Cast verses fabricated

Jewelry Discussion
21 
So I again contend that the main reason to cast jewelry is that is
cheaper and faster

I think we should stop a second to consider that ‘cheaper’ does not
necessarily equate to lower quality. I think from a manufacturing
perspective the question also entails practicality. It is just not
feasible in some cases to fab what can be cast(sometimes the opposite
too), cost aside, although ultimately cost is always a factor.

And its also a question of customer service. Never mind whether your
customer is Mrs. Gotrocks, if you offer her two identical pieces and
the fabbed is four times the price of the cast, which do you think
better serves her interest? I can assure you someone somewhere will
offer her the cast if you don’t. You serve yourself best when you
serve your client best.

Well designed, either method can yield a product that measures up to
the job asked of it. Just ask the right questions.

22 
While excellent work can be made by casting it is important to
remember that the prime reason to cast is to make something
faster, easier and cheaper than the similar item fabricated. Most
mass produced jewelry goods are made by casting and the whole point
here is to make it for as little cost as possible.

One, since when is making a living frowned upon?

Two, most of my work- wax carvings- can not be done via fabrication.
it would be very difficult, if not impossible to try and reproduce
my heavy sculptural pieces in metal. I am a sculptor, I don’t like
to fabricate. My pieces are sculptural in nature. I’m much more
creative in wax than I am in metal, therefore it is my chosen
medium.

I’m tired of being looked down upon because I cast. I find it snobby
and elitist. Isn’t there enough room for everyone and every
technique without putting a judgement on it?

Amery

23

Why would you snub mass produced anything. What ever sells and pays
the bills is what it’s all about. We all like to be the Artist, but
we need that bread and butter money.

24

Hi James,

The creative craft jeweler and artist can use the ease and freedom
of carving wax to greatly speed the production of unique and
beautiful items. But a sufficiently skilled craftsperson can do
exactly the same thing directly in metal. Even those organic
shapes others have referred to, even extremely accurate recreations
of organic living objects can be done directly in metal. The reason
it is not often done is it is way slower and takes a level of skill
that is very time consuming to acquire. So I again contend that the
main reason to cast jewelry is that is is cheaper and faster. Is
one better than the other? that is a value judgement.

Well taking advantage of technology is something that everyone that
wants to make money should investigate fully.

In some cases technology can provide a better solution to the hand
crafted.

If you go here :-

You will see some very fine examples of hand wrought Mokume Gane,
beautiful stuff indeed.

However if you go here :-

http://www.xpmcorporation.com

And here

http://tinyurl.com/28duqhz

XPM: You will see a process that looks similar, however has some
very significant improvements, a process that allows things to be
done that are unheard of when using traditional techniques.

Strata-Bands: Metal combinations and patterns perviously thought to
be impossible.

So in this case the traditional worker is unable to accomplish what
XPM and Strata.Bands can do. This is where technology exceeds the
craftsperson.

Regards Charles A.

25

lombarddesigns.com Try making this alligator in metal. Could it be
that you are not so skilled in the wax carving? Its ridicules to
think that one is better then the other. We need skilled people who
can do both.

26 
Sorry, Jim. I think that you are just plain wrong on this. There
is a quality to a replicant casting that isn't really translatable,
I think. There may be a person out there who can replicate the
microstructures and micro-surfaces of cast organics but that would
indeed be the exception to the rule.

I did not say it was an easy task, and I certainly do not possess
that kind of skill but with the right tools, skills and a ridiculous
amount of time it certainly can be done. I have seen artists that
make works that must be viewed with a microscope to even see what
they have made. I have no doubt that given an appropriately detailed
image that a craftsperson with the skills and patience required could
make a copy with the same level of detail. Because like the molding
of such an item the act is to copy not invent the textures and
detail.

