Skills and Discipline

Eventually all of those things you learn to become a jeweler
becomes second nature, and that's when you have something - when
you don't have to think about it, it just flows off your hands. 

My experience is that some processes require fine motor skills that
require frequent practice, otherwise it takes a little practice to
regain the level of skill, so anything that involves repetition on
the same piece is equal in quality from the beginning to the end.

Richard Hart

Denver, Co., Where being a good gardener means killing a lot of
plants…I am starting to harvest tomatoes, Japanese eggplant,
arugula, strawberries. The blackberries have a long way to go, but
the quality of flowers is most promising.

there should be NO argument. What you have is the difference in
attitude developed over the last 30 to 40 years, therefore the
baseless arguments, 

I don’t see any arguments, Terry. People who have worked at jewelry
and reached some level of attainment all understand what it takes to
get there, and that there is no other way but hard work and study.
That is a given.

What some don’t understand is the nature of process. Learning the
process makes you a mechanic. It’s learning the process to a level
of understanding that allows you to mold it to your own purposes
that makes you an artist and craftsman. Learn enough of those to
that level of understanding and you might just become a jeweler. The
process is not the goal, it’s just a stepping stone to get there.

This thread began from the gravermax thread. 40 years ago I bought a
graver… Then I bought a book - “Engraving on precious Metals”

It’s a fine book, but aside from the preliminaries of graver choices
and sharpening, the entire book is devoted to cutting letters and
monograms, pretty much. I learned a great deal from that book, but
I’ve never cut a monogram in my life, and likely never will. I have
taken what I want from engraving, and left the rest behind. I don’t
want to be “An Engraver” in the classical sense, and if the only
avenue I had was “Classical Engraving Training” I wouldn’t take it.
The more you know, the more you understand how many ways a cat can
be skinned. The world is big.

I dunno, I don’t get paid for having an existential experience with
the metal(would that be fair to the client?). I get paid for
completed jewelry that’s up to snuff. Frankly, I wouldn’t care too
much what others may think about HOW you arrive at a good product, as
long as you do. You could spend an hour sandpapering a platinum shank
and get approval from whomever or you could file it and wheel it in a
few minutes and move on, you got bills to pay.

I guess if you take the money out of the equation its a hobby so do
whatever floats your boat. Its pretty hard to make a smithy’s living
solely on a report card, its mostly on what you can actually
accomplish.

I think one can get bogged down in minutiae and lose sight of the
goal, which is an appropriately sturdy beautiful object.

 At the age of 48 (today is my birthday) I have become too old to
devote a new phase of my life to attaining mastery in another
field because by the time I can accomplish that I will be dead of
old age... and I would still have the same issues in being hired as
I do now... so what is the point? " 

Oh my goodness Andrew. Too old at 48? What ever in the world should I
think as I’m approaching my 79th birthday in August?

It has never occurred to me that I am ever too old to do anything I
choose. For my 75th birthday my sons gave me a one hour “ride” in a
stunt plane with the stunt pilot". What a joy - and to think if I had
said "I’m too old…I would have missed an absolute wonderful
experience. And although I may not attain absolute mastery in a
field, but I surely will attain a better status than I now have.

If I adhered to your thoughts of being “too old” I guess I’d just
curl up and die.

Please, please, do not consider yourself too old. You are at the
prime age to learn - you bring a lot of maturity to the scene - a lot
of dedication that you didn’t have when you were younger - I
personally think 48 is the ideal age to begin a new career or new
study of any kind. And who knows, you may advance much more rapidly
that you did when you were younger. Maybe even attain the masters
level in record time.

I suppose I say that because I was 50 when I got divorced after 30
years of marriage and at that point in time, I finished my college
degree (not in the field I had originally started in, but in a
totally different field), wound up teaching a foreign language at
night school, and by moving to a new city where I knew no one, I
jumped at the chance to learn jewelry fabrication - and today I enjoy
a robust sale of my jewelry. I still learn new things on-going, and I
have no intention of giving up the good life anytime soon.

I intend to live to be 100 and hope that my attitude will stick with
me and that even at 100 I hope I have the tenacity to start
something new if I choose.

