Opinions Wanted

[Darryl Fective]

I turned a chunk of Siberian elm this afternoon. I'm thinking the bead on the neck is a bit too prominent. Wife says I should make it the top rim by removing the neck above it, or even cut just under to remove it completely. I'm curious what others see/think. I guess it would get rid of an ugly tool mark I didn't quite sand out...

 

[Tim Connell]

The ring/bead is too prominent for my taste. I would start by reducing the size of it so that the radius of the bead terminates at the neck. Take it off the lathe and stare at it again for a while, the decide to keep it, remove the bead and keep the original shape, or remove the top and use the smaller bead as the new mouth of the vessel.

One change at a time and reevaluate.

Don't want to add more variables, but I will
How much meat is left in the walls of the vessel? From my perspective, looking at a single picture, the neck and mouth are a little too large in both diameter and height for the size of the body. Removing material above the bead would help solve that, but if you had enough thickness, could narrow the neck, reduce the height some, and narrow the mouth.

 

[John K Jordan]

I turned a chunk of Siberian elm this afternoon. I'm thinking the bead on the neck is a bit too prominent. Wife says I should make it the top rim by removing the neck above it, or even cut just under to remove it completely. I'm curious what others see/think. I guess it would get rid of an ugly tool mark I didn't quite sand out...


View attachment 77728

Opinions are good, but only what you think matters. That you question it says something. One thing I do when designing is make sketches. Could trace a printout to get the shape/proportions right. That said, I'm personally not wild about the funnel top. When I scroll the photo so the top is cut off it accentuates the form of the bottom - wonderful! I might steal, er, be inspired by it. I personally like the ring in the neck; if mine I might consider making the outer diameter slightly smaller.

(my opinions are worth what you paid for them)



The contrast in the rings of the wood is exceptional and I love the color.

 

[Darryl Fective]

It's down to about 3/16" or so everywhere, so reshaping is out. I was hoping for something sort of indiginous, but it looks more Middle Eastern. (or buffing might bring out a genie)

After a quick look, I realized it's sort of a lousy photo to try to evaluate form with.

 

[Darryl Fective]

I went a little too quick with the eraser and took out some shadow...

 

[Darryl Fective]

Another, but without the bead.

 

[Tim Connell]

Thanks for the extra pictures. I think I would reduce the size of the ring and leave the height as is. Another random thought, since you are playing with edits, how about coloring the ring black after you reduce the size of it?

 

[R Henrickson]

It's down to about 3/16" or so everywhere, so reshaping is out. I was hoping for something sort of indiginous, but it looks more Middle Eastern. (or buffing might bring out a genie)

After a quick look, I realized it's sort of a lousy photo to try to evaluate form with.

Removing the flare above the neck ring would certainly help the overall shape, and then reducing the heavy ring to a gentle everted lip would help further.

Given those changes, your comment about it looking Middle Eastern fits my experience, although probably not how you thought. With the changes I described, the shape would be perfect for the pottery of central western Iran ca 2600-2300 BC. My doctoral dissertation was on the pottery of central western Iran 2700-1300 BC.

 

[Darryl Fective]

Thanks for the extra pictures. I think I would reduce the size of the ring and leave the height as is. Another random thought, since you are playing with edits, how about coloring the ring black after you reduce the size of it?

 

[Alan Weinberg]

I think I would reduce the size of the ring and leave the height as is.

This is also what I’d do.

 

[Darryl Fective]

This is also what I’d do.

OK, I get it now...

 

[Dean Center]

Another, but without the bead.

The last one, without neck or bead, looks a little like southwestern US indigenous pottery, if you're still thinking along those lines.

My understanding of good design is that you want FLOW, ie continuous curves. The bead at the neck interrupts the nice curve and the flow. It's a speed bump.

You and/or your wife may like the result, and that's the most important thing. Tim's suggestion to take it one step at a time and see how you like the result makes a lot of sense to me. Or make 3 more, with variations, and go with the pick of the litter. "It's only wood"

 

[Bill Blasic]

I personally like it the way it is (other than the dig in at the top of the bead). It is different and eye catching. To remove it would then make it run of the mill, ordinary at best.

 

[Pat Wisniewski]

I actually like it in the original form, yet a minor improvement if it seems like something you’d like would be to turn the large bead into two smaller beads - say 1/8” diameter each, so it is more of an ornamentation rather than a feature.

 

[Mike Selser]

I also like the original form but don’t like the bead interrupting the flow of the grain. I would just turn the bead away. I see nothing wrong with run of the mill or ordinary if done well.