My point was that when people say that a cast jewelry or sculpture
item cannot be made by fabrication that it is wrong. It may be
ridiculously expensive or require an incredibly skilled craftsman to
do it or both. But if it can be cast it can be fabricated directly
in metal as long as we are not talking about certain high tech
metallurgical items like single crystal or directionally solidified
turbine blades etc…

If one has to devote more than a certain amount of labor to creating
something it will be virtually impossible to sell it. So casting is
a way to greatly reduce the labor costs of producing something.

Some responders are taking the position that they prefer to cast or
fabricate or that it suits their aesthetic sensibilities to chose
one over the other which are all valid reasons to chose a particular
means of producing a piece of work. I happen to resonate more with
fabrication than casting but use both as circumstance dictates in my
work.

This particular threads OP asked about relative value of cast vs
fabricated work. The time and labor costs must be a factor in an
items value. And this is one of the main reasons for choosing to cast
vs fabricate is the lower cost per unit. Yes there are other factors
ranging from direct costs, current market styles and perceived
artistic value that are part of the equation but the cost to produce
is one of the major ones that must be considered if you want to
successfully sell your work.

Regards,

Jim

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

27 
One, since when is making a living frowned upon?

It is not, one of the rationales for casting to keep the labor cost
in a piece down. This allows one to make a living hopefully doing
something they want to do.

Two, most of my work- wax carvings- can not be done via
fabrication. it would be very difficult, if not impossible to try
and reproduce my heavy sculptural pieces in metal.

If your work is well represented on your website then I would have
to say that I did not see anything that could not be created directly
in metal. However the added labor cost would make for a significant
added expense.

I am a sculptor, I don't like to fabricate. My pieces are
sculptural in nature. I'm much more creative in wax than I am in
metal, therefore it is my chosen medium.

Who can argue with that.

I'm tired of being looked down upon because I cast. I find it
snobby and elitist. Isn't there enough room for everyone and every
technique without putting a judgement on it?

I certainly don’t look down on anyone for the use of casting in
their work, I use cast components in my work when I feel it is
reasonable to do so. This thread started about the relative value of
a cast vs fabricated piece. Issues like labor time and skill level
required to create an item factor in to the monetary value of an item
along with the artistic design values. It is simply a fact that it is
cheaper to cast then to fabricate, this must be factored into the
valuation of an item at some level. And this is why the vast majority
of jewelry is cast, it makes it competitive in the marketplace.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

28

Hi James,

I certainly don't look down on anyone for the use of casting in
their work, I use cast components in my work when I feel it is
reasonable to do so. This thread started about the relative value
of a cast vs fabricated piece. Issues like labor time and skill
level required to create an item factor in to the monetary value of
an item along with the artistic design values. It is simply a fact
that it is cheaper to cast then to fabricate, this must be factored
into the valuation of an item at some level. And this is why the
vast majority of jewelry is cast, it makes it competitive in the
marketplace.

I think we have to take a step back, and get rid of the notion that
one construction method is better than another, or is more valuable
(as value is determined by the customer, not us).

I was told a long time ago by a very wise old man, “Something’s only
valuable, if somebody wants to pay for it”.

Regards Charles A.

P.s.

Personally I find technology very exciting, and we all take it up
when it becomes the “standard”, I just think it’s better to start
earlier than to start later.

Just out of interest :-

and this :-

29

James,

Along with Andy, I will also have to desagree with your statement:

Even those organic shapes others have refered to, even extremely
accurate recreations of organic living objects can be done
directly in metal. The reason it is not often done is it is way
slower and takes a level of skill that is very time consuming to
acquire. So I again contend that the main reason to cast jewelry
ia that it is cheaper and faster."

Time might be a factor, but sometimes one will choose the wax
carving method because it will capture a better resemblance for a
portrait or some delicate movements from a specific organic shape
for instance. Direct fabrication tends to be dryer and stiffer than
a wax carving in some cases. An other exemple that come to mind is
the best representation of draped fabric that I have seen (acheived
by the wax carving method).