So please, dear Andrew, please do reconsider your attitudes - you
may not achieve absolute mastery, BUT you will certainly be further
along than you were before you undertook your new area and as a
result your life will have been enlarged and your views broadened.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Bericho

After receiving my masters degree in Metals by receiving a Teaching
Scholarship under Mary Lee Hu at the University of Washington, I
have been engaged in teaching jewelry techniques in University
programs, through magazine articles and through workshops.

From this experience I became fascinated in developing my skill as a
really good teacher. To that end I am now engaged in a second Masters
degree in Adult Education. This quarter have a project due which is
called a “Learner Analysis.” Please help me with my research.

To Participate answer YES or NO to these three questions and I will
use your data in my research paper.

  1. In learning your craft you started with easily attainable skills
    and worked to get better at those basic skills.

  2. In learning your craft you took lots of classes in techniques
    that may have been over your skill level, but the inspiration and
    excitement pushed you forward.

  3. I feel intimidated in traditional classroom environments with
    authoritarian instructors.

Thank you,
Nanz Aalund

And it only happened after I dissected the whole process and
practiced every phase of construction as separate task. 

This illustrates my point exactly. It wasn’t until you decided that
improvement was needed that you began to really understand and
modify the processes you were learning to use. Concentrating on the
process with no attention paid to improvement doesn’t get you
anywhere.

Golf, fly fishing and piano are excellent examples of both of my
points as well. From the first stroke, cast or scale, the objective
is (or should be) improvement. The need and ability to understand the
process comes from a perceived need for improvement, they fuel each
other.

The first set of golf clubs I ever saw or used was my grandfather’s
hand-made bamboo clubs. They are beautiful pieces, nearly antique.
They work, but they are heavy, unwieldy and unpredictable. It is
possible to learn how to play golf with them, but a new set of modern
graphite clubs would make it so much easier. The objective of
learning to use either type of club is the same, hit the ball
farther and more accurately with each and every stroke. When that
can’t be achieved, a bit of introspection becomes necessary and a
disassembly of the processes for the purpose of further understanding
comes into play. Regardless of the clubs used for learning, there are
no special tees or strokes given for those using antique bamboo
clubs.

I have several fly rods, most are graphite, but I also have a couple
of fiberglass rods and thanks to an Orchid friend, a nice cane rod.
While the cane rod is fun to use, it is a bit heavy, and its action
is a little quirky, which is typical of cane rods. My glass rods are
very heavy and have a mushy, sluggish action, even in the lighter
weights. The new graphite rods are a joy to use by comparison, and
make learning to cast much easier than either of the other two types
of rods. The objective when learning to use a fly rod is the same
with all three types, pitch the fly farther and more accurately with
each and every cast. Trout don’t give special consideration for
fishermen using cane rods either, I can guarantee.

These things, just like engraving have all benefited from improved
technology. I don’t think it would be fair to tell someone that they
aren’t really playing golf, fishing or making music simply because
they are using modern equipment instead of older technology. After
all, the objective of learning each of them remains the same as do
the uses of their respective tools, it is only the ease and accuracy
with which their particular moves can be made that is different.

Another thing all of these pursuits have in common is that only when
the basic skills are mastered, can the real learning begin. Just
because you can drop a fly in a tea cup at forty feet with a cane rod
doesn’t mean you can catch a fish. First you have to find where the
fish are, then you have to select (or even tie) the right fly to
match the current hatch and then tie it on the correct leader with
the proper knot. Then you have to sneak up on the fish, read the
current of the stream so you can put the fly in exactly the right
place and then play the line to keep it on the right course as it
drifts downstream maintaining just the right amount of slack, all the
while not making noise, shadow or unnatural movement of the fly that
might spook the fish. Then if a trout actually hits the fly, you
still have to set the hook and land it. Although achieving that
perfect path of line travel is the most recognizable part of fly
fishing, mastering how to pitch the fly may be one of the easier
parts of learning how to land a stringer full of wild rainbow trout.

Just as being able to cast accurately and consistently is
meaningless without the other skills and knowledge required to fill a
creel with fish, being able to cut accurate lines is meaningless
without the skills and knowledge of how to use those lines to create
beauty.

