Mug dimensions

[laughlin]

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?   

 

 

[Guest]

Based on another one of Lark's book, "500 Wood Bowls",  its HxWxD or HxD which is pretty standard as the sequences go.

IMO, I wouldn't obsess over an exact size based on any book, its more important to get a consistent size based on your ability and aesthetics

[laughlin]

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.

[Pres]

Laughlin, you may find the following link of interest, especially with you doing hand building. It would allow you to figure the volume easily on a given cylinder, and print out  a template. I have linked you to the volume, but you should look at all of the others for ovals etc.

 

https://www.blocklayer.com/volume-calibration.aspx

 

best,

Pres

[laughlin]

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.

[Pres]

I didn't post that one. Hope you are able to use the one I posted. Soe of them you have to play with to get them to work.

 

best,

Pres

[laughlin]

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. 

[andros]

11 hours ago, Pres said:

Laughlin, you may find the following link of interest, especially with you doing hand building. It would allow you to figure the volume easily on a given cylinder, and print out  a template. I have linked you to the volume, but you should look at all of the others for ovals etc.

 

https://www.blocklayer.com/volume-calibration.aspx

 

best,

Pres

Really really interesting! Absolutely interesting!

[laughlin]

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

[andros]

9 hours ago, laughlin said:

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

I didn't want to be sarcastic laughlin... Sorry, I've been misunderstood ...   I was really enthusiastic about the link because I found it so interesting and absolutely useful also for me...

[laughlin]

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! 

[andros]

Unfortunately I'm not able to be helpful for you, but thank you for have forgiven my  open to misinterpretation words! 

Have beautiful holiday you too!

[S. Dean]

8 hours ago, laughlin said:

<snip>   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. <snip>

 

When I see three measurements listed, I interpret it as height x  width at the object's widest point x length at the object's longest point.  So, if it's a thrown round object that is 6 inches tall with a 4 inch diameter at its widest point, then that would be "6x4x4".  

[laughlin]

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.   

[Pres]

Hi folks, great to see the feedback, apologies and further feedback. Great cooperation, better than in so many other places. I hope it continues.

On the 3 measurements, I would think they talk about Height, Top Diameter, and Bottom diameter. Most times a glass is either narrower or wider at the base. Sometimes there is a narrower base, then a bulge at low mid, to a top. I know that in hand building some of you don't assemble wet, and bulge with a rib or other tool, but some of us do. So that would change the volume of the container.

 

best,

Pres

[S. Dean]

On 12/24/2017 at 1:35 PM, laughlin said:

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.   

I don't have this book, but is there any chance they are including the width or length  with the handle in one of the measurements?  I think I've seen teapot dimensions that included the spout and handle in the measurements.  

[laughlin]

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.