Yes, it is possible to render organic objects beautifully by chasing
and repousse but it has its limitations too even in the hands of the
most skilled craftpersons. I have seen a lot of well fabricated
jewelry lacking the subtlety that will make the difference between a
piece of jewelry and an “objet d’ art”.

Of course this might escape less accute artistic sensibilities.

It is sad that the second half of the 20th century has given a bad
name to casting, using it as a mean of mass production. It was not
always the case in the history of jewelry. One also has to
differenciate casting as a mean of mass production from a wax
carving that is being cast once.

I will reiterate that some of the most recognized and admired
jewelers have included the wax carving method in some of their
pieces.

Cyrille

30 
This particular threads OP asked about relative value of cast vs
fabricated work.

Actually, the original poster (Allan Smith) did not ask about the
relative values of cast versus fabricated work, although I knew it
would start up the debate again. He asked how a jeweller could tell
the difference, if one were to take apiece to a jeweller for
valuation:

They say that fabricated jewellery is worth more than cast jewellery.
Therefore if I take a ring or a piece of jewellery to a Jeweller for
a valuation, how can the Jeweller tell if it’s cast or fabricated?

Only a couple of us actually attempted to answer his question.
Everyone else seems to have gone down a different route, answering
what they perceived to be the question, ie which process produces
pieces of higher value? I find it bizarre when this happens. Aren’t
we all intelligent enough to read what a person is asking?

Helen
UK

31 
Why would you snub mass produced anything. What ever sells and
pays the bills is what it's all about. We all like to be the
Artist, but we need that bread and butter money.

How would you feel if your doctor would adapt the same attitude, and
instead of personalized treatment required, you would received some
general procedure which may or may not be appropriate? Doctors need
bread and butter money too.

What if you go to a lawyer and instead of studying your case, lawyer
just gives you some canned recommendation which may or may not be
applicable. Would you feel about bread and butter argument the same
as you feel now?

Goldsmiths always have had special relationship with their clients.
Most of the people do not know anything about jewellery or
They trust goldsmith to do right by them. If you are
willing to violate that trust for extra butter on your bread, you are
in the wrong business.

Leonid Surpin

32 
My point was that when people say that a cast jewelry or sculpture
item cannot be made by fabrication that it is wrong. It may be
ridiculously expensive or require an incredibly skilled craftsman
to do it or both. But if it can be cast it can be fabricated

I have some experience in bronze casting. It may be a surprise to
some, but a lot of times sculpture comes up with huge holes, parts
of face or fingers can be missing, and sometimes it does not come out
at all. It is a common procedure to take bronze rod in one hand,
torch in another - and recreate missing parts. I have recreated
complete parts by using shaped investment core and welding bronze
around it. After chasing nobody new the difference.

Leonid Surpin

33 
If your work is well represented on your website then I would have
to say that I did not see anything that could not be created
directly in metal. However the added labor cost would make for a
significant added expense.

My website is very old, I need to update it. Sorry it’s not
representing my current works.

Why would you choose to do something in metal that is much easier in
wax? You yourself said there’s a significant added expense. Why do
something the hard way? Just to prove you can?

Since I don’t have anything up that can challenge you, how about
this: lombarddesigns.com

Rick asked, can this alligator be made in metal?

34

Hi Helen,

Only a couple of us actually attempted to answer his question.
Everyone else seems to have gone down a different route, answering
what they perceived to be the question, ie which process produces
pieces of higher value? I find it bizarre when this happens.
Aren't we all intelligent enough to read what a person is asking?

My apologies, I didn’t respond to Allan, but to the other posters.

In Australia, valuation is done on the value of the metal, and
stones (well the ones I’ve done for insurance reasons have been done
this way). Manufacturing processes don’t seem to come into it.

So whether it’s cast or hand fabricated seems to be irrelevant.

Regards Charles A.

