Finial Design

[Hermit]

I've been looking at the lovely, fine finials that many of you make, and wondering if there's some sort of standard for proportions, etc, or whether anything goes if it looks OK.

I just had a go at a quick crude finial and learned that I can actually do it without screwing up, so now I need to learn what I'm doing and have a few serious attempts.

This is my first, rough attempt. It's a little piece of Hickory, 55mm tall and 17mm dia at the bulb. It doesn't look well-balanced to me, so any tips/pointers regarding form, or anything else that's relevant, would be gladly accepted.
I didn't bother sanding it at all, I was more concerned with simply turning the shape than making it a part of a project. The very tip is a bit rugged, too. I'll have to improve there. Might need a magnifying glass on a stand.

334875

[Simplicity]

I just spend ten fifteen seconds reading your thread expecting to see well something ugly.
Proportion all over the place ext ext.
Get off here and back out there the shed I mean.
That is a very nice .
Ok just because you asked ,thin it down towards the top ,if you must but I still think it's very nice just the way it is.
My first turnings looked more like something you would apparently find in a sex shop well that's what my wife and her friends told me anyway (new product range arriving next year).
Matt

[Hermit]

I just spend ten fifteen seconds reading your thread expecting to see well something ugly.
Proportion all over the place ext ext.
Get off here and back out there the shed I mean.
That is a very nice .
Ok just because you asked ,thin it down towards the top ,if you must but I still think it's very nice just the way it is.
My first turnings looked more like something you would apparently find in a sex shop well that's what my wife and her friends told me anyway (new product range arriving next year).
Matt

Thanks for the feedback and tip, Matt. You're definitely right - it looked thinner as I was (nervously) turning it, but I just measured it - 5mm immediately below the flying saucer. Could have been a couple of mm thinner. I think the diameter of the flying saucer is a bit large, too. The bulb was easy - I just copied what everyone else does, (see the new signature), and the shape was already in my head from the bud vase I made the other day.

Note: I don't even know what to call the various elements of a finial. What's the 'proper' name for the flying saucer shape? Is there possibly an online glossary of finial terms?

I've got another blank ready, and enough of this nice Hickory to have a few more goes, so I'll try a couple more tomorrow, hopefully after a bit more advice from those of you who know what they're doing.
(My idea of an idyllic Xmas day. :cool:)

[Simplicity]

Ok ,so you know the terms and we can converse effectively .
From the bottom up
.The bit on the bottom.
The thin bit.
The fat bit .
The getting slimmer bit.
Stretched neck thing .
ET ship home.
Another thin bit.
Small thinginggg do.
Pointy bit .

[dai sensei]

A lot of finials are personal taste, but needs to be also appropriate for what ever it sits on, proportions etc. Generally they are "delicate" and yours looks too chunky for me. Check out Cindy Drozda's site http://www.cindydrozda.com/ for what I consider beautiful

[Hermit]

A lot of finials are personal taste, but needs to be also appropriate for what ever it sits on, proportions etc. Generally they are "delicate" and yours looks too chunky for me. Check out Cindy Drozda's site http://www.cindydrozda.com/ for what I consider beautiful

Wow, I do have a long way to go. They look fantastic.
I've been looking at the wrong finials. So much for Google images. :(

I looked at Cindy's, looked at mine, looked at Cindy's again, then threw mine in the bin.

I'll still have another go tomorrow, but I'm not even sure I can see well enough to work that fine.

[artme]

Generally good overall design. I find the bottom section a bit fat, otherwise OK.:2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:

[Hermit]

Generally good overall design. I find the bottom section a bit fat, otherwise OK.:2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:

Thanks Arthur. I'll aim for thinner overall tomorrow. I think it would have looked better with a sharper transition between the bottom of the 'ET ship home' and the top of 'The getting slimmer bit', too.

I got some other ideas from looking at Cindy Drozda's work, as well. I'll see if I can incorporate some of her elements, without directly copying her stuff.

Neil's point about the finial suiting it's target is something I need to consider, too. I'll draw a couple of box shapes tonight, with finials to suit, but I'll only actually make the finials.

I'm learning already. :2tsup:

[pommyphil]

Well you got away with this one, but remember it must not look the same as anyone else has made. Thin ice.

