Need opinions on 2 inlay pieces of a large communion set

[Brian Kent]

This is a commissioned work by Claremont School of Theology using some some of Sam Maloof’s walnut. The communion set will sit on Sam Maloof's Walnut altar table at the seminary.


When the seminary professor who commissioned the works, saw the 4 initial pieces, she was concerned that there was no inlay, so the pieces could get lost on a similar color table. Although I disagree with her concern, I agreed to add inlays to the large pitcher and the small communion cup. That is where my problems began, at the (dis)junction of physics and art.


The first photos show the 12” chalices and the 12” plates. So far, so good.


Next comes the small chalice with inlay. The maple and the walnut were different enough in structure that big chunks kept of breaking off of the foot. So I made a new foot without inlay. It is structurally sound.
My question on this one: does it look coherent or ridiculous?


Next comes the pitcher. It leaked like a sieve. After multiple layers of shellac on the inside, It had stopped leaking. I will have at least 3 additional coats of wipe-on varnish (poly and thinner, but no oil). I can add an epoxy surface if needed. But I noticed I had done some part of the geometry wrong. The inlay line up on one side, but it off by 2 stripes on the other. When I turned the top 180° it did not help at all. I think I mis-marked the center on either the top or the bottom piece. The middl will be wrapped with layers of twine for grip.
My question on this one - should I proceed and live with the mis-matched stripes or start over?


I have one remaining piece of walnut. I can re-make either the small chalice or the pitcher. What do you think? I have to keep one of the two pieces. Other alternative is to re-make both pieces with similar walnut, though not from Sam's woodshed.


Thank you for your time and artistic wisdom.


Blessings and Peace,
Brian Kent

[Mel Fulks]

I like all, the two chalices remind me of of the old soda fountain metal holders and paper cup inserts. Hadn't thought of them in decades,but a few years from now no one will be left who has ever seen them. I think your only problem is the pitcher inlay misalignment. I think their insistence on the inlay is even FARTHER off.

[Brian Kent]

Thank you Mel. The funny part of this is that there is no way the communion pieces will be lost on the table. The congregation views the table from the side and there is a bright white wall behind it. Their profiles will be very stark. Here is a very fuzzy photo from Sam Maloof's memorial service in 2009. The altar table he made has the flowers on it.

Fun story on the side here. Sam Maloof had told his "boys", the 3 helpers, that he wanted a plain box casket. They wanted to add some of his signature hinges. So Mike said they compromised. It is a completely plain box on the inside, with the ornamental stuff on the outside where Sam wouldn't see it.

[Len Mullin]

Brian, I like the first two goblets and plates, they're fine as is. I think the small chalice looks fine the way it is, but, I think you should be finishing the inside of these items with epoxy. Especially the ones with the inlay work, it would do two things for you if you used it. First it would make the chalice a lot stronger, and it should solve the leaking problem. Personally, I think that you should do the pitcher over. Even though part of it is going to be wrapped with twine, there could be times that it won't be. So, my question to you would be; do you want people to see the misalignment with your name attached to it?
Len

[Brian Kent]

If the small chalice is acceptable. I can use the remaining wood for another pitcher. And yes, I got some system 3 epoxy for the insides of the inlaid pieces.

[Pat Scott]

The first two pictures look great. I like the small chalice (3rd pic), is it's new based glued to the top already? If not, if there were a small bead or something to show that the inlay definitely stops at the bead, it might help with any concern you have. Looking at the picture again, it looks like the base is a bit bigger than the top (creating a ledge of sorts), so there's your definitive stop also.

I think I'd make a new pitcher also. Sorry.

[Brian Kent]

I agree, Pat.

[Brian Kent]

The set is complete now, with 2 pitchers to choose from.

[David Delo]

Wow...........that's some fine work Brian. Thanks for sharing.

[Sam Croninger]

If I can ask, what did you inlaw into the walnut? Is it a sort of segmented wood strip or did you inlay it with a sliver of wood? Or what?

It is beautiful and I am curious how to do it.

Thanks. Sam

[Brian Kent]

While the wood is still in a block I cut in from one end as many times as I want reeds. This is usually freehand. I leave some on the far end uncut, because there is a real clamping problem otherwise. I cut thin slices of wood the same width as the original block. The slices should be barely less thick than the kerf of the bandsaw on the block.

I coat each side of the slice of wood and work it into the cut. Then it should be clamped very tightly and given plenty of time to dry. Remove the clamps and turn the block into whatever you are making.

I had a couple of challenges here.
The slice of maple was about 2/3 the thickness of the saw kerf. That made it possible to slide into this big piece, but caused problems at the end of the cut. There was an uneven gap that I had to fill.

The walnut was extremely dry and the grain less dense than typical walnut. That made for a little bit of sloppy fiber on some of the cut. I had to work with the piece with epoxy and shellac from the outside, shellac first from the inside until it stopped leaking when spun, and then a thick coat of epoxy finish on the whole inside, since it needs to contain liquids a couple of hours at a time. I likely will never use inlay again on a pitcher. It took too much work to seal.