Tale of 2 bowls

[Steve Mathews]

Attached are pics of 2 bowls I just turned after a brief hiatus from woodturning. The larger one (13" in diameter) was briefly discussed in another thread having to do with tearout. No idea why I didn't have that problem with the smaller one since the wood came from the same Magnolia tree from one of our local parks. Supposedly the tree was over 100 years old when cut down. My wife didn't like the thickness of the smaller bowl, which is the reason for the thinner rim on the larger one. I think she is right. Besides struggling with woodturning techniques I have a problem with the artistic side of the equation. I think my bowls end up plain and utilitarian looking. A frequent woodturning YouTuber suggested adding one special design feature to a bowl. More than that is usually too much and cluttered. Obviously both of my bowls are indeed plain. Any suggestions to spruce things up a bit like John Keaton does with his work?

PS Both bowls were sanded to 400 grit and buffed with the Beall system. I haven't decided whether to use an oil or WOP. Any suggestions?

Bowls 001.jpgBowls 002.jpgBowls 003.jpg

[Fred Perreault]

Any number of rim shapes and flares could make a bowl look special. Take a look on the web and see what others are doing, and then create your own special treatment. Your bowls look very good, but they do have a ulility theme. Some times the style and wood specie lend to a lighter weight, and other woods are naturally heavy. Experiment with any idea that occurs to you. There is no "right bowl".

[Steve Mathews]

I have one more piece of wood from the same Magnolia tree that was rough turned in an ogee shape and the start of a wide flat rim. It will be interesting to see how it turns out as a departure from my usual Moe Howard haircut style.

[Pat Scott]

I've only turned Magnolia once and that was 14 years ago, but those bowls sure look like Siberian Elm to me. Maybe Elm and Magnolia are cousins?

Anyway, nothing wrong with either one of those bowls. 99% of what I make are utility bowls, and there's nothing that says utility can't be beautiful. It depends on your intended use for the bowl, for example a bowl that will be used to serve food shouldn't have a lot of beads and coves and other adornment because those are all places for food and water to collect. With that being said if you want to jazz up your utility bowls something as simple as a bead or two on the outside is nice. Beads can be flush with the surface or above the surface if you want them to stand out more. On my smaller bowls I've started painting the outside of the bowl with Milk Paint for a little color and contrast and leave the inside plain.

[Dave Mount]

Man, if making "unadorned" bowls is passé, I'm in trouble. I really like those bowls. I liken taste in bowls to taste in beer (or wine) -- one person may like stout, and another likes IPAs, but that doesn't make either one better than the other, just different things for different tastes. Generally speaking I really like simple bowls that are about the wood, not the decorations (exceptions, of course). You need an appealing fair curve and a proportionality that fits, but I think of most bowls as a means to display the wood, and your bowls show off that wood beautifully.

Bowl thickness is a funny thing. Some woods/shapes/blanks look good (to me) thin, and others thick. I make those decisions by intuition and I get it right much of the time. Every once in a while I finish one and look at it afterward and feel, "it just doesn't look right." Generally speaking (and with many exceptions), I think bowls whose sides turn upward a fair amount (e.g., shaped more like a kitchen mixing bowl) tend to look better with thicker walls and a blunt rim as in your photos. Bowls that reach outward at a shallower angle are often those that I think look better thin. But all rules are made to be broken.

Not that it affects the appeal your bowls, but I'm a little skeptical about the 100 year old tree claim. The lip of the bigger bowl is pretty near the pith, and I count only 16 years of growth between the sapwood and the last growth ring in that bowl. Unless that blank was from high in the tree, I'd guess that tree was circa 30 years. It was growing really fast (of course, I'm in northern MN where no tree grows fast).

Best,

Dave