[Oldgreybeard]

Hi Hermit,
I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have basically 2 objectives when turning a finial;

1. The finial is an adornment to the main subject - it draws attention (the viewers attention) to the main object, box, lid, etc.

2. I like my finials to flow from top to bottom - getting broader as it descends from tip to the base. Each transition should lead to a larger section

Rules 1 & 2 are mandatory except when they do not meet rule 3:

3. It must look right - too thin is as bad as too thick. What is right on one subject may be totally inappropriate on another.

My advice: study what the "best" are doing and then start with one or two basic shapes and start exploring and developing a broard design that you like. From there you can progress to adapting your design to suit each project. Expect to turn many finials - I will often re-turn a finial changing proportions - physically re-turning the original making coves thinner or balls smaller, etc and often deleting transitions. I rarely keep my practice finials. I found that was re-inforcing one design and inhiberted exploration of new or different designs. My practice sessions now are more focussed on relating design to suit the article and not so much on the physical turning which is really only beads, coves balls and transisions.

Your last post "..I'll draw a couple of box shapes tonight, with finials to suit, but I'll only actually make the finials." suggests to me that you are on the right track.


Rule 4 is now becoming clearer for me:

Less is best or KISS (keep it simple stupid). My first attempts were too complicated and distracted from the true purpose of adorning and drawing attention to the prinicipal object - they were tending to be the main point of interest.

I don't see anyone better than Cindy Drozda from whom to learn what good finials should look like and how they relate to the subject. She sets the standard for us mere mortals to seek to achieve.

Looking forward to seeing your 100th finial:D

Bob

[_fly_]

Wow, I do have a long way to go. They look fantastic.
I've been looking at the wrong finials. So much for Google images. :(

I looked at Cindy's, looked at mine, looked at Cindy's again, then threw mine in the bin.

I'll still have another go tomorrow, but I'm not even sure I can see well enough to work that fine.

Shouldn't have ditched it.
another 15 and you had a set of pawns for a chess set.

if its only for look, no touch, sure go for the skinny ones (or entering a contest).
If its going on something that will be used and you don't want it to break when it falls off the bench, go fatter.
No Rules, if it looks good thats it.
I have one here that doesn't look good, Its on top of my ugly thing (and that's not a body part).
So its all ugly.

Pete

[Oldgreybeard]

I knew I had this link somewhere - just had to find it.

The complete mathematics to designing your finial according to Cindy and the Golden Ratio:?:?

http://www.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/Turning/DrozdaOnionFinial/DrozdaOnionFinialProport1.html

Bob

[chuck1]

Go get it out the bin! It's good to see how you progress with design and technique! I have some of my first turnings from 1990s
some are blocks of practice beads and they are not really beads they are pointy skew run messes!
When people come over I often show them the difference between then and now with all the practice in between!

[Hermit]

Hi Hermit,
I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have basically 2 objectives when turning a finial;

1. The finial is an adornment to the main subject - it draws attention (the viewers attention) to the main object, box, lid, etc.

2. I like my finials to flow from top to bottom - getting broader as it descends from tip to the base. Each transition should lead to a larger section

Rules 1 & 2 are mandatory except when they do not meet rule 3:

3. It must look right - too thin is as bad as too thick. What is right on one subject may be totally inappropriate on another.

My advice: study what the "best" are doing and then start with one or two basic shapes and start exploring and developing a broard design that you like. From there you can progress to adapting your design to suit each project. Expect to turn many finials - I will often re-turn a finial changing proportions - physically re-turning the original making coves thinner or balls smaller, etc and often deleting transitions. I rarely keep my practice finials. I found that was re-inforcing one design and inhiberted exploration of new or different designs. My practice sessions now are more focussed on relating design to suit the article and not so much on the physical turning which is really only beads, coves balls and transisions.

Your last post "..I'll draw a couple of box shapes tonight, with finials to suit, but I'll only actually make the finials." suggests to me that you are on the right track.


Rule 4 is now becoming clearer for me:

Less is best or KISS (keep it simple stupid). My first attempts were too complicated and distracted from the true purpose of adorning and drawing attention to the prinicipal object - they were tending to be the main point of interest.

