Maple Anniversary Bowl

[Doug Herzberg]

This red maple was felled 5 years ago by my BIL on the day and in the city where my niece (not his daughter) was married. For her fifth (wood) anniversary, I turned this simple bowl. It is a blatant attempt to copy (and learn from) a form published by Richard Raffan. The proportions, including the height of the foot, are pretty close, but the curves are off. Whereas his appeared light and airy, mine looks a little dumpy and a little like an offering plate. I'm tempted to shorten the foot a bit, although I can see it lifting the bowl above surrounding table decorations if that is how it is used. After all the pine and cottonwood I've turned, maple is a joy. Any thoughts on what to sign with, now that the oil and wax have been applied?

IMG_5126.jpgIMG_5128.jpgIMG_5129.jpg

12" x 4" Mahoney's Walnut Oil, Ren Wax. C&C welcome.

[David Delo]

I like your idea of shortening the foot Doug. Either that or a little smaller diameter. Your bead on the underside of the lip is way cool. After forgetting to sign a piece I once burned my signature thru walnut oil and it worked well at just a little higher setting. Didn't have wax on it yet so can't advise on that.

[John Keeton]

Doug, your execution on the bowl is well done - nice finish and excellent detailing. I believe you are referring to one of the forms that Raffan shows on page 79 of his book. Some of the forms on that page are more pleasing than others. For my tastes, I have found that on most pleasing ogee forms, one can lay a straight edge on the underside and have it touch the foot, bottom of the rim and the convex belly at about 1/4 the distance from the bottom of the foot to the bottom edge of the rim. Your bowl comes very close to doing that.

However, the one difference that I believe is bothering you is the angle of that straight line. If you will take another look at Raffan's page of forms, I think you will see that the ones that are more pleasing are less than 45* (table top to the straight edge.) Your bowl is noticeably a larger angle and once one passes the 45* angle on an ogee form it is difficult to achieve a pleasing result. This "rule" fades out at angles around 75* as one then has a "vase" and it can be quite pleasing as an ogee form with a high angle.

I don't think simply reducing the foot would help and might actually make the bowl less pleasing. Your foot is well shaped and very nice.

Please understand that these are my personal opinions. I have studied the ogee form quite a bit and it is the subject of classes I teach, but again, I am expressing what appeals to me and your tastes and those of others may well differ from mine.

[John Keeton]

Doug, I took the liberty of playing with your image a bit to illustrate what I discussed in the previous post. The diameter of the foot on your piece is probably 40-45% of the max diameter of the rim and most of the time I try to keep the base/foot of bowls, particularly decorative/ogee bowls, at about 1/3.

Editing the image seems to magnify the larger diameter base, but otherwise I find this form more appealing. You may or may not agree.

[Doug Herzberg]

It's a little embarrassing, but I was working from the lower cut away on page 93. My bowl looks more like the drawings John cited and John's altered photo looks more like what I was aiming for. Both John and David perceived that the foot diameter is too large. My chuck was in the way and I left it about 1/2" larger than the proportions would have dictated. Had I not done this, the angle would have been closer to 45 degrees and the belly of the bowl would have been flatter on the outside, making the actual result more like the pleasing photo Mr. Raffan offered. In real life, the foot doesn't appear as over-sized as in the photos and I decided to leave it.

David, the wood burner did the trick. My child like scrawl is now on the bottom of the foot and the bowl is on it's way. Thanks for both of your comments. I learned.