are you going to publish your paper on the Ardach Chalice? I for one
would be very interested, I have learnt a lot from studying original
Anglo Saxon metalwork.
Several years ago I did a cameo piece for Time Team (which is a UK
archeology programme on the TV) The curator at The Museum of Scotland
put a few pieces (mainly hand pins) under the microscope for me and I
pointed out tool marks that showed how parts were done, they seem to
spend little time analysing what they collect.
Having done some silver chip carving once upon a time, I suspect he
may have been *feeling* some of the finer details, rather than
depending entirely on his eyes
You cant truly discount “feeling”. Theres a tradition of writing the
Koran on a grain of rice, or passages of it. Periodically well get a
street vendor who does peoples names for a price. They dont even
look, its all done by feel and manual dexterity…
It goes counter to everything Ive heard about aging and vision,
but my vision has improved as Ive aged. Elaine asked: Or did you
just become nearsighted with age, as most people do? And having
been so farsighted, youre now 20/20. But it could get orse, and
then need glasses again.
Im experiencing the same thing as Kevin. For the past 7 years my
vision is improving. Im mildly near-sighted and have worn gas
permeable contacts for 20 years. Every year my optometrist makes them
one degree weaker.
In another 5 or 6 years at the current rate, I wont have to wear
lenses. I have the monovision correction (left eye is weaker and
reads close up, rght eye is stronger and for distance). I often work
on jewelry at home and at the computer without lenses.
The very first thing I do upon entering my shop and siting down is
take off my bifocals, same thing at the computer that I sit at for 8
hrs. a day. I hate them… cant see with them on, I also take them
off to read and do crossword puzzles. Still trying to figure out what
the Doc said about why I need them!!! The best thing that Ive
purchased lately,from Harbor Freight (I know, I know, but I dont
have $100 to spend on the real McCoy) for $10 is a “knock-off” pair
of visor type magnifiers with 4 interchangeable lenses. To echo
Skillman in one of his videos " It is amazing that what looked good
to the naked eye is embarrassing magnified." Someone tell me again
what those damned bifocals are supposed to do besides irritate me?
peace.
At my worst my eyes got to about -5.75. now they are down to about
-2.25. I expect the next pair will be a bit less. I have always read
without them. I used titanium frame varifocals until they stopped
making decent size frames. With the old big titanium frames they were
great, but the varifocals were a pain using a computer all day- lots
of neck strain- and head aches. I went back to single vision a few
years ago now. I should use safety glasses so having to wear them was
ok with me eventualy.
I did get so I kept taking off my glasses to examine small close
things. I still break lots of frames as I throw the glasses down and
look for them later. I really miss those big eyed titanium frames. I
even cobbled up a bifocal prescription with the upper 50 % section
for distance and the lower 50 % for real sharp vision at about 2 +
feet for working with machine tools. those frames are broken right
now.
I need an eye check up ( 2 yrs+) so I will start over soon with a
new base single vision prescription, and a visit to the drugstore to
workout the near segment for some. Then off to the mail in safety
glass provider. for about 4 pairs. My near vision aura 92 hot glass
pair work fine as unusual tint sun glasses now.
As far as near sited ancient artists go -I remember seeing some
where a description of jewelry workers in India being very small
children doing very detailed work.
Ive done the same thing. I have one pair of bi-focals for reading and
the upper part for distances up to about arm length away, and a
second pair with the lower part for arms length which is about how
far away my dashboard is, and the upper part focused for far
distances. I find they work great for me. Now that I think about it,
I wonder if I could get a pair for close work with jewelry. hmmm
I have had trifocal lenses for about 30 years…they make oversized
lenses…top for distance, center for the “dashboard/computer” and
close for reading. Absolutely no jerking the neck to put things in
focus. I was a secretary in my former life and this made work
comfortable: close work, charts on the desk, and visitors-the three
ranges. Bifocals are the worst!
Now with jewelry…I have had both cataracts removed! That was 30
years ago. Have 20/15 vision. Most wonderful thing that ever
happened…however, had a detached retina following the first
operation a couple of years later. My implant lenses are
interesting…right eye sees close and left eye sees far! Correction
is in the prescription with no prisms!
I dont use an optivisor except on special occasion. I dont do
engraving, or diamond setting as this post is alluding to for
ancients and their eyesight, but can say that at 80 I have superb
vision. Guess I best do Channel Inlay, which does require even sight
for those straight connections! I have 10 students currently, mostly
private, and one class of four - we do everything from the first
beginning lessons on up! Soon will be picking up Lost Wax Casting,
which I had taught for 15 years. Oh yes, and will be very careful of
the investment!
Go you Orchidians…this has to be the best part of being a
jeweler…you are my first on the morning list.
God Bless America and all of you, and Happy Fourth!
