Jump to content

laughlin

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Well I hand build, but I've gotta make one of those things. Because I have to have one. I could live on baked apples. Very cool idea.
  2. Oh nuts, I placed that order too - haven't got it yet. Sure looked like 5 brushes from the ad, but I didn't look real close. Oh well, I'll have 2 of the tinies now, too, they're nice. I DID think it was an insanely good deal.
  3. Mug dimensions

    S. Dean - I do think so, sometimes. I've kind of come to the conclusion (after too long stubbornly trying to find a consistency that made sense) that the makers represented in there chose to measure the 3 dimensions that made most sense to them, variously. My humble opinion is that outside height x width without handle (like, rim diameter so as not to get distracted by curves in the body) x width with handle would be the most useful for practical purposes (ie, for shipping, storage, etc.). Of course if it's like an exaggerated stein with a bottom diameter hugely wider than the rim... you see why nobody has settled on this one.) I don't do production, though, so those considerations aren't important to me - I was just thinking about design and the effect different measurable dimensions had on the visual feel of a mug. I just got hung up. And you guys are too kind.
  4. Mug dimensions

    S. Dean - I think that would make the most sense. Just don't use 500 Cups, an otherwise terrific book, for figuring proportions of some of those vessels, as it ain't always true. Which is why we have eyes, I'm reminded, and room to fiddle.
  5. Mug dimensions

    I'm so sorry andros! I should have understood that. And glad that someone else found that site useful, too! This forum is an amazing resource - I rarely need to ask, because answers are usually already in the archives somewhere. I still don't know what those 3 measurement indicate (width can be at any point, and etc.) and have concluded that it's not standardized and no one knows. But got something else helpful from the discussion anyway. Have a beautiful holiday!
  6. You might like this method too, nancy lee, since you like hand building. It's done with soft slabs so you can easily form a soft square or a cylinder - it's easy once you get the hang of it. Here's Liz Zlot's directions - if you image-google her work you can see different ways that she uses the same principle. https://ceramicartsnetwork.org/daily/pottery-making-techniques/handbuilding-techniques/how-to-slab-build-a-simple-darted-cup/ .
  7. Mug dimensions

    Sarcasm noted and appreciated, andros. Not my favorite part of slab building but it goes with the territory.
  8. Mug dimensions

    Well, whoever did, thanks. And yeah, so far this volume one gives very funky results for inches/centimeters. They don't tell you what unit of measurement they want. But I'll figure it out, it's a cool gadget. I know the standard sizes for the volume I like - just fooling around with proportions, which brings the issue of volume up again. And best to you, too, Pres.
  9. Mug dimensions

    Pres, that's a great website! Thanks. I especially like the cone template page - nice and quick for figuring curve and angle for cylinders with slanted sides. I think you're the one who posted the super useful clay shrink chart a long time ago - https://photopottery.com/clay-shrinkage-calculator.php . If so, I'm forever in your debt. Still can't figure out what the 55 Cups measurement deal is, and looking elsewhere the three dimension thing seems as inconsistent. Or I'm missing something obvious, which is as likely.
  10. Mug dimensions

    I mostly slab build so I get into measurements, templates. all that. Can't so much eye it as you go as you do with throwing, pinching and coiling. I tend to work things out with assembled templates if it's complicated, but for a cup I guess that's just mindset.
  11. I've just been browsing Lark's 500 Cups book looking for ideas for making. I mostly wanted to check out the look of mugs with various dimensions. All of the pieces in there are labeled with three dimensions - ? x ? x ? - no letters to give clues. I'm probably being hopelessly dumb, but I can't figure out which is what except that the first is obviously height. The outside dimensions that might be being indicated would be four: height, width (or diameter) at top, width (or diameter) at base, and width with handle . Right? Note - tumblers without handles also show three dimensions. Advertised pieces elsewhere often show just show two, HxW, meaning usually height x width (at some point - widest?) without handle. When they show three I'm unclear, though. I want to know. I'm getting so obsessive and frustrated that I'm measuring pictures. My most consistent guess at this point looking at the pics in 500 Cups is height x width at opening x maximum width is a norm, though for many my eyes tell me this can't be right. Height by width with handle by width (at some point) without handle? Agh. I'm pretty sure the artists were just inconsistent with their method, whether or not the cups were very irregular and complicated to measure. That's OK, I'm actually not this anal by and large, but now I'm wondering - is there a general standard when pieces are listed for sale with three measurements? If you have the book, can you tell me what obvious consistency I'm missing? Is there a "usual" sequence?
  12. I generally just lurk, but Min, you just changed my life. nancylee, the ridiculously simple is often the most elusive solution IMHE. Pottery is often about unearthing the should-be-obvious from the deep shadows in which it lurks, for me, anyway. Always grateful to this forum. Thanks!
  13. Darted Cups

