About faceting machines

Jewelry Discussion
21

I have followed this thread with interest. I have to agree with
Anthony Lloyd-Rees comments about savoring the faceting experience.
With due apologies for my bluntness, I would put it a different way
— I think some people just want to do things the way they’ve always
done them and get satisfaction out of that. In some cases one can
tell the difference between laboriously-by-hand and by machine
(handmade chain, for example). With faceting such is not the case.
Bells and whistles allow one to bypass much of the drudgery (I think)
of cut-and-look, cut-and-look, etc. and cut down on use of the
cheater. Primitive machinery can produce a masterpiece given a
master and infinite patience. However, I myself don’t see the virtue
in it when it isn’t necessary.

In particular, a Beale-Wooley ohmmeter is an inexpensive indicator
that can be adapted to many machines. Set up right, with a little
practice, you will cut till your needle reaches a certain point and
be on the money (at the meetpoint) or very close and use just one or
two cut-and-looks instead of ten. I am not a masochist, this sems to
me better than the old way. Now I have faceted on an old B&J
Gemmaker with an add on faceting attachment and it wasn’t easy. I
moved up to retrofitting a Lee Head to this machine and that was a
lot better. Now I have an Ultratec and the tolerances are closer, and
with the ohmmeter it is a real pleasure. I enjoy those last few cuts
and the polishing problems and the ins and outs of getting maximum
yield from rough and getting the best brilliance by finding a good
cut, etc.

Peter, I disagree with the poster with the Graves. I have never
owned one, but I have read everything written on the Facetor’s Digest
for over two years now, and, from what I have seen about the machine,
the “good old Graves” is certainly old, but not that good. Everyone
agrees they are rugged and last forever, but several people who value
exactness have written about having to realign the pinch bearings
frequently to get the machine to cut right. I believe one fellow did
it after every three stones he cut. Henry Graves was famous in
lapidary circles and I’m sure he was a fine fellow, but evidently at
least some of these machines had design flaws probably brought on by
Mr. Graves desire to produce a rugged machine more cheaply than his
"bells and whistles" competitors. It’s the Model T of faceting and
we should remember it fondly. If it works for you, great. But
remember many people are having trouble keeping those older machines
in adjustment. Maybe Graves can retrofit these with new parts, but I
haven’t hear that. They do have a webste you could check.

I think there is an “art” to faceting the way there’s an art to
selling or an art to parenting. Something intuitive you can’t quite
quantify. I consider myself a fair to middling facetor and a
craftsman. I facet precisely because I like to work with my hands
but am not an “artist” who can draw or paint or sculpt or design very
well. I love good visual art, that’s why I also photograph. There’s
an art to it, but I can use my technical skills to produce a picture
without having to draw it. There are photographers who are great
artists, but somehow I don’t put even Ansel Adams in the same league
wth Leonardo or Monet.

My 2 cents,
Roy

22 
 I facet precisely because I like to work with my hands but am not
an "artist" who can draw or paint or sculpt or design very well.  I
love good visual art, that's why I also photograph.  There's an art
to it, but I can use my technical skills to produce a picture
without having to draw it.  There are photographers who are great
artists, but somehow I don't put even Ansel Adams in the same
league wth Leonardo or Monet.

changing the subject slightly…

Perhaps it is because you DON’T paint/draw/sculpt that you give
Leonardo and Monet their elevated status above Ansel Adams, giving
the act of drawing and painting itself some special status. To those
who DO draw and paint, the actual creation of the image, the drawing
or painting, is craft, not art. What makes it art is the vision of
the artist in choosing WHAT to draw or paint, and in what way it is
shown, why it is shown, how the image relates to human visual and
other aesthetic perceptions, etc. Ansel Adams (and other
photographers) excercise the exact same skils and decisions in
choosing the nature and purpose of the image portrayed, and in
excelling at their craft in bringing the image into its maximum
potential consistant with the artists purpose. I suspect that if you
give history another hundred years or two, you’ll find history won’t
make quite so much difference in it’s judgement of the artistic value
between the work of Adams and Monet and friends. The technical skills
differ of course. But Adams work is clearly one of artistic vision and
choices well beyond that of many of his peers. Now, Leonardo may well
be a special case, since his body of work goes so far beyond just the
creation of his famous artwork. His inventiveness and creativity in
dreaming up ideas and concepts not yet known or even possible at the
time was phenominal. For Monet, much of his fame rests in his
perfection of his approach and method of his images, the thought that
the impression was more important than absolute accuracy of portayal,
and this led to freedoms of color and brushstroke and intensity of the
resulting image that were revolutionary. For this he rightly earned
and deserves his fame. But these are revolutions in the nature of how
he portayed his image. They are, in effect, as much technical
advances in painting as anything purely aesthetic. Thats not much
different than the revolutionary changes in technique and approach to
photographic image creation and darkroom practices that Adams brought
about.

Sorry. couldn’t resist.

Peter