volcano with horn 9/30/18

[Doug535]

Another first for me, no stem made for it yet I wanted to make sure I didn't totally screw the shape up first. Please critique as you see fit.

[Doug535]

[Sasquatch]

Looks all right! You've got the grain working pretty well. It's an awkward shape for me, the volcano, because you naturally have a flat bottom, so the transition to anything other than a flat-bottomed stem is always sort of fudgy, there's an area of nothingness, shape-wise, on the bottom of the shank/bowl. So I try to avoid that.

The user-side of the bowl is rounded over at the top. It's okay that it doesn't match the front side in terms of shape, but it shouldn't end with that little quarter-inch section of sanded-over loss of shape.

[Doug535]

Looks all right! You've got the grain working pretty well. It's an awkward shape for me, the volcano, because you naturally have a flat bottom, so the transition to anything other than a flat-bottomed stem is always sort of fudgy, there's an area of nothingness, shape-wise, on the bottom of the shank/bowl. So I try to avoid that.

Thanks Sas

That's a part of the reason I went with this style of shank, to avoid having to deal with the underside of the stem at this time in my journey.

The user-side of the bowl is rounded over at the top. It's okay that it doesn't match the front side in terms of shape, but it shouldn't end with that little quarter-inch section of sanded-over loss of shape.

That was my attempt to give the backside a little forward movement, ala this pipe.

[Sasquatch]

Yeah, and it's the right approach, just the curve wasn't carried out through the rest of that bowl wall. A technicality, one of 349 tiny things to do right.

[Doug535]

Yeah, and it's the right approach, just the curve wasn't carried out through the rest of that bowl wall. A technicality, one of 349 tiny things to do right.

I was told there was only 348 tiny things to do right, great add another one.

[sandahlpipe]

A volcano is a tough shape to pull off. I think there are two pressing approaches. One is to work the bottom into a tail that wraps around the shank face. The other is to put the shank above the bottom so it’s attached like a poker. If you’re making a round shank, I think the latter is the only way it looks right. And if you’re doing a military mount, you have more flexibility. Both styles, I think, are executed superbly by Abe Herbaugh.

[Doug535]

A volcano is a tough shape to pull off. I think there are two pressing approaches. One is to work the bottom into a tail that wraps around the shank face. The other is to put the shank above the bottom so it’s attached like a poker. If you’re making a round shank, I think the latter is the only way it looks right. And if you’re doing a military mount, you have more flexibility. Both styles, I think, are executed superbly by Abe Herbaugh.

Those both do look awesome.

[LatakiaLover]

The difference between your stummel Doug, and the other ones posted is an excellent study in visual movement vs. static object.

Technique-wise, one major reason most pipe maker's early work which contains concave curves looks static is because of their direction of tool movement when shaping.

There a strong intuitive tendency to cut/file/sand WITH a swoopy curve, because that's the desired direction of flow in the final result.

Cutting ACROSS curves is how "life" is achieved, though. That sounds/feels weird, I know, but to try it is to understand it. ("Cutting across" provides FAR better control and speed of cut depth, with the result being your subconscious doesn't settle for "good enough" but insists on continuing until something dramatic emerges).

[Doug535]

The difference between your stummel Doug, and the other ones posted is an excellent study in visual movement vs. static object.

Technique-wise, one major reason most pipe maker's early work which contains concave curves looks static is because of their direction of tool movement when shaping.

There a strong intuitive tendency to cut/file/sand WITH a swoopy curve, because that's the desired direction of flow in the final result.

Cutting ACROSS curves is how "life" is achieved, though. That sounds/feels weird, I know, but to try it is to understand it. ("Cutting across" provides FAR better control and speed of cut depth, with the result being your subconscious doesn't settle for "good enough" but insists on continuing until something dramatic emerges).

Thanks George, I will keep that in mind going forward.

[RickB]

There a strong intuitive tendency to cut/file/sand WITH a swoopy curve, because that's the desired direction of flow in the final result.

Cutting ACROSS curves is how "life" is achieved, though. That sounds/feels weird, I know, but to try it is to understand it.

I'm probably a dumbass, but man would I love a clarifying diagram here.

[DocAitch]

Me too.
DocAitch

[Ratimus]

I have found George's words to be true. Think of it this way:

You're trying to shape a curve that is 80% perfect except for a lump at some point. The natural tendency is file or sand along the entire length of the curve, knocking down the high spot along the way. Problem is, as you file along that curve, the 20% lump does get modified, but so does the other 80% that was already how you wanted it. As some woodturners are prone to repeating, "cutting what doesn't need to be cut doesn't cut what needs to be cut." Turn the file 90 degrees and just knock down the high spot.

[LatakiaLover]

Bingo.

(I wasn't ignoring you Rick & Doc, but wanted to see if someone else got it and would then explain using different words)

The net result is that removing more material overall (the already-OK areas plus the high spots) "flattens" the design by deadening concave curves.

[RickB]

Goooooooooot it. Thanks gents.