    I've been making darted cups (handbuilt) and have had problems with the rims distorting, too. If you're darting at the bottom, Liz Zlot style, you've got a soft-square bottom and a round top - my rims tended to want to "follow the bottom" and go squarish. They also wanted to pooch out where the cylinder joined. The tips above are excellent. I do insert a cup of some sort with slanted sides - I have a big plastic measuring cup that's perfect - to round the top. I tend to use it at intervals just to keep it from distorting while I work, or to round back up again when needed. Be sure when forming the bottom to the squarish base to only square the bottom and keep the top round - it will remember. I bevel my cylinder seam at least 1/4 of the way in now so that it's not so thick, though if you're letting it show it loses depth that way. And after rounding with the cup I tap it in a bit there to compensate for the little bulge. And I dry them really slowly, as advised above now - I always start them in a damp box, as my superstition is that that's the best trick for equalizing moisture. Then under plastic for a few days, and then a week or more in the air. I'm a beginner, too. I don't ask questions because so far I can *always* find my answer in a search of the archives here - it's an amazing resource and I'm so grateful for it and to all of you.
  14. Whats In A Name

    I just never use my full name online unless absolutely required or for business transactions, and Facebook. It's nothing to do with accountability; I'm a retired psychotherapist and maintaining some online privacy is just sensible. It's more a habit now, but I think it also adds a little bit of a hedge against online harassment - not that I'd expect that sort of thing here. But it does happen - I had an acquaintance who got involved in an escalating dispute in a previously benign forum. She'd used her real name and had also shared her email with another, who shared it in turn, and she ended up receiving a lot of unwelcome attention outside the forum. I'm not overanxious or very consistent about it though - I posted my Pinterest URL in a thread here somewhere, and I use my real name there. If some of you didn't use your real names it'd be an awful shame, too - how would I have discovered Chris Campbell's absolutely wonderful blog otherwise? (Thanks for that, Chris!) That said, I didn't intend to do more than lurk here - I just tossed my mother's maiden name in. I still very rarely post, but it looks so nekkid and chilly up there. I could at least have come up with something with personality, right? Something fitting - WobblePot, or Princess Cracksalot, or WarpSpeed, or, as of this morning, ItWasGoingToBeARabbit.
  15. I'm a lurker here, a ceramic beginner, and almost never post because I've found that an archive search almost always yields excellent discussion and good advice about whatever I'm wondering about - it's fairly encylopedic. Reading these posts I'm thinking that a very warm thank you is owed to everyone who has so generously taken the time to post help here over the years. So here it is - HUGE thanks from a rank beginner! That said, I'm sure I'm not alone in using this forum as a welcome resource rather than joining it as an interactive community. I used to be an enthusiastic participant in several online communities (non-ceramic-related ones), but have avoided that since one went south in miserable flames and others divided into silly, unkind factions and so on. That's not happened here, a very good thing! It makes perfect sense to me that people feel un-thanked and resentful when they take the time to respond to questions and never receive any feedback. Frustratingly curious, too, to the extent that they've become genuinely interested in another's progress. At the same time, I'm not sure that it's willful rudeness that allows people to query and disappear when they have their answer. Many people really don't want the perks and the hassles of deep involvement with an online community (uploading pics, becoming familiar, being frequently interactive and "known", etc., or even participating in sustained conversations) for perfectly OK reasons, I think. They'll enter this forum in the way that someone might call Amaco to ask about a glaze - simply to obtain useful information. Whatever answer is posted enters a public database that will be useful for many more people. That can be felt as a kind of exploitation, but it's definitely an inevitable and I think deeply valuable function of the best online forums. The way I resolved this issue for myself when I encountered it in forums in which I was active in giving advice (in territories where I had some expertise) was by thanking myself warmly for contributing to many unknown others via an invaluable public database. Every really good forum has a somewhat close-knit "heart" and, in my humble opinion, some tolerance for non-disruptive "drop-ins" and lurkers who make off with valuable help with never a look back. Closed online communities avoid this, but tend to become kind of involuted and unable to replace lost membership. Someone here said it was like being an unpaid consultant. It really is, but - and I'm offering this humbly - it might be more heartening to think of it as a willing volunteer service to the ceramics community at large. Maybe not, but it's a optional way to frame this and makes for a happier mind. And THAT said, it would take a whole page to thank by name the community members who have posted answers to questions asked by others in here that have been of immense help to me. Gratitude, again, to you all.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.