Boxes You May Have Never Seen Before POLL

[Gabriel Hoff]

When I post my work I like to space out my postings. This makes you guys wait in suspense for my next box! So not every box I make gets posted in the Gallery.
So.....here are three boxes you have never seen before on the Forum.....I making this a poll to see which box is most popular!! Have fun!

No. 1 Ringed Gidgee Round Bottom Box
No. 2 Beeswing Narra Elegant Box
No. 3 Figured Bocote Round Bottom Box

Let me know what you think!

 

[hockenbery]

They all have excellent curves
From this view No.2 has the sweetest curve and best grain match.
The other appear to have better surfaces but that may be more an artifact of the photo.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Yes, No. 2 has more pores that are visible so it doesn't look as smooth as the others.

 

[Mark Fairchild]

I’ll vote for #2 also. Beautiful shape.

 

[Kevin Weir]

I like them all. However, number 3 has a higher degree of elegance to it. That’s my vote.

 

[Vincent Vogel]

I like the shape of #2 best.

 

[Paul Grenier]

#2

 

[Tom Gall]

Is "Ringed" Gidgee the name of the wood? If not, where is the ring that isn't on the other two boxes? Nice boxes, Gabriel.

 

[Steve Nix]

All are very nice, but I prefer #2

 

[Michael Anderson]

I like the Gidgee box the best overall. How did the Gidgee turn? Hard wood!

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Is "Ringed" Gidgee the name of the wood? If not, where is the ring that isn't on the other two boxes? Nice boxes, Gabriel.

Thank you Tom! Yes it is. Ringed means figured or curly according to the Wood Database.

Gidgee | The Wood Database (Hardwood)

www.wood-database.com

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

I like the Gidgee box the best overall. How did the Gidgee turn? Hard wood!

Oh it's pretty hard Michael! I had to sharpen before the cuts and the Hunter tool struggled a bit to hog out the interior. Not the hardest wood I have worked with, that would be Verawood related to Lignum Vitae. I too like the Gidgee box because of the unique coloring and figure.

 

[Ric Williams]

If I have to choose one, I'd say #3, but only because the grain is so unique . They're all excellent and I'd be immensely proud of any of them.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

If I have to choose one, I'd say #3, but only because the grain is so unique . They're all excellent and I'd be immensely proud of any of them.

Thanks Ric! That's very kind!

 

[Dean Center]

Are we supposed to judge solely on the basis of the box and ignore the wood/grain? That's what I chose to do.

If I looked at any of these individually, I would find them all excellent, but for reasons I cannot explain, next to the bocote box, the narra box looks obese, even a little dumpy. This surprises me, cuz I normally like curves, a lot. With a little more distance and subtler curves, the gidgee looks OK, but the bocote still surpasses. Maybe it's the proportions. Maybe it's the lack of a chamfered edge on top.

If I include the wood, I find I don't care as much for the bocote as I do for the gidgee, which is wonderfully warm and appealing.

As always, art is in the eye of the beholder, and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

 

[Bob Barth]

Definitely #2

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Are we supposed to judge solely on the basis of the box and ignore the wood/grain? That's what I chose to do.

If I looked at any of these individually, I would find them all excellent, but for reasons I cannot explain, next to the bocote box, the narra box looks obese, even a little dumpy. This surprises me, cuz I normally like curves, a lot. With a little more distance and subtler curves, the gidgee looks OK, but the bocote still surpasses. Maybe it's the proportions. Maybe it's the lack of a chamfered edge on top.

If I include the wood, I find I don't care as much for the bocote as I do for the gidgee, which is wonderfully warm and appealing.

As always, art is in the eye of the beholder, and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

Bingo.....I thought the same thing about the Narra box. A little too much curve maybe!!??? I'm still liking it, but maybe shave off a 1/16" or so.

 

[Steve Saah]

Your can send any of them my way; all of them are spectacular!

 

[Jim Byrne]

They are all great but #2 hits my eye

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

Since you asked.....

These are boxes, I'm viewing them as utilitarian objects. But that doesn't mean they can't be attractive. The bases are all too small, when I put something down on a surface I don't want any chance it will tip. #3 looks especially bad in this sense.

Why are the lids so tall?

Without getting too much into photo editing I've snipped the tall lids on #1 and #2 for improvement. #3, I don't see a way to improve. I would continue the base curve into the lids as I've modified them the reverse curve shows a bit. As modified my favorite is #1.

 

[Ted Pelfrey]

#2 for form #3 for grain and grain orientation. All are great

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Since you asked.....

These are boxes, I'm viewing them as utilitarian objects. But that doesn't mean they can't be attractive. The bases are all too small, when I put something down on a surface I don't want any chance it will tip. #3 looks especially bad in this sense.

Why are the lids so tall?

Without getting too much into photo editing I've snipped the tall lids on #1 and #2 for improvement. #3, I don't see a way to improve. I would continue the base curve into the lids as I've modified them the reverse curve shows a bit. As modified my favorite is #1.

View attachment 64598View attachment 64599

Well, I don't really turn my boxes for utilitarian purposes, but the boxes are very secure on the bases, each base is probably 5/8" diameter. Also the lids are 1/3--2/3 proportions

(EXAMPLE the Gidgee box's base is 1 1/8" tall and the lid is 1/2" tall so pretty much perfect in the rations department)

so the way you edited the photos kind of messes up that golden ratio......but hey thanks for the suggestions and ideas!

 

[Bill T Tucker]

Thank you for these...will add to my collection of pics of your boxes hanging on the side of my tool box. Of the 3, prefer the elegance of #3.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

Thank you Bill! Hope to see one of your boxes soon!

