what media to cast it in? Plaster's too porous, clay might screw up
the compound's setting chemistry. Any ideas?
I use dental plaster it is non porous and will take direct heat from
a torch, I make moulds with it for casting silver crosses and
pendants. I would suggest that some of you might like to experiment
with casting the lowly Pewter, it has a very low melting point and the
effects that you can get from wire mops are fantastic. I do however
make sure that everything I sell is stamped ‘Pewter’
I never thought of using concrete nails, over here they go under
the trade name of "OBO", however I think that you would be
restricted on the diameters.
You are less restricted it you don’t mind if your stamp is short.
The nails are tapered, so for a larger surface, you can cut off the
smaller end. The more you cut off, the larger the available area for
your design.
Do you mean the ones Rio calls "AdvantEdge Plus"? The only other
ones with these colors are Cratex.
I mean Shofu: page 286 in the '06-'07 catalogue. Brown and blue. Top
of the page. I showed these in Chicago…
Take care, Andy
Oh yeah-- the actual color is blue… But Shofu calls them
“greenie”. The xtra/ultra high polishers are “super greenies”. In
real life they both have a blue/green cast.
I have one of those hollow rubber mandrels and I love it. Gave one
away to a workshop host who was really taken with it and found it
very tough to replace it-- haven’t found another yet.
Before I came upon this tool, however, I was taught a method that
works quite well.
Cut a strip of thin paper the width or wider of the overall width
(nail to knuckle) of the ring. (Gestimate its length so that it will
fit inside the ring w/ a bit extra.)
Roughly form this into a cylinder and telescope it inside of the
ring, creating a liner. Carefully push this firmly against the inside
of the shank so there are no gaps, but be sure to cleave only to the
inside of the ring itself: don’t follow any hollowed out areas like
you may find on a large domed or signet ring.
Mark where the overlap is and remove the strip. Cut at the mark and
tape the two ends together on the outside of the loop (like making a
butt seam). Now slide this over the ring mandrel and find the size.
Because the paper is so thin and has such little dimension, the
measurement on the outside of the paper “ring”-- which is the inside
of the real ring— is transferred to the inside of the paper ring
and then to the mandrel, with little distortion in measurement. I use
notebook or light weight printer paper.
Cut a strip of thin paper the width or wider of the overall width
(nail to knuckle) of the ring. (Gestimate its length so that it
will fit inside the ring w/ a bit extra.)
here’s a variation I find simpler. Take a piece of paper about the
length of a ring mandrels working part, and wide enough to wrap
tightly around the mandrel several times. Do so, and tape the
external overlapped seam, creating a tapered tube of paper, the same
shape as a ring mandrel, but paper. Now take your ring sizers, and
gently slide them up onto the paper mandrel, marking sizes on the
mandrel. Don’t force the sizers up too much, just till they’re snug,
without crushing or deforming the tube.
now you can use the resulting marked paper mandrel to get the size,
or pretty darn close to it, of non-round rings. Just be sure that you
use about the same force in pulling the ring up onto the mandrel,
just until the paper tube deforms to match the inner shape of the
ring you’re measuring, but not enough to be crushing the tube.
Works quite well, and since you’ve related the ring size measured to
a reference standard size, the length of a blank you’d need to make
another same sized non round ring as what you’ve measured, will be
the same as what you’d use to make the specified size in a standard
round band. You can get THAT length either with a bit of easy math,
or the various guages and published tables.
An easy way to get a nice hammered effect – without hammering – is
to use a wheel to create concave marks in the surface. Very little
clean up needed…call it Zen hammering.
I mean Shofu: page 286 in the '06-'07 catalogue. Brown and blue.
Top of the page. I showed these in Chicago.....
Ah! There they are! I was looking at last year’s catalog. Same
picture, same part numbers, but it just says “silicone polishing
points and wheels”, no “Shofu”. The new catalog has them clearly
labeled. Thanks!
Cut a strip of thin paper the width or wider of the overall width
(nail to knuckle) of the ring. (Gestimate its length so that it
will fit inside the ring w/ a bit extra.)
I’ve tried that trick, and I still resort to it as a sort of check.
My thinking on it is that numerical sizes on these rings, since the
configuration of the shanks are all over the place, is less relevant
than the way it fits on flesh. I rely on a lot of intuition for this
stuff, so I’m doing these educated guesses. But thanks for reminding
me.
here's a variation I find simpler. Take a piece of paper about the
length of a ring mandrels working part, and wide enough to wrap
tightly around the mandrel several times.
Thanks, Peter;
I’ve used that method too, and it does the job. I don’t know why,
but somewhere back in time I began to mistrust it’s accuracy. I’m a
creature of habit, more or less, and what’s worse, I change habits
and don’t remember that I did or why. I still want one of those
rubber mandrels, though.
I've used that method too, and it does the job. I don't know why,
but somewhere back in time I began to mistrust it's accuracy. I'm
a creature of habit, more or less, and what's worse, I change
habits and don't remember that I did or why. I still want one of
those rubber mandrels, though.
yes, sometimes the accuracy is a bit off, especially with paper
mandrels you made and marked a while ago. Always recheck the size you
decide on with these mandrels, rather than assuming the marked sizes
you put on them some time ago are still accurate. Paper abrades,
reacts to humidity, etc etc. But so long as you recheck the size each
time you use it, to be sure your size markings on the paper are what
they’re supposed to be, then you’ll be fine. I’ve one of the rubber
mandrels too, and use it more, but it too, sometimes isn’t perfect.
The rubber is stiffer than the paper, and for some really off round
shapes, it’s harder to get an accurate size with the rubber, than
with the paper.
And remember that in all such cases, the measured size may not fit
the same on a finger as that same size in a round ring. If the shank
is very much out of round, you may have to take the client’s finger
or one of your own, as the ultimate sizer, finding which round sizer
feels the same as the ring’s current size, before deciding how much
to size it up or down. Sometimes the rubber or paper mandrels will
give you a ring size that is a tad too large, simply because the ring
itself feels tighter than it’s size should suggest, due to it’s
shape. Remember that these mandrels are corrolating a ring size to an
inner circumference of the ring, not an actual real world fit on a
real world human finger.
Peter
Note From Ganoksin Staff:
Looking for a hammer for your jewelry projects? We recommend:
so simple, and saves me running around getting