35 
I think we have to take a step back, and get rid of the notion
that one construction method is better than another

Why should we do that? A construction methods is better or worse than
some other. Giving a particular situation there will be only one
method suited best. Isn’t it the job of a goldsmith to find and apply
this methods? What do you think separates a good goldsmith from a
better one?

Leonid Surpin

36 
Yes, it is possible to render organic objects beautifully by
chasing and repousse but it has its limitations too even in the
hands of the most skilled craftpersons. I have seen a lot of well
fabricated jewelry lacking the subtlety that will make the
difference between a piece of jewelry and an "objet d' art". Of
course this might escape less accute artistic sensibilities.

I would suggest you study the Japanese metal work of the 1700-1800’s
to see the work that was the inspiration of many of the master
jewelers of the art nouveau. The work on the sword fittings in
particular will be instructive. This work is all fabricated via
chasing, repousse, carving and engraving and other techniques.

It might broaden your artistic sensibilities.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

37 
Personally I find technology very exciting, and we all take it up
when it becomes the "standard", I just think it's better to start
earlier than to start later.

I am really going to step into it on this one. The statement “when it
becomes standard”. When something becomes standard it usually lowers
the old standards. Buying a computer with a great cad cam does not
make a jewelry designer. A great jeweler, after mastering the cad cam
program can create great jewelry. There was a how to article a year
or so ago in the new lapidary journal about pave’ setting. It was a
disgrace! It was not pave’ setting and all it did was lower the
standard on the technique. The jewelry industry has accepted the new
micro pave’ that basically has 2 prongs on each stone. I would say
there has been more stones lost in the last 10 years with this “new
tecnology” than in the last 100 years with the real pave’. Usually
the new standards are made to make something cheaper and
easier–that is all well and good if the item in question is of the
same quality. All of these CAD antique style rings with the prongs
already cut out don’t come close to the rings they are trying to
copy. There are many examples of CAD that are great and I pay to have
it done by an expert, I don’t want to spend the money or the time to
learn when I can pay a resonable price to someone. Technology is
great, I love my laser and it has paid for itself, but I still use
the torch. I use a microscope for stone setting, what a great tool,
it made my pave’ better. So my closing statement is that it is fine
to embrace technology as long as it does not lower the standard.

Side note: My father was a master hand engraver, he did not teach me
35 years ago because of technology. The new engraving machines that
lowered the standard and the price of engraving. People did not want
to pay for hand engraving so it has become almost a lost art. Now a
true hand engraver can name his price for his work. People that know
real hand engraving want real hand engraving again.

Bill Wismar

38 
answering what they perceived to be the question, ie which process
produces pieces of higher value? I find it bizarre when this
happens. Aren't we all intelligent enough to read what a person is
asking?

Thank You Helen! Not so much on this thread, but often it’s seen as
an opportunity to get up on that old soap box and pontificate, yet
again. Almost all of it isn’t a matter of opinion at all…

Is fabrication inherently more “valuable” than cast? Some people
think so in terms of ~emotional~ value. “I prefer fabricated pieces
or I prefer fabricating”. Sure, fine. In monetary terms, no, there is
no difference whatsoever. Thinking of it on a cost basis and also
great design, there is NO difference. That one took six hours, that
one took 12 hours and the cost basis is different, but it’s still a
hundred bucks an hour. Great design that gets a premium for being
such is no different no matter how it’s made. In 30 years when a
piece becomes an estate piece, whether it is made ~any~ way simply
isn’t a factor in terms of appraised value.

Jim Binnion’s (and others) statement that anything that can be cast
can be fabricated is true on the face of it. Jim is a reasonable and
rational man. But it’s also a statement of idealism. The real
question is, and has aways been, “Should it be?” I don’t think a toy
argument about what people could do with a billion dollars and a 300
year lifetime is of any purpose. What is of purpose is how to make
jewelry and other things in the real world in which we live.

