Thread: Need a bit of helpful critique, please

I'll unload on ya.... First, I'm not a fan of texturing (personal prefference) but with the design you have created it looks nice but, BUT I think the band is too wide in reference to the size of the neck that follows. Perhaps drop it down to 3/8" to 5/16" wide and keep the neck the same. Or if you keep the width, increase the size of the neck on the next piece.

Perhaps such a band would look better if it were around the Girth of the piece.

Aside from the (if I could I would) statements, it is a grand looking piece and very attractive as it is but I feel there needs some improvement.

Thanks for the posting and

The waist of the peice looks too high.

If you were to drop the waist a bit that would make the shape flow a bit better and do not try to come in to the spigot for the base but give it a more rounded bottom.

At the moment it looks like you have come straight from the spigot to the middle then flowed to the top, it needs to be a bit more pear shaped.

As a general rule of thumb the 1/3 , 2/3 applies best here.

I agree with hickory maybe the band should be more of a highlight not a major part of the turning, narrow it down and see how it looks.

Just my 2 bobs worth. Keep up the good work.

I can see what Jim is saying, but I quite like the dimensions as is and I would say that it is slightly reminiscent of a Greek vase - which isn't a bad thing.

I think that the textured and coloured band looks great, but I also think that it is fractionally to high. However, I would probably remedy this by reducing its width very slighty.

Cam

I actually like it the way it is, the colours stand out well, the chatter is a great pattern, the shape is lovely and .... I like it.

Thanks to you all for your honest critiques.
I have been thinking along similar lines (Jim, the foot/base was planned to be round with a flat area at the bottom. The spigot is just that, a spigot), and considering that the walls are too thin to make major changes in the band on this piece, I may just remove the curved top rim of the piece completely, and let it terminate just above the band.
What do y'all think of that??

Originally Posted by Gil Jones

Thanks to you all for your honest critiques.
I have been thinking along similar lines (Jim, the foot/base was planned to be round with a flat area at the bottom. The spigot is just that, a spigot), and considering that the walls are too thin to make major changes in the band on this piece, I may just remove the curved top rim of the piece completely, and let it terminate just above the band.
What do y'all think of that??

I think it should be left alone. My comments were just if you were to do a new bowl/ for future consideration.

DEFINITELY do not remove the lip (in my opinion).

Cam

This is a very hard form to do well in my view.

Without the textured band the foot would look too wide ... the 1/3 rule generally works well but in this case the band provides a visual weighting that means you can get away with a wider one.

As for the textured band, I wish I had your skill and would like to know what a pounce wheel is. I'm about ready to start more adventurous texturing on bowls being bored with the basics.

That said, your natural timber has a nice flow of contrasting grain that the band interrupts. It also detracts from an excellent lip treatment which I would leave well alone.

So? Maybe narrow and move the band down a bit and go for a quieter colour?

Here I go again, nay-saying Cameron. [sigh] Hope we're not getting into a rut here.

I like the form as is and agree with the others, but given that nothing else can change, then I'd remove the lip. IMHO the top end looks too busy as it is, removing the lip will still result in acceptable form and also reduce the impact of the band, making it more of an accent around the lip than "a band in the wrong place."

I wouldn't go so far as to trim the lip down to the band, that'd also look wrong... but down to the shadowline in the top pic would, again IMHO, be about right.

Thanks again for all of your contrasting ideas (very helpful).

Ern, a "pounce wheel" is used for transferring a pattern from paper to wood (as in a gunsmith transferring a checkering pattern onto a rifle stock). It is a little steel wheel with many tiny sharp points. Lay the paper on the wood, and trace the pattern with the pounce wheel, and it punctures tiny holes in the wood to match the pattern. I used it on this turning as one might use a Sorby texturing wheel tool. Here is where I bought the tool many years ago (see the bottom of this web page). It is not made for hi-speed use (but I cannot afford a Sorby texturing tool). http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/sto...l.aspx?p=703&s

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Here I go again, nay-saying Cameron. [sigh] Hope we're not getting into a rut here.

I'll have to come over to your place and we can discuss the merits of taste...


then skew chisels and 10 paces...



then with it all sorted out (and me unconscious on the floor) we can finish off with...







It is a funny thing that we disagree so often, but then, I suppose that we do reply to the same kind of threads and the hit and miss might be about 50/50, so it isn't all that surprising.

Cheers

Cam

Blast away please.

Gil,
Its all good advice and we all need some at some stage. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Always the next bowl will be better and we are often our most strident critics.


nice effort
hughie

And full marks for putting your work on the line.

G'day Gil - here's my critique for what it is worth.

Patterned section too wide, burn marks too heavy, from what I can see in the pic, you have lost the form a little at the top and considerably more at the bottom (the cove at the top really needs to be a little deeper to give a bit more shape to the rim). Foot almost looks like an after thought, like you decided to stop a bit too early.

I would make the cove above the foot much deeper which would allow you to continue a nicely formed curve on the bottom quarter of the bowl rather than the almost flat section that's there now, this deeper cove would also give a much cleaner and sharper and more defined line to the foot.

The top could possibly do with being cut back a little as suggested by shew but I wouldn't go too far for this particular design. I would however like to see a much cleaner line to the top edge. What I see in the pic appears to be a bit wishy-washy. IE: not a clean crisp squared off edge, not a razor sharp edge and not even a rounded over edge. It may just be the photo, but to me it just doesn't seem to be a clearly defined edge.

Hope you can follow what I am getting at, and that this is of some help to you Gil.

Cheers - Neil

PS Please take the remarks given here as helpful criticism and be secure in the knowledge that it is still a reasonably nice piece by general woodturning standards and one that I am sure any number of people would be happy to take off your hands.

More thanks to all.
I know it is all helpful criticism, and were I thin-skinned, I doubt that I would have asked for anyone's opinion.
Neal, I too think that he red band is too wide, and I cannot not change this piece in that regard. Maybe toning down the color some would help it. There is no 'foot', nor cove above it. What several folks are calling a foot is a spigot, still mounted in a chuck (like I said, it is not finished yet). This piece will have a round bottom, with a slight flat so it will not roll over. You have a valid point about the rim edge; it was sharp so I put a small radius on it. (Not a great idea, eh? That I can change). I do find all of the proffered ideas helpful. You have a fine, and varied, group of people here. Thanks for making this forum available.