Thread: Lidded box with finial and pedestal

Originally Posted by Oldgreybeard

_DSC3064.jpg_DSC3065.jpg_DSC3066.jpg_DSC3067.jpg

Having completed 50 boxes following Chris Stott's designs, it was time to put that practice to the test and produce a box from scratch.
Further the design was constrained by the size of the piece of flowering gum which my neighbour had given me with the request "Can you make something from this for my wife". Another couple of inches longer would have enabled a more traditional natural edged effect although the ends were pretty rough. The bowl is more 'brandy balloon' shape than a true sphere.

Size: 140l x 110w x 180h
Wood: Box - flowering gum; Finial & Pedestal - river red gum stained black
Finish: sanded 150 - 800 grit with 3 coats of Automotive clearcoat acrylic lacquer

I will allow the lacquer another month to fully harden before wet sanding and final polish.

Your comments and suggests would be appreciated.

Bob

I reckon Bob it all comes together extremely well and you have done a very fine job, no suggestions, its just fine.

Stunning! Well done Bob.

Absolutely stunning.

I think Chris Stott would give it a tick.A great job.
Ted

Looks fantastic Bob
A lot of elements pulled together to make a very nice piece.
And please show again when you finally polish it up.
Matt

Not bad for a first attempt.


The shape in picture 1 shows three different transitions.

You have the bowl on the bottom that does not flow into the top section then the lid does not flow with the shape.

The wing needs to be the same thickness from outside to inside.

When doing things like this it is easier if you make a template of the shape you are trying to do, this helps get the shape blended from top to bottom.

You have to get these as light as possible so they do not drop into your hands.

If it is not a keeper run the bandsaw through the middle of the peice so you can see where to make improvements for the next one, this is one of the things Richard Raffan does to see if his shape is working

Originally Posted by Jim Carroll

Not bad for a first attempt.Thanks Jim.


The shape in picture 1 shows three different transitions.

You have the bowl on the bottom that does not flow into the top section then the lid does not flow with the shape.The bowl and the top section do not flow as well as they could - my mistake. The break in the flow to the lid was intentional as I was trying to diffentiate the finial (and the pedestal) from the box to highlight the wood given to me by Philip. May not have been the best way to achieve that objective?

The wing needs to be the same thickness from outside to inside. Just measured it Jim- you have better eyes than me; the difference is sightly more than .5mm

When doing things like this it is easier if you make a template of the shape you are trying to do, this helps get the shape blended from top to bottom.

You have to get these as light as possible so they do not drop into your hands.

If it is not a keeper run the bandsaw through the middle of the peice so you can see where to make improvements for the next one, this is one of the things Richard Raffan does to see if his shape is working

Philip loves it so I had better not cut it in half

I appreciate your advice

Bob

A good first freestyle piece

Originally Posted by Jim Carroll

You have the bowl on the bottom that does not flow into the top section then the lid does not flow with the shape.

The wing needs to be the same thickness from outside to inside.

I agree with the above the only thing I did miss was the wings

Well Bob, despite Jim's valid critique, I would sit that on my mantle piece any time!!!

_DSC3064a.jpg_DSC3065a.jpg

Thanks Jim and Dalboy – I have been awake since 5.00am trying to find a solution to the issues you both made.

The lid / finial is a simple redesign solution which can be readily resolved: many would suggest that it would be better without a finial at all. However I like finials and your suggestion makes sense.

The major issue is the flow between the bowl and the top section. This is only apparent in image 1 and unfortunately that image was taken to show the profile when viewed in its normal position by a viewer in their normal position.To clarify let us consider that the object would normally be displayed on a mantle piece in the lounge room, so it would be at approximately at eye level of the viewer sitting in a lounge chair.

The first ‘error’ I now see is that the diameter of the bowl immediately below the bottom of the wing is much larger than the diameter of the top section immediately above the wing. Infact it is not so. Measured with precision vernier calipers both diameters are 100mm. This shows more accurately in image 2 to which I have added the dimension lines.

Before discussing the major problem of lack of visual flow between the two elements, I should explain my original design criteria. On the original image 1 I have added a red line to indicte the roughly ogee shape I intended for the outside of the bowl and a green line to indicate the ‘brandy balloon’ shape which differs from a sphere in that the shape changes from a semi-spherical shape at the bottom to an almost straight line slopping inwards from about the mid-section to the rim. My other objective was that the wings should form part of the ogee shape and thus be curved inwards and downwards and not be in a straight horizontal plane as was the rim in the Saturn box (box # 24) in the Turned boxes – 50 design series. This means that when viewed in profile as in image 1, it takes on a wedge shape (indicated by the strong blue line ).

Technically, I believe that I have pretty accurately adhered to those criteria in the turning of the bowl, although the curve of the ogee where the bottom of the wing meets the bowl has been compromised in order to get the upper and lower diameters of the bowl correct.

So are Jim and Dalboy wrong? NO – they have highlighted an issue which I overlooked, and should not have as it was referred to by Chris Stott and Richard Raffan in their books. It is not enough for a turning to be just technically correct, it must also look right. Image 1 clearly shows some significant visual deficiencies.

It is easy to get carried away with trying to achieve technical ‘excellence’ and overlooking the fact that woodturning is also very much a visual art. The thin blue lines that I have added to image 1 highlight the ‘hidden area’ which can only been seen when the eye level is above the object and looking down. This is not the normal or expected viewing position and, as it distorts the shape of both the wing and the top section of the bowl, it should have been taken into account when designing the object.
If I summarise all your comments I come up with “nice try but needs more work on the design criteria to progess to a ‘competition’ level.
Looking at the visual problems, and short of puting up a sign saying “Best viewed with eyes 300mm above object”, is there a solution or do I drop the concept and move on to a new project?

Bob

Bob, this is a wonderful and well thought out response to the critiques and opinions of others.

Too often we are wounded by the thoughts of others when they are only meant to be helpful
observations and suggestions. You have shown masterful embodiment of the true nature of these
fora!!!

You have not been offended and have responded in a brilliantly positive manner!! Bravo good sire!!!

Well done mate. Interesting notes re design. My thoughts are have fun with your stuff and remember that innovative design comes out of breaking the rules.