Of course the alligator in question could be fabricated. You have a
sculptural piece - it’s important to realize that repousse is
another way of doing that work, but it won’t be ~the same~ piece. It
would be sheet metal. You could either get a chunk of metal and
carve it away just like wax, or better would be to build it up in
various ways and THEN carve it down, just like wax. In fact, if I
made it I would make the form in wax, cast it and then fabricate for
the rest. I’m better in metal than I am in wax. It is difficult and
at times near impossible to get the same effects in wax and in metal
for textures and details, but it’s not impossible. You can’t use a
liner (as in florentine finish) in wax and expect to get much. And
there are many things like dragging a point through soft wax to get
hair and the like that are difficult in metal. But not impossible.
It’s those sorts of things that bring up the real question: "Should
you?

And why on Earth would you want to?"

The one point where I have to really take issue with Jim’s
(fundamentally truthful) statement is with Andy about nature. It’s
not that Jim is wrong, just idealism, again. Don’t use wood bark for
an example, use a house fly or another insect. It’s difficult enough
to cast such a thing - I’ve never done it, but it’s been done. I
imagine, as Jim says, that given unlimited time and unlimited
resources there might be 5 people in the world who could fabricate
such a thing (placing 25,000,000 scales on butterfly wings, one by
one…) But it’s easy enough to see just how preposterous
such a notion is, considering you can just cast that sucker, and go
have lunch. It’s not that it could be done in a ten million dollar
facility with a staff of 1000, it’s the realities of making things,
and knowing the best ways to do it, that counts.

39 
I have recreated complete parts by using shaped investment core and
welding bronze around it. After chasing nobody new the difference.

Do you have any pictures of this thing you do, Mr Supin? Maybe you
could post them on your blog? It would intrest me greatly to see
pictures of chased bronze that was formed by welding. ( I assume that
you mean brazing, not welding? ) I am a firm believer that pictures
are the proof of the pudding… the taste comes afterwards. But I am
always willing to learn a new technique.

Cheers, Hans
http://www.meevis.com

40

Hi Bill,

I am really going to step into it on this one. The statement "when
it becomes standard". When something becomes standard it usually
lowers the old standards.

Well not necessarily, and I was being very broad with that
statement. And I think you’ve got me wrong, there’s nothing sinister
about my motives :wink:

I don’t want to use technology for technology’s sake, but as a way
to do more, or do the same thing faster.

What I mean by “technology when it’s accepted as a standard”, within
a craft would have to help the crafts person, by a) doing a better
job, or b) doing the same job faster.

For example, I notice everyone here is typing on a computer and
posting their views globally and far faster than any delivered postal
service. If you have to write your comments by hand or typewriter,
then post by delivered post discussions such as we are having now
would not happen as easily, or at all.

An example of technology that helps us is drilling, people rarely
spare a thought to something that has become an accepted standard.
How many people drill holes with an archemedian drill, as opposed to
those that used a motorised hand piece.

Lost wax casting was… well… lost, and it was only relatively
recently regained for Jewellers in the early part of the 20th
century, by taking it from the dental industry.

I also mirror polish a 3 ft sword in about 5 minutes with belts,
whereas doing the same job by hand would take me hours. There is no
difference between my hand mirror polish or the machine mirror
polish, it’s just the time.

Some of the technology today is very new and has potential. If you
look to where it’s going it can’t hurt to learn some very basic
things, so that when it does eventually become the norm, you wont
have such a large learning curve.

Technology isn’t this Demon we should be afraid of, but something we
can look at to see if there’s potential. If it can’t be used then it
wont last, if it can it stays, our industry is full of examples where
this is the case.

The example you provided about hand engraving is perfect, a machine
can’t presently perform to the same skill level, so there’s
currently a place for hand engravers.

I forge knives as opposed to grinding them, not because it’s better
to do it that way, but for the reason I don’t like to waste
resources, and I enjoy shaping the metal that way.

Regards Charles A.