Im extremely nearsighted as well (-8.0 in the right eye; -9.5 in the
left), and Ive always considered this myopia both a blessing and a
curse. Without contacts, I cant focus on anything farther than about
six inches from my face; to read, I pretty much would have to press
my nose to the page. However, even with my contacts in, I seem to be
able to focus much more closely than the average mortal, and to see
tiny things very clearly. As a result, my handwriting is notoriously
teeny (miniscules about 1 - 1.5mm), and I spent much of my childhood
making very small, detailed drawings with lots of cross-hatching.
Sometimes, I do feel like I have “special powers” when it comes to
such tasks as carving waxes, removing splinters, or identifying
small insects.
Following on Leonids comments about special abilities, I do wonder
how much of this comes from being better able physically, and how
much from skill, training, and intellectual aptitude. Someone who is
not artistic may not perceive such a wide range of color not because
of a physical shortcoming, but because s/he has not taken the time
and effort to hone the observational skills artists use to make their
work. It certainly takes a lot of practice to learn to recognize the
subtle colors present in, say, a clear glass full of water, and to
represent them accurately in a still life. So, maybe we can see tiny
details not only because of our wonderful myopia, but also because
we are self-trained to focus on and care about such things.
Someone who is not artistic may not perceive such a wide range of
color not because of a physical shortcoming, but because s/he has
not taken the time and effort to hone the observational skills
artists use to make their work.
I am taking quite the opposite view. You either got it, or you dont.
Training goes only so far. My major in college was sculpture, but the
school itself was largely oriented towards industrial design, so
heavy
emphasis was on architecture, graphic arts and the like. We had a guy
who was a tremendous painter. Color sense, composition…, just
remarkable. But he could not pass a minimum requirements for interior
decoration class. His rooms would drive you mad. He just did not see
colour like the rest of us. He was flunking each and every class,
except painting and drawing.
We are what we are. Yes, some level of proficiency can be taught to
almost anybody, but to go beyond that, one needs abilities.
I knew I could count on Orchid to come through with some useful
answers regarding how myopia could make small scale work possible in
ancient times and still does as testified by several contributors to
this thread.
My presentation on the stem of the Ardagh Chalice will eventually be
written up for publication, but not anytime soon. In the mean time
if anyone is desperately interested you could sign up for my course
at Peter’s Valley August 7 - 11.
In a nutshell, my theory is that the mold was made without first
making a positive model. I am talking about just the stem, which is a
bronze cylinder 14 mm high x 37 mm diameter with a 3mm wall
thickness. Mold material of clay or gypsum plaster (my trials were in
plaster) were made starting with a core and then a single piece ring
that fit around it was carved from the inside to create the chip
carved pattern in the negative form. I know this sounds troublesome
and unorthodox when you are familiar with the types of methods most
commonly used for the past several hundred years. These rely on a
positive model, but it actually works quite well. Not especially
easy, but did anyone think it would be? I can make a mold with a
reasonable facsimile, in the same size scale in about 6 hours.
Im sure some of it is incorrect but it is a fascinating read,
particularly the chapter about Archimedes setting ships at sea on
fire with lots of mirrors
Tim mentions “The Crystal Sun” by Robert Temple. Being curious about
the whole topic, I went looking… One thing I found was a blurb by
the author about his book - it said some pretty whacked-out things.
He also wrote a book about one tribe being visited by
extraterrestrials. He largely rants about how “only he can see the
truth” and why don’t they let him present his papers about secret
knowlege… Doesn’t mean it’s a bad book…
And it doesn’t because if you dig deeper, you’ll find that much of
what he says is correct - the incorrect part is that nobody else
knows it…Good old Wikipedia - “lenses” and “History of Optics”.
The oldest know lens is 3000 years old, Euclid did the first
geometry of them, mentioned by the Egypians, made by the Assyrians
and the Vikings. For myself, I had just taken generic knowlege about
european lenses coming from the 17th century, and Galileo’s telescope
and all that. They’re much older than I ever knew. Of course, they
were crude and nowhere near as useful as modern lenses, but lenses
just the same.
I knew I could count on Orchid to come through with some useful
answers regarding how myopia could make small scale work possible
in ancient times and still does as testified by several
contributors to this thread.
Haven’t checked my orchid mail for a few days so a bit late coming
in on this thread. Have found it most fascinating though. So many
times (since I was a child) people have said to me “you need glasses”
because I’ve got my eyeballs so close to what I’m doing.
I’ve always had the belief that most ancient artisans that worked on
fine details must have been shortsighted (myopic).
I’m nearly 58 and very grateful for my shortsightedness. It’s only
very recently that I’ve found out how lucky I am compared to most
others of my age. One eye is very shortsighted, the other
longsighted. Together they see pretty well everything I need to see.
No glasses.
