Ornament proportions

[KEW]

I want to make some ornaments.
The globes will be roughly 2" diameter hollowed spheres with a finial below and a short cap on top. If I started blind, it would probably be ~4 tries before I got the proportions where I want them.
I am wondering if there is a correct way to apply the golden rule or rule of thirds to a globe with finials.
Does anyone have any good links to some nice, unembellished globe/finial ornaments?
TIA!

 

[Jim McTavish]

Hi Kurt,

For a visual of many designs, try woodcentrals web site:
http://www.woodcentral.com/newforum/ornaments/

Also, Bob Rosand is a good source:
http://www.rrosand.com/articles.html

Good luck!

 

[john lucas]

Go here and find one you like. Print out the page and do some interpolating on the measurements. I've never used the golden triangle on my ornaments I just go by eye. After you make 100 or so you sort of get a feel for what looks right with a certain shape and size.
http://www.woodcentral.com/newforum/ornaments/

 

[GeorgeH]

Proportion should, IMO, please the eye and not necessarily satisfy the static rules published for relative dimensions in a piece of art work. For example, also IMHO, the Robert Rosand site includes an image on the left side of the page of an ornament that I find artistically unsatisfying.
http://www.rrosand.com/articles.html
I form this opinion because it looks to me as through the artist got started and didn't know when to quite. I believe it would have been proportionally superior
without the last three tapered elements. One would have carried enough weight to balance the piece and the eye, instead of being drawn to the long "tail", would have been drawn to the beauty of the decorative work on the largest portion of the ornament. I've made that mistake on some of mine too.
So let your imagination take control, watch how the piece develops and take advantage of the natural beauty in grain patterns when you can. As a last point, you might want to try sketching some ideas out on paper (not a plan, just an idea) before you start.

 

[KurtB]

Ornament

Kurt,
I can only offer a photo of one I turned that I thought looked pretty good. The link is: http://www.aawforum.org/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=4505&sort=2&ppuser=4832
The main part is about 2.75 dia. and 2.00 h. If you like the proportions, just measure from the photo to get the approximate dimensions. Hope it works for you.

 

[Malcolm Smith]

If you are making Christmas tree ornaments, they should look the way you want them to look on a Christmas tree. Granted, we are a bit out of season but you might be able to hang them on a tree outside and get some sense of the proportions that work and they should be the proportions that work in your judgment. I don't recommend rules for this except possibility as a starting point.

Malcolm Smith.

 

[Turnedoutright]

Model the ornaments

I don't have any examples, but if you like computers, I know where you can get some free software that will allow you to model the ornament to your satisfaction, then turn it.
I use this method when I am not sure and want to get it right in one try.


www.turnedoutright.blogger.com

 

[Clayton]

I could not disagree more about the proportions of Bob's ornament on his website. If you look at the classic blown glass ornaments that we are somewhat modeling, you will find that they have long fine icicle.

I would look at Cindy Drozda's finials for so more inspiration as well.

One thing to watch for that was pointed out to me during a critique session was to pay attention to the ball shape. If the ball is not spherical, but has one side (top or bottom) that is larger, put the larger section to the top. This prevents the ornament from optically looking like it is squating, if that makes sense. You have to see it to get the idea, maybe. If you have a "imperfect" sphere, try it both ways to see what was pointed out to me.

I have always wondered if perhaps the "Golden Mean" might come into play here as well. Will try that this year when I get to my ornament making.

Clayton

 

[MichaelMouse]

One thing to watch for that was pointed out to me during a critique session was to pay attention to the ball shape. If the ball is not spherical, but has one side (top or bottom) that is larger, put the larger section to the top.

Some of my favorites have the taper toward the top, which receives a finial longer than the bottom icicle. Allows you to hang them deeper in the tree and still get the full luster off the pendant. Of course, we're probably one of the few who get a natural-density field-shape tree anymore. The ones with only an exterior to hang on might not flatter such shapes.

One of the niftiest ornament woods has to be the western red cedar, which is available at the local Borg. Get the closest-grained 4x4s, keep your bevel light, and they can be gorgeous. The sugar pine 4x4s are another good choice, but you want to get one with the heart in for best display. Both are usually available as shorts in the cheap rack. I also like willow branch wood, which is light in weight and attractive when loaded up with shellac. I throw the birdseye and curly small scraps into a box as they are trimmed with the intent to make them caps and icicles.

 

[Dave Roller]

John, it may be helpful to people if you were to give the height and width measurements of, say, the second ornament in your collection at the website listed.

 

[C Edward Moore]

Ornament icicles

The choice of the finial and icicle is that of the artist. For me, I do not choose icicles that look heavy. I prefer sharply defined icicles and this is particularly true for sea urchin ornaments. Certainly Cindy Drozda type work would do well for an ornament, as was suggested.

 

[Ken Grunke]

Taking an icicle as commonly seen on turned ornaments, with successively smaller elements, to apply the Golden Ratio you would make each section smaller by 61.8% or .618 times smaller. Here is a stack of long triangles to graphically represent this:

 

[C Edward Moore]

Fibonacci?

Ken,

Thanks for the graphic.

The sequence you have indicated grows rapidly.
1, 1.618, 2.618, 4.236, 6.854

I prefer the Fibonacci approach, which is less aggressive at first, but grows at approximately the same rate as you go out in the sequence.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5

Ed

 

[john lucas]

When I was doing the golf tee sort of icycles I found that 3 looked better than any other number. I still tried to uses sizes like Ken shows going from big to large but I never did apply math, just tried to adjust the visual sizes from large and long to small and short.

 

[Ron Sardo]

I want to make some ornaments.
The globes will be roughly 2" diameter hollowed spheres with a finial below and a short cap on top. If I started blind, it would probably be ~4 tries before I got the proportions where I want them.
I am wondering if there is a correct way to apply the golden rule or rule of thirds to a globe with finials.
Does anyone have any good links to some nice, unembellished globe/finial ornaments?
TIA!

What is wrong with experimenting?

I turned over 40 finials (Icicles) and a dozen bulbs before I found the shape I liked. Even now, I'm still refining the shape. (Sometimes on purpose too!)

 

[KEW]

What is wrong with experimenting?

I can't say anything is wrong with it. I will be experimenting no matter what plan is in my head when I start. However, looking at and considering designs before I start should yield better results more quickly.

More importantly, it is relatively easy to find 10 minutes here and there to look at the computer; but, for me, shop time is a precious commodity.