 

[Bill T Tucker]

No you don't...well, maybe after you teach me 😇

 

[Will Armstrong]

If I have to chose just from instinct, I would say #1. But I think they are all lovely and for different reasons.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

No you don't...well, maybe after you teach me 😇

I'll let you know when I have a class in a few years!!

 

[Richard Coers]

If you use the proven mathematics to set the position of features in the boxes, the tall lid makes the bulge too low and the lid look wrong. That is why the elegance comment comes out. The bulge should be at the 3/5 to 2/5 height position and the lid be above that. I know I'll get the, but you can make it to what you want, buy just saying that's exactly why #3 speaks with that elegance.

 

[Darryl Fective]

I'm leaning toward #2, but I really like #1 as well. I love the ogee profile of them and they're more appealing to me than #3 shape. (but #3 wood color/grain is very attractive)

 

[Mike Zip Hamilton]

First thing; I wish l could do so good.
This discussion has shown that the "golden 1.618" can be applied differently to the same piece. On #3, l think l would have considered the weight of the 2 sections. I think the shape of #3 works, but it seems top heavy.

 

[Curt Fuller]

I would have loved to see the wood in box #3 turned in the shape of Box #2. In woodturning we tend to compare a lot of apples to oranges. Sometimes it's the form, sometimes it's the wood. When they come together it's nirvana. But that's just one old white haired guys opinion.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

For pleasing proportions of turned objects the golden rectangle seems a good method IMO. Draw a rectangle around the turned object. The longest edge of the rectangle divided by the shortest edge should be near. 1.618.

I just happened to see this in the refrigerator that seemed to have pleasing proportions. Measuring as near as possible with a tape measure the numbers come out to 1.6 +/- which is very close to a perfect golden rectangle. Do you suppose those proportions were coincidental or was it designed that way? My thought is it was purposely proportioned that way.



This was my intent in snipping Gabriel's pictures. I didn't make any attempt at perfection in snipping, just somewhat close to what I found attractive.

Gabriel mentions using the rule of thirds.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

I would have loved to see the wood in box #3 turned in the shape of Box #2. In woodturning we tend to compare a lot of apples to oranges. Sometimes it's the form, sometimes it's the wood. When they come together it's nirvana. But that's just one old white haired guys opinion.

Well, I have some wood left from #3, I may give it a shot and try #2's shape on #3's wood.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

First thing; I wish l could do so good.
This discussion has shown that the "golden 1.618" can be applied differently to the same piece. On #3, l think l would have considered the weight of the 2 sections. I think the shape of #3 works, but it seems top heavy.

Agree, that piece is older so my form was not as top notch as it is now.

 

[Neil S]

I like them all. However, number 3 has a higher degree of elegance to it. That’s my vote.

I agree with Kevin

 

[Art Chamberlin]

I’ve gotta go with #3. I personally like the wood on #1, but like the lines on 3. Nice work

 

[Hugh]

The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.
But, I could not do that as they all are pretty nice.
#1 could have been a piece of figured Claro Walnut.
#2 I do not like the way the insert fits on the top. There seems to not be a smooth transition.
#3 I think I like this one the best.
But, I have to agree that the lids are all a bit high.
Is the break line supposed to fit the Golden Mean? Or is the width vs height supposed to fit the Golden Mean?
I would take any of them as they are all nice. But, in the end....#3.
This whole discussion is very interesting. What we look for in shape and color and size of the foot, etc.
Not sure this is worth 2 cents.......but that is what I think.

 

[Gabriel Hoff]

The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.
But, I could not do that as they all are pretty nice.
#1 could have been a piece of figured Claro Walnut.
#2 I do not like the way the insert fits on the top. There seems to not be a smooth transition.
#3 I think I like this one the best.
But, I have to agree that the lids are all a bit high.
Is the break line supposed to fit the Golden Mean? Or is the width vs height supposed to fit the Golden Mean?
I would take any of them as they are all nice. But, in the end....#3.
This whole discussion is very interesting. What we look for in shape and color and size of the foot, etc.
Not sure this is worth 2 cents.......but that is what I think

Well there are no inserts in any of the boxes, they are all one piece of wood, and yes the line defines the 1/3---2/3 method I use. Width and height don't matter, I prefer a squat box over a tall box.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

The problem I see is that the wood gets in the way of the choice. But, then the different shapes get in the way of the choice also.
We may "fall" for a species of wood and therefore pick that box. Same goes for the shape.
I vote that you paint them all black and then post them and see what the vote is.

Definitely something to be said for Hugh's opinion. The best design advice I ever received was to come up with a design that stands by itself without concern for the piece's grain.

I recall an Ellsworth video where he claims he puts a piece of wood in the lathe and lets the wood determine the turning's design. To me that's totally silly. I want to control the design. Design your piece before the wood gets onto the lathe. Pick a piece of wood that has your design in it. Let the turning process only remove the wood that's not part of your design.

 

[Darryn Achall]

I recall an Ellsworth video where he claims he puts a piece of wood in the lathe and lets the wood determine the turning's design. To me that's totally silly. I want to control the design. Design your piece before the wood gets onto the lathe. Pick a piece of wood that has your design in it. Let the turning process only remove the wood that's not part of your design.

I am more in the Ellsworth camp. I recently put a log on in spindle orientation between centers. Turned it down a bit intending to make a hollow form. After looking at the grain and checks I decided this piece needed to be something else. I cut off one side with the chainsaw, changed the axis of rotation between the centers and ended up making a box. That is how it goes with much of what I do.