such as beads, the narrower "waist" just below that flares out to the base, and stuff like that) - with your straight sides the only thing the eye is really drawn to is the very top and makes the whole appear to be "top heavy" like it would fall over if I so much as sneezed , while the box Gabriel posted looks like it would stand up to a hurricane, relatively speaking...

The sides of the bottom are not actually straight. There is a slight curve to them, which may not be obvious in the photos. (Maybe not obvious in real life, too.) The 'waist' is 2/3 up from the bottom, 1/3 down from the join.

Anyone who's spent time with Jacques Vesery want to chime in?

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

The sides of the bottom are not actually straight. There is a slight curve to them, which may not be obvious in the photos.

That's known as entasis if the curve is convex. Not usually seen on relatively short objects, more on tall columns.

As to the form, for my usual philosophy of form follows function I don't see any reason for the bulges of the tops. I think maybe the tops should also be shorter, no point in the height of the tops even though it fits the rule of thirds.