Thread: Gidgee bowl

Sorry guys I can't agree I think the base provides a good balance to the rim. I don't think that it would destroy the form to remove the base but I don't think it is necessary.
Great work Hughie!

IMHO the base is the only element that's not "spot on."

However, being small & discrete, it's only obvious in the side view... removing it would make the bowl look better (IMHO) when viewed side on, but how often do we actually look at something that way? Without actually being able to pick up and handle the piece I can't really give a yea or nay on it as to removing it.

I also think that the existing base gives it firmer footing than removing it would as it would narrow the footprint if existing lines are followed... so there are practical implications as well.

As I said, I'm still not sure about the base but that's a far cry from my saying the base is "wrong." I like the bowl very much just as it is.

"Power sanded, EEE polished, then rubbed down with meths/DNA, one coat of Organoil and left to dry. It still needs a final buff to finish it off."

Could you enlarge on the meth? and the reason it's done?
Thanks :confused:

https://www.woodworkforums.com/attach...1&d=1159513559
bowl.jpg

Tashammer, what did you use to take off that base, looks like a beaver had a go at it!

Top piece.

Could you enlarge on the meth? and the reason it's done?

Meths/DNA I did so cos I thought I might want to apply some satin
rub-on-poly and it does not go to well on the left overs of EEE also the organoil does not penetrate that well either for that matter.

Base; I have turned a few of them similar to this one. The shape seems to draw people to pick it up. With no base it rolls around on the hands and has a great feel to it.

when viewed side on, but how often do we actually look at something that way

I agree Skew, seldom do we look at from the side view, so the base wont be missed.

I like the idea of bowls being handled, picked up, turned over etc. These small type seem to have an attraction to the admirer to do so.

I have left the bottom of the bowl fairly thick around 20mm [3/4"] and the sides around 8-12mm [ 5/16-1/2"] this gives it a measure of stability and a low centre of gravity. The new foot [no foot ] will probably be around 30-35mm [ 1-1/8-1-3/8" ] and slightly concave. The rim of which will provide a good stable base.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

Tashammer, what did you use to take off that base, looks like a beaver had a go at it!

My hands shake which is great for making a milkshake but a bugger for using a mouse. A graphics pad may be the go but they are too damned expensive.

Love what you did with the rim Hughie - foot or not, it looks great . Really nice piece . What happened to the color???:eek: It usually comes up almost as dark as ebony??? or is it just the pics????

Only been away for a week and can't believe how many threads I gotta catch up on.!:eek:

What happened to the color???:eek: It usually comes up almost as dark as ebony??? or is it just the pics????

Dunno :confused: thats the way it turned out, colour is a fair representation of the timber.One coat of Organoil and thats it

Guess I'm a foot fetishist so I like the foot on this one. To my eye it lifts the whole form, which it needs since it tends to the bulbous. It's a form that's hard to get the transitions of line right and you've come pretty close to perfection Hughie.

Again, it's a matter of preference and I'd go for somewhat more of an acorn shape.

foot or not, Hughie you have made a lovely, lovely piece there. (i am not a foot fetishist).

Sometimes i get this notion that form is dictated to by function (like millions of others). So i ask myself what function does a foot serve on a piece?

In looking at Hughie's piece i feel that the cylinderical form of the foot takes away from the spheroidal shape of the piece as a whole and, if it had to have a foot, then wouldn't a mirror of the upper portion enhance the work, so to follow the flow where the bottom of the bowl heads in to the centre then curves out to form almost a horizontal sine wave in profile.

As discussed, the angle you see the piece from is of course critical and Hughie's been honest in giving us several views.

Looked down at say 45 degrees of course often you won't see the foot itself but the piece will seem to 'float' more and look lighter, and that's a plus for me.

Guess I'm a foot fetishist so I like the foot on this one. To my eye it lifts the whole form, which it needs since it tends to the bulbous. It's a form that's hard to get the transitions of line right and you've come pretty close to perfection Hughie.

Ern You've got a good eye, I agree the shape is not quite right and its all to do with the darn transition. Good call! in the final shaping it can be hard to get it right and then keep it right...........

I never finished the foot as I could not make up my mind one way or the other. Thought I would throw it open to the collective wisdom of the group.
Thanks all for your input