I don't see anyone better than Cindy Drozda from whom to learn what good finials should look like and how they relate to the subject. She sets the standard for us mere mortals to seek to achieve.

Looking forward to seeing your 100th finial:D

Bob

Great advice, Bob, and thank you very much for the link to Cindy's info on proportions. :2tsup:
That's exactly what I was looking for. I knew there had to be basic design rules.
The linked pdf handout, with examples and illustrations is pretty useful too. Needless to say, I've kept copies of both.

Phil - :roflmao:


Pete and Charlie, I had to throw it out. No thought or planning went into that one. I'll keep the first one that I've actually planned, if it doesn't look too terrible.


I'm not really all that keen on finials on a lot of things, but figured it was the best way to get some good solid practice with my new spindle gouge. I've only used it three times. I should have bought one long ago.
I'll have to make some more boxes now, for all of the coming finials.


And, for those that are into it, have a Merry Xmas.

[Hermit]

Hi Hermit,
I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have basically 2 objectives when turning a finial;

1. The finial is an adornment to the main subject - it draws attention (the viewers attention) to the main object, box, lid, etc.

2. I like my finials to flow from top to bottom - getting broader as it descends from tip to the base. Each transition should lead to a larger section

Rules 1 & 2 are mandatory except when they do not meet rule 3:

3. It must look right - too thin is as bad as too thick. What is right on one subject may be totally inappropriate on another.

My advice: study what the "best" are doing and then start with one or two basic shapes and start exploring and developing a broard design that you like. From there you can progress to adapting your design to suit each project. Expect to turn many finials - I will often re-turn a finial changing proportions - physically re-turning the original making coves thinner or balls smaller, etc and often deleting transitions. I rarely keep my practice finials. I found that was re-inforcing one design and inhiberted exploration of new or different designs. My practice sessions now are more focussed on relating design to suit the article and not so much on the physical turning which is really only beads, coves balls and transisions.

Your last post "..I'll draw a couple of box shapes tonight, with finials to suit, but I'll only actually make the finials." suggests to me that you are on the right track.


Rule 4 is now becoming clearer for me:

Less is best or KISS (keep it simple stupid). My first attempts were too complicated and distracted from the true purpose of adorning and drawing attention to the prinicipal object - they were tending to be the main point of interest.

I don't see anyone better than Cindy Drozda from whom to learn what good finials should look like and how they relate to the subject. She sets the standard for us mere mortals to seek to achieve.

Looking forward to seeing your 100th finial:D

Bob

Bugger. I just typed a big reply, and lost the lot. Auto-restore didn't work either. I'll see if I can remember what I said.


Thank you very much for the great advice, Bob, and the link to Cindy Drozda's info on proportions. That page also links to a very helpful pdf with plenty of examples and illustrations. Good stuff. :2tsup:
(That Golden Ratio keeps rearing it's ugly head. I struck it in box-making as well.)


Phil - :roflmao: :p


Pete and Charlie, I had to throw out that first one. I didn't put any thought into it, and only made it to see if I was capable of turning on that scale with my limited skills.


All said and done, I don't really like finials on a lot of things, but figured it was the best way to get in some badly-needed spindle turning practice. It's only the third time I've used my new spindle gouge. Should have bought one ages ago.
Just wait until my skew arrives. :D
(I've got a cheap Chinese carbon-steel skew, but it's rubbish so I don't use it.)

Now I'll have to make some more boxes.....


And, a Merry Xmas to all.

[Hermit]

So, I've been fiddling about today shaping balls, saucers etc and trying for thin (2.5mm) tapers, and mostly it's going well.

I struck two problems, though. The first was vibration, so I've decided to make myself a string steady. Any tips on the type of string that's least likely to burn the timber?

The other problem was one of technique, or tools, I guess.
I've drawn a quick sketch to help me describe the situation:
334934
Cutting from A to B is no problem. Neither is cutting from about C to D, but how do I start a cut from B to D? I'm using a 3/8" spindle gouge, (35° bevel, 1/2" wings). Wrong tool? Would a skew be better for this particular cut?
Or should I just gently cut back up against the grain from C to B?
Any advice on this is much appreciated.

I ended up resorting to this, but it's cheating:
334935

(I haven't shaped below the saucer yet.)