A finished work of engraving stands or falls on its own merit.
Whether the tools used to physically cut the metal are powered or not
is all but immaterial to its value as art. Except maybe to the artist
that cut it, but that is a different subject entirely.

Dave Phelps

(And yes I do practice “catch and release”, especially with
rainbows, but they usually beat me to it. Wily little critters they
are.)

Leonid misunderstands. I scanned his video of a "coronet cluster"
yesterday, which is why I talked about being stuck in process to
>begin with. It's a fine, workmanlike effort, but this:
http://www.langantiques.com/category/30/4/item/30-1-471/ Is a
coronet setting that has style, beauty, and elegance. That maker
has transcended process and become an artist. What Leonid
misunderstands is that his video IS playing scales on the piano,
to use his own analogy. 

The example referred to in the above quote is what Leonid is doing,
only the example has more piercings and carving. (Pity about the
missing claw). The overall design is a subjective the first step.
Merely printing the design in metal will miss many small subtleties
that a good hand fabricator will account for in the execution.

Making jewelery Leonid’s way is doing the same hand processes over
and over again, slowly refining hand and thought until the processes
become magic. Combining many magical processes into a symphony is
the mark of a master. As Andrew says, this applies to any art
including power-assist.

Michael Schumacher knows how to make a powerful machine perform pure
art. Although he has a team of experts behind him he sharpens the
tool and selects the best cutting angles himself, and then he
performs masterful art.

Faberge was a master businessman - he orchestrated a team of master
fabricators, artists, managers and consumers.

Are we crossing wires here? We are fabricators, business persons,
organizers, critics, managers, manufacturers, artists, and master
beginners. John, you appear to be a master businessman!

Re the missing claw in the above example: previously I would remove
the ruby by cutting all claws, replace all the claws to the ruby by
soldering on new claws (and the outer claws to the diamonds while
I’m at it), and set the ruby anew. I can do this very well but it
takes time. Modern advances in technology allow me to replace the
missing claw in situ while the other claws remain original. Further,
no solder will be added nor any previous solder melted. I’m in the
process of mastering this new technology by practising over and
over, being concious of what I’m doing in all respects, and ever
striving for perfection. No different to all you folks out there!

Regards. Alastair.

such a fine example of craftsmanship is the best compliment I
could ever hope for. But can you elaborate on your point of my
misunderstanding. 

It seems that some here think there’s an argument or “taking sides”
but there’s not. I have used Leonid as an example because of his
extremely traditionalist views on engraving. It’s not that he’s
wrong, it’s just one point of view. I guess I should be more clear
than I have been…

In America today there are huge numbers of people learning jewelry
by reading books or going to school - or reading Orchid :slight_smile: That’s a
fine thing, but there’s a problem with that, which is pretty much
the point, and that is that by nature people learn by rote. “First
you do this, then you do that, and then you do that.” It’s the only
way to communicate such things in books, and much the same in a
weekend seminar. The alternative is what some of the rest of us have
had - trade experience, working in shops with other goldsmiths, and
picking it up more by absorption. As I like to call it, life in the
trenches.

So, there are a few tutorials around about how to make a basket
setting. That’s a fine thing, and a fine thing to know, too. What
you really need to know isn’t that at all, though. What you really
need to know is “How settings are made and why they are made that
way.” That is how you learn and know how to make art, instead of
making the one setting you know how to make over and over again. That
is knowlege that’s absorbed, not learned from tutorials. People here
have talked about the value of classical training - that IS the
value of classical training, and why there’s no argument.

And that whole concept applies to the whole field of goldsmithing.
“In order to make ingots for the rolling mill you need an ingot mold
and a crucible.” Well, no. I make ingots every couple of days, and I
use my ingot molds once a year… The background that we learn
in the beginning isn’t “How To”, it’s just an inkling of how things
are done. It can’t be stressed enough that if somebody says, “My
instructor says this is how to do it, so that’s how I do it.” they
are a monkey. Goldsmithing is about principles, not rote learning:
This is how settings are made, and why.

This the nature of gold, and it can handle this but it can’t handle
that. We need to make it this way because of the need for XYZ. On
and on. Bottom line: don’t take it literally, be a jeweler.

So please, dear Andrew, please do reconsider your attitudes - you
may not achieve absolute mastery, BUT you will certainly be
further along than you were before you undertook your new area and
as a result your life will have been enlarged and your views
broadened. 

I have had to contend with depression since late childhood and with
also being raised in a family with a bipolar and violent father, a
mother with borderline personality disorder, and an alcoholic sister.
Both my mother and my sister later killed themselves.

Attaining some modicum of absolute mastery in software design had
been my strategy for coping. As a child and teenager, I had no other
avenues, no other place to go, no others to confide in. In short, no
recourse and no escape. I couldn’t get any help for my own depression
because the helpers were in desperate need of help themselves.

What I did have was a basement laboratory and an amateur radio
station. I also had access to libraries and through books had learned
much about what normal relationships and family was supposed to be.

Those were the avenues through which I learned to reach outside my
upbringing. Because of those I could escape from my family at least
for short periods of time.

This helped establish an early interest in mathematics and
electronics, and through these I found I had a natural affinity for
writing software, which was the one thing I could take pride in about
myself.

I enjoyed having that absolute mastery. I enjoyed being respected
for what I could do. I enjoyed having the power to be able to meet
that impossible deadline. Even if I could never find respect from
co-workers as a human being in the work place, I had always been able
to obtain at least grudging repect from those very same people for
both my competence and being able focus and deliver high quality
results.

I now have to contend with trends that assert the primacy of
emotional intelligence and social skills in the workplace, things
which are inherent in a person’s upbringing and can never be faked.
Believe me, I have tried. But believe me when I say that compared to
authentic people I stick out like a sore thumb during interviewing,
and some of my interviewers have as much had said so.

In other words, my mastery of my field had been my means of coping
with mental illness. And now I am considered too ill to do the one
thing that helped make my illness less of a problem for my self.
Every moment I could thinking about writing elegant code for a
daunting project was one less moment I was forced to think about
having to kill myself.

With everything I had taken pride of in my life being ripped away by
the world wide implementation of the thesis of emotional
intelligence in the work place I am entitled to feel very bitter. And
so under the circumstances I feel quite justified to wish that I had
never been born. I’m desperately looking for something, anything, to
take the place of what I once had for the skills and discipline which
had been so vital to my being able to live.

I would need another lifetime to both find something which I like
equally well and then to invest the year necessary to attain one
again, the absolute mastery in at least one thing that I need to
have to feel like a person again.

And it is for those reasons that this topic had been so vital for me
to expound upon.

Andrew Jonathan Fine

I dunno, I don't get paid for having an existential experience
with the metal (would that be fair to the client?)

I dunno, I’m a pretty rational thinking person, but did you never get
the feeling that the metal is doing you want it to do before you
exactly knew what you wanted it to do? As if you and the metal are
actually partners, creating something beautiful from something which
started as a freaking ingot. Such Zen experiences explain why I
pretty much live in my studio these days. It’s euphoria and amazement
or complete depression if it goes wrong - one needs to take risks!
Yeah, the stuff gets sold eventually. That’s pretty much my attitude
towards it.

Are we crossing wires here? We are fabricators, business persons,
organizers, critics, managers, manufacturers, artists, and master
beginners. John, you appear to be a master businessman! 

Ah shucks, Alastaire… People call me Master-something every
once in a while, but I really don’t buy it. At least I sure don’t
feel like that… Just John…

Two things that really aren’t just more rehash - Alastaire, I think
inadvertently, touches on the old school. I’m a goldsmith and some
other various things, but I make use of the people and skills around
me - setters, engravers, technology. I can’t do their work as well
as they can, and when I want the best I go for it. Nobody (and I
mean nobody) can do everything to the level of skill that specialists
can do in their specialties. It’s kind of foolish to think
otherwise.

Second is not to forget that we’re in the business of making art, or
at least beauty. A client brought me a 3ct. orangey radiant-cut
diamond (mid six figures) and said they wanted it set in a solitaire
pendant. So I made a custom half-bezel in rose gold with a few
colored diamond melee and a bit of engraving here and there. Meaning:
Just because the customer says they want a solitaire doesn’t mean
they want a finding from Stuller. It’s your job to interpret what
they are saying, and BE the person they came to see. “I know that you
will take care of me and give me something beautiful and
extraordinary.” A three stone ring doesn’t have to be three settings
on a shank - it’s the way you craft and shape it, the proportions and
the shapes, that can make it stand apart from the crowd. But it’s
still a three stone ring… Nuance. It’s that which separates the
best from the rest…

Frankly, I wouldn't care too much what others may think about HOW
you arrive at a good product, as long as you do. You could spend
an hour sandpapering a platinum shank and get approval from
whomever or you could file it and wheel it in a few minutes and
move on, you got bills to pay. 

Do you have any photo’s of the end result of just filing and buffing
platinum? I usually use files, then abrasives, then tripoli, then a
plat polishing compound on two different mops, and try to clean as
much as possible in between each stage. And I’m still not happy. I
still find tiny lines on the metal, particularly with flat surfaces -
these are invisible to the customer, but only just. With platinum
costing what it does, it deserves 20 mins, 40 mins, even an hour, if
required. And I HATE polishing platinum.

If the customer wants it polished, I expect to see a good reflection
of my face in it. If you’ve found a way of achieving that with two or
three stages, please help us all out - it would mean you’ve mastered
the technique of polishing. If you have a lower standard, where the
customer can see imperfections, then surely you are selling them
short, and maybe yourself too.

Going back to the broader discussion, the end result is certainly the
only deciding factor, but how do people know what “grade A” is,
unless they have made something to that level already? By the time
they’ve done that, they’ve mastered the technique, and can then cut
corners to their hearts content, so long as the finish remains the
same. For independant artisans and workshops, word-of-mouth is often
more important than advertising, and people will only say good
things if they see your work and go “wow”. The other factor is
history - the longer you’ve been there, the more impressed people
are - not because they think you will be old, but because they
assume a certain level of experience. Wealthy new companies will
sometimes buy old firms, so that they can use that “since 1876” over
the front door.

Having written all that, and other posts on the subject, I really
have to wonder what we’re debating here. Does anyone actually
disagree with the development of skill and discipline? Does anyone
think that anenthusiastic amateur can do as well as a disgruntled
master? I know it can be infuriating when someone is teaching you
and says “just because”, but when they are the teacher, you are the
student. Question the process in your own time, and when you
understand it.

My only guess is that people argue against skill and discipline
because they have none, and want it to be someone elses fault when
the standard of the job isn’t good enough. “the design was
impractical”, " the solder wasn’t clean enough", “the tools won’t
sharpen properly”, “my wife is a crack-smoking harlot, and
interrupts me”.

Do any of these sound familiar to anyone out there arguing against
skill and discipline?

You’re all probably getting an idea of how opinionated I am. Do you
think I like being a young apprentice? Do you think I like seeing
peoples work and it being better than mine? Do you think I like it
when people have skills that I don’t? I bl**dy hate it. But I’ll get
there by pulling myself up the their level, not pulling them down to
mine.

Sorry if this offends anyone - it isn’t directed at any individual,
so please don’t take it personally. Unless I’m hitting the nail on
the head, obviously…

Jamie
http://primitive.ganoksin.com

I usually use files, then abrasives, then tripoli, then a plat
polishing compound on two different mops, and try to clean as much
as possible in between each stage. And I'm still not happy. I still
find tiny lines on the metal, particularly with flat surfaces -
these are invisible to the customer, but only just. With platinum
costing what it does, it deserves 20 mins, 40 mins, even an hour,
if required. And I HATE polishing platinum. If the customer wants it
polished, I expect to see a good reflection of my face in it. If
you've found a way of achieving that with two or three stages,
please help us all out - it would mean you've mastered the
technique of polishing. 

While I agree that platinum can be difficult to polish, one key to
speeding it up and making it simpler is in the media you use to do
the job. I use four steps. The first is either some combination of
files or burs to get the shape, remove bumps, seams, