neilestrick

The very top and very bottom elements run hotter to compensate for heat loss out the lid and floor.
What Bill said. I't probably a wiring problem. The feeder wires go from the terminal strip to the ends of one element, and a short wire jumps from there to the next element.

Your kiln has 3 rings/sections, and each ring has two elements. Each element loops twice, so 4 rows of elements. Each ring of the kiln is connected to a relay, so 3 relays. The relays are what you hear clicking when the kiln is firing. They're just switches that send power to the elements. Because your kiln has both elements dead in one ring, you likely have a dead relay. If the problem was an element, then we would probably see only one dead element, because it's very rare for two elements to fail at the same time. Unplug the kiln and open up the control box and inspect for any obvious fried wiring connections. Then open up the panel in the control box to get to the internal wiring and relays. Again, check for any obvious fried connections. If everything looks good, then the relay for that section is likely the culprit. Because all 3 relays click at the same time, if one has died to to age, then the other two are probably close to dying as well, so you should replace all 3. You can either get them from Skutt, or source them yourself on the internet for a lower price. Just search for the part number on the relay.

The very top and very bottom elements run hotter to compensate for heat loss out the lid and floor.
What Bill said. I't probably a wiring problem. The feeder wires go from the terminal strip to the ends of one element, and a short wire jumps from there to the next element.

Your kiln has 3 rings/sections, and each ring has two elements. Each element loops twice, so 4 rows of elements. Each ring of the kiln is connected to a relay, so 3 relays. The relays are what you hear clicking when the kiln is firing. They're just switches that send power to the elements. Because your kiln has both elements dead in one ring, you likely have a dead relay. If the problem was an element, then we would probably see only one dead element, because it's very rare for two elements to fail at the same time. Unplug the kiln and open up the control box and inspect for any obvious fried wiring connections. Then open up the panel in the control box to get to the internal wiring and relays. Again, check for any obvious fried connections. If everything looks good, then the relay for that section is likely the culprit. Because all 3 relays click at the same time, if one has died to to age, then the other two are probably close to dying as well, so you should replace all 3. You can either get them from Skutt, or source them yourself on the internet for a lower price. Just search for the part number on the relay.

@Velk In your controller:
Main Menu - Configuration - Number of Zones
Make sure it's set to 1 zone.

I briefly looked into it as well. Lava has a range from 700C to 1300C, the bottom of the Earth's crust is 1000C, and the core is 5,200C, and minerals melt as all sorts of different ranges, so I'm not sure there is a single temperature that is the magic number for the planet.

I briefly looked into it as well. Lava has a range from 700C to 1300C, the bottom of the Earth's crust is 1000C, and the core is 5,200C, and minerals melt as all sorts of different ranges, so I'm not sure there is a single temperature that is the magic number for the planet.

Min & Bill, thank you for this thread! It’s a rare moment when I can be part of a discussion about ideas that roll around in my head with people who think about the same things. As I learned about clay I thought it was beautiful how these two places (cone 06-04 and cone 10) were natural landing points for firing clay. The bisque range was where most any clay got strong enough to use for everyday purposes. It’s a range beyond an average campfire that’s reachable with a rudimentary kiln. Lead glazes allowed more useful ware by making it sanitary.
The next natural landing point was cone 10. It’s an order of magnitude greater to make a fire burn that hot. Feldspars, abundant in the earth, melt there. The refractory clays (originating from feldspars!) mature there. Pots that were vitreous and much stronger could be produced in this range. 
My conjecture is that it’s all about easily getting to a vitreous strong ceramic. Vitrescence is our modern standard for useful sanitary pottery. Cone 6 is a temperature common materials can be combined into a body that makes vitreous ware. You can certainly tune a body with frit to make mature ceramic at lower temperatures, but frits are far from common materials. There are clays that mature at temperatures lower than cone 6, but they’re all over the place. One will mature at cone 4, another at cone 02. Lower melting feldspars and neph sy, however, which are mined at great scale, melt near cone 6. All of the other factors, such as electric kilns, the desire to conserve energy, boron in a readily available non soluble form, and the economy of having infrastructure (shelves and what not) last longer, created a perfect environment for this new landing spot, cone 6. 
I’m delighted to see how it’s developed over the last two decades. We’ve come a long way from “imitation cone 10.” 

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

Given the consistency of the raised lines, my guess is that the design was carved into plaster, and then that was used to stamp out this piece. The color was then applied.

Often I'll just work in silence. I don't get that very often in the studio so it's kinda nice. But if I need some sound I'll turn on a Pandora station or a mix on my laptop.

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

Thanks! I built both of them. The big box came from an L&L DaVinci I had before the current eQuad 2827. I gutted it and rebuilt it as a 3 zone SSR system.  The little box was from an old Orton wall mount system. I changed out the controller and added the SSR system. My primary reason for the SSR's is to see how long it extends element life. There is a lot of documentation saying that element life is better with SSR's, but I have yet to find anything that says how much better. 5%? 10%? More? The bad thing is that it'll take another year or two of firings before I'll know!

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

I think that in the earlier days of cone 5/6 work this was true to some extent, but not any more. The development and marketing of cone 6 glazes prior to 7-8 years ago was very much geared toward making imitations of classic cone 10 glazes. I think this approach was a bad way to do it, though, because it classified cone 6 work as something that was less desirable. It was the poor man's cone 10. It was something you were forced to to if you didn't have access to a gas kiln- the realm of hobby potters, not professionals. However in the last 7-8 years, things have changed considerably. Now cone 6 work very much stands on its own, and is likely more common than cone 10 not just among hobbyists but also professionals.
Plus you can't just drop some boron into a cone 10 glaze and have a cone 6 version. Most all classic cone 10 glazes were fired in reduction, and reducing the melt is only part of the process. Mimicking the look of reduction requires additional changes in chemistry and often makes it impossible to make an equivalent cone 6 version, otherwise we'd have cone 6 shino and tenmoku glazes that are indistinguishable from their cone 10 versions, which is not the case. Since the glaze manufacturers embraced cone 6 glaze chemistry as its own thing and started to explore what could really be done with that chemistry, we have seen some really amazing glazes come to market. The variety of cone 6 glazes now dwarfs what has been been done in cone 10 work.
Personally, when I made the switch from cone 10 to cone 6, I approached it from the standpoint of modifying my tried and true cone 10 glazes. I quickly realized that I was taking the wrong approach. I find cone 6 formulation the be very different than cone 10 formulation, mostly because materials like frits are very powerful compared to most of the standard materials we use at cone 10. It still blows my mind that we can make glossy glazes with 24% EPK in the recipe. Plus the color palette that we can do at cone 6 is huge, and easier since we can use stains that aren't stable at higher temps. I actually find cone 6 formulation to be easier than cone 10.
Why cone 6? No idea. However if we really wanted to conserve energy and extend the life of our kilns, we would be firing at cone 3. We can still make vitrified bodies using feldspar at cone 3, and element life would be fabulous, probably 200 firings instead of 150. If I was working alone and didn't have a community studio, I would develop a cone 3 porcelain and glazes. There's no reason not to. I think we're probably stuck at cone 6 for a good long time, though, because we are at the mercy of the commercial suppliers, and they've got a good thing going at cone 6. I hope that we'll see more schools switch from cone 10 reduction to cone 6, because that is what most of their students are going to be doing when they graduate. They could still use their gas kilns, but cut their firing costs in half.
Sorry for the long post. I spent my first 16 years in pottery working at cone 10, and the last 14 years have been at cone 6, so I have a lot of opinions on the subject. I could write pages and pages about it! Switching to cone 6 electric was the best thing I've done for both my business and the development of my work, but I totally get why cone 10 gas firing is better for some people.
 

In a typical firing, yes, it gets to temp and then turns off. Some people will program the kiln to cool at a specific rate, though, which we refer to as 'slow cooling'. Slow cooling can be used to change how glazes look, because more crystal growth happens as the cooling is slowed. This can result in better color development or changes in the surface of the glaze (matte, shiny, etc.). Another reason for a controlled cooling cycle is to achieve the same results from different kilns. For instance, I have 3 kilns- a 10 cubic foot model, a 4 cubic foot model, and a -1 cubic foot test kiln. They all cool at very different rates, and some of my glazes will look different depending on which kiln they're fired in. By using the same programmed cooling rate in all 3 kilns, I get the same results regardless of which kiln I use.

Definitely a possibility, but I would expect to see more globs/thicker areas where lines come together.

In a typical firing, yes, it gets to temp and then turns off. Some people will program the kiln to cool at a specific rate, though, which we refer to as 'slow cooling'. Slow cooling can be used to change how glazes look, because more crystal growth happens as the cooling is slowed. This can result in better color development or changes in the surface of the glaze (matte, shiny, etc.). Another reason for a controlled cooling cycle is to achieve the same results from different kilns. For instance, I have 3 kilns- a 10 cubic foot model, a 4 cubic foot model, and a -1 cubic foot test kiln. They all cool at very different rates, and some of my glazes will look different depending on which kiln they're fired in. By using the same programmed cooling rate in all 3 kilns, I get the same results regardless of which kiln I use.

Given the consistency of the raised lines, my guess is that the design was carved into plaster, and then that was used to stamp out this piece. The color was then applied.

Given the consistency of the raised lines, my guess is that the design was carved into plaster, and then that was used to stamp out this piece. The color was then applied.

Given the consistency of the raised lines, my guess is that the design was carved into plaster, and then that was used to stamp out this piece. The color was then applied.

Often I'll just work in silence. I don't get that very often in the studio so it's kinda nice. But if I need some sound I'll turn on a Pandora station or a mix on my laptop.