[Oldgreybeard]

I use predominately 2 tools - 1/2"" skew and 6mm detail gouge with an "Ellsworth grind" (as per tormek recommended settings for thier gouge jig). As for a steady I use the index finger on my left hand behind/under the work piece directly behind the cutting zone of the gouge. My thumb sits on top of and very slightly to the left of the tool directly over the tool rest. The tool rest is as close as possible to the work piece; wherever possible about 3mm. Lathe speed is "flat out" ~3000 rpm on my lathe. Tool must be sharp, very sharp - I can shave the hair off the back of my hand with the shew!

Probably the most freqent cause of problems I experience is being too aggressive with the cut and / or lack of attention. One tip I was given (sorry I can't remember who to credit) was to lighten my grip on the handle. Finials need a very soft touch.

Hope these comments help, no guarantees other than they work for me most of the time. When they don't it is my fault, there is no one else to blame.

Bob

[Scott]

Check out Cindy Drozda's site http://www.cindydrozda.com/ for what I consider beautiful

+1 Cindy Drozda. I found the 2/3 or 1/3 principle works for proportion. Or, try reading up on the Golden Ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) for aesthetics or how things look to the eye :)

[Hermit]

Thanks Bob and Scott, for the extra tips. It all helps heaps. :2tsup:

rang me last night with some good advice, too. He suggested that for now, as a beginner, I should go back to a standard fingernail grind instead of the Ellesworth grind.
I ordered a second 3/8" spindle gouge last night and I'll keep the original grind so I can compare the two side-by-side and determine which is best for which operations.
He also recommended waxed string (flax) for a string steady if I want to make one, since it tends to self-lubricate.
I'm only thinking of a very small steady, mounted on the tailstock quill, to stabilise the tip and stop it whipping around if I try for an extra-long, thin spindle.


Bob, I didn't even know they made 6mm gouges. I've never tried a detail gouge. I'll eventually buy a couple, but for now it's the standard spindle gouges and, when it arrives, a 1" skew. The others will come over time.
I started using my hand as you describe to steady the workpiece yesterday, after checking out CD's technique. It feels pretty alien, but I'll persist until I get used to it.
I've been running the lathe at 3000 too. It can go up to 5000, and I briefly thought about it, but I was too slack to move the belt. :rolleyes:


Scott, I came across references to the Golden Ratio yesterday following Bob's links to Cindy Drozda's stuff. I'm pretty familiar with it from box-making. I just need to put it into practice now.


While checking out her videos, I came across the ones describing making a Sputnik sea-urchin ornament.
Quite impressive-looking, so I ordered some urchin shells to give it a shot. Something else besides boxes to put my finials on, when I eventually make a couple that are worth using.

For anyone interested, I bought the shells from Simply Shells (http://simplyshells.com.au/product-category/sea-urchins/)

Pretty cheap at $4 each, (+ $10 deliv), making them a nice, inexpensive project.

And here's a link to the first of Cindy's two-part series:
Making a Sputnik Sea Urchin Ornament with Turned Finials - Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tynZwHZvdiU)


Thanks again for the tips, guys. Much appreciated.

[Hermit]

This is today's attempt. Still a bit rugged, but getting better. I think the onion is better proportioned, although still a bit lumpy.
I ran out of stock this time, or it would have been a bit longer.

It's 2mm thick at the thinnest part of the taper, and 105mm tall not counting the tenon(s).

I'll have to try a piece of timber with straighter grain next time, too. This one has a distinct bend in it.:-:rolleyes:

334992

I'll leave everyone alone now, and get on with some quiet practice for a few days.......

[Oldgreybeard]

Well done :2tsup:

Bob

[dai sensei]

...waxed string (flax) for a string steady if I want to make one, since it tends to self-lubricate.....

Not for finials, it will just get in the way, unless your making them>150mm long

[Hermit]

Not for finials, it will just get in the way, unless your making them>150mm long

I definitely plan to make some about 150mm long in the future, after some a lot more practice. I'll only make one if I feel I need it.

I wasn't thinking of a full steady mounted to the lathe bed, but something like this mounted on the tailstock quill, just to stop the tip whipping around. This is Eddie Castelin's version:

335033

[dai sensei]

Once you get into finials longer than 150 you get into the world of trembleurs (see http://www.woodturningonline.com/Turning/Turning_projects.php?catid=63).

At an advanced class run by at our club the barmaid set a project of min 300mm long with hand cut M2 taper at the headstock end and 1 handmade string steady. He also made us use crappy tassy oak 30x30 stock from Bunnies. Let's just say it was an interesting :?, frustrating :~, but enjoyable :2tsup: session :U.

[Hermit]

Once you get into finials longer than 150 you get into the world of trembleurs (see http://www.woodturningonline.com/Turning/Turning_projects.php?catid=63).

At an advanced class run by at our club the barmaid set a project of min 300mm long with hand cut M2 taper at the headstock end and 1 handmade string steady. He also made us use crappy tassy oak 30x30 stock from Bunnies. Let's just say it was an interesting :?, frustrating :~, but enjoyable :2tsup: session :U.

Thanks Neil, and believe me, I don't intend to try anything that long just yet. I'll go for about 120 or so on the next longer one. That's only 15mm longer than today's.

I saw the term 'trembleur' somewhere last night in my YouTube travels, but didn't follow it up.

Also saw some ripper goblets last week with 3mm stems a couple of feet long, similar to Rich Hutchinsons', turned with carbide tools. (YouTube again)
I wouldn't have thought it possible with carbide.
Unfortunately, I didn't keep a link.
They had a great pendulum effect, with the weight of the bowl on top, sort of hypnotic.

By the way, said the same as you - that I shouldn't need a string steady for my current-sized finials. I'm just thinking ahead.

Edit: Great link, by the way. Thanks.

[Sturdee]

Steve,

This link (http://www.rubberchucky.com/pages.php?FinialChucky) may be of interest as it's a finial chucky designed to hold a finial instead of using a string steady.

I have quite a few of Rubber Chucky's items but not this one. However if I was making a lot of finials I would make one using a sleeve over a revolving centre to hold the end of the finial. Seems easy enough to adapt one using some plastic sleeve to fit the end of the finial and slide over a revolving centre.

Peter.

[Hermit]

Steve,

This link (http://www.rubberchucky.com/pages.php?FinialChucky) may be of interest as it's a finial chucky designed to hold a finial instead of using a string steady.

I have quite a few of Rubber Chucky's items but not this one. However if I was making a lot of finials I would make one using a sleeve over a revolving centre to hold the end of the finial. Seems easy enough to adapt one using some plastic sleeve to fit the end of the finial and slide over a revolving centre.

Peter.

:clap:
Great link Peter. You pointed me at the Rubber Chucky website once before, when building my vac chuck system, but I didn't see the 'Finial Chucky' at the time.

Pretty logical, so I'm kicking myself for not having thought of something similar. I was already planning to make a large cone centre to slide onto my live centre.

I'll either make another, to fit the live centre, or I'll make one with a wooden MT2 taper and a small internal bearing.
I'm leaning toward a lighter, internal bearing, MT2 version, so far. A really long, thin finial might have a chance of twisting and breaking if it has to accelerate the weight of my heavy live centre during startup, especially when powering up with the belt across the 'fast' pulleys. My 'fast' is from 2500 to 5000, and being a very lightweight lathe, it accelerates up to speed very quickly.

You know, this has really got me thinking. As you say, a piece of plastic tube pushed down firmly onto the tip of the finial is half the job done already - no marks on the finial. I have some very small bearings here already, with an ID of about 8mm, and eBay has a wide range of small, lightweight bearings that don't cost the Earth, as long as I buy a few extras for regular replacement as they die.

Alternatively, a chunk of UHMW plastic for the one to fit the live centre would possibly be the go.

Thank you again for putting me onto this Peter. It's just what the doctor ordered.
(And it'll keep my overactive mind busy for the night. I fell asleep on the couch at 9pm and just woke up at 1.30am, full of beans and ready to start another day.)


Edit: Oh, and I gave yesterday's finial a coat of Wapro black Raven Oil leather dye, to see how it would go, but was disappointed. Two problems. First, it resists soaking right into the open pores properly, leaving little minute specks of undyed timber everywhere, (couldn't get rid of those, no matter how hard I tried), and the second drawback is that it doesn't dry out in an acceptable time, if at all. A bit like inkjet printer ink, for anyone that's played with that stuff.
I went over it with a Sharpie, then a coat of Nugget and Bob's your uncle.

For my next ones, I've ordered some black aniline dye. Should get better results.

[dai sensei]

If you are going to use tailstock support, make sure it is holding vertically only, literally no axial pressure. If you do, as the finial gets very thin/small, it can buckle/bend.

[Hermit]

If you are going to use tailstock support, make sure it is holding vertically only, literally no axial pressure. If you do, as the finial gets very thin/small, it can buckle/bend.

:2tsup: Thanks Neil, I'll do that. Don't want to defeat the purpose of the steady.

The last one already has a bit of a bend, even without any pressure. I think in this case that's just the grain and a bad choice of timber, but I saw a video yesterday suggesting that keeping the tailstock up against the piece for too long in the early stages can contribute to that problem, and that it's better to remove it as soon as possible to let the timber take it's natural form before it's fully turned to shape.
Do you think this is a valid point? (Sorting the gems from the crap on YouTube is difficult sometimes.)

[chuck1]

Another thing to think about with aesthetic design with finals is in nature if it's hanging down it thins away with the bottom one, with more mass when rising up.
Can't remember who I had this discussion with. Just putting it out there to think about! Think natural icicles and the mineral formations in caves.
Bit early for spelling sorry!

[Hermit]

Another thing to think about with aesthetic design with finals is in nature if it's hanging down it thins away with the bottom one, with more mass when rising up.
Can't remember who I had this discussion with. Just putting it out there to think about! Think natural icicles and the mineral formations in caves.
Bit early for spelling sorry!

Thanks for that Charlie. Food for thought.

And by the way, I took your's and _fly_'s advice and pulled that first finial back out of the bin before I emptied it.
I've blacked all three and lined them up in chronological order for comparison. I'll make another today.

[dai sensei]

...I saw a video yesterday suggesting that keeping the tailstock up against the piece for too long in the early stages can contribute to that problem, and that it's better to remove it as soon as possible to let the timber take it's natural form before it's fully turned to shape.
Do you think this is a valid point? (Sorting the gems from the crap on YouTube is difficult sometimes.)

I would say yes, and why I rough down with tailstock support, then do it without (as per Cindy Drozda technique that I learnt from). Others may not, Ken Wraight for example uses tailstock support till end.

[chuck1]

Re tailstock- It also depends on how tight you wind it up, there is doing it up so it's safe and doing it up to tight that it flexes your turning job and when your turning thin diameters over tighting May cause your run out and split the timber.
when I have needed tailstock on really thin work I have even drilled a 3mm diameter hole to give the the lathe centre some relief into the timber. ( which needs to be worked in to design so hole stays in waste)
it all comes down to how you feel what the timber is doing and length of work.
And how it's gripped at the headstock if it's in a chuck its only needed for roughing down.
The short finial I turned the other day way between centres so it needed tailstock for whole operation. As the timber was not long enough fir my design to hols in chuck.

[Hermit]

I would say yes, and why I rough down with tailstock support, then do it without (as per Cindy Drozda technique that I learnt from). Others may not, Ken Wraight for example uses tailstock support till end.

That's how I'll do it from now on. I think I unnecessarily kept the tailstock up a bit too long last time. Beginners nerves/insecurity.



Re tailstock- It also depends on how tight you wind it up, there is doing it up so it's safe and doing it up to tight that it flexes your turning job and when your turning thin diameters over tighting May cause your run out and split the timber.
when I have needed tailstock on really thin work I have even drilled a 3mm diameter hole to give the the lathe centre some relief into the timber. ( which needs to be worked in to design so hole stays in waste)
it all comes down to how you feel what the timber is doing and length of work.
And how it's gripped at the headstock if it's in a chuck its only needed for roughing down.
The short finial I turned the other day way between centres so it needed tailstock for whole operation. As the timber was not long enough fir my design to hols in chuck.

I'll keep this in mind, Charlie. I do tend to wind the tailstock up pretty hard - probably firmer than necessary.


I didn't make another today in the end. Instead I finished the bottom of one of my bowls and did the prep for making the skew handle. (And a heap of household chores. One of the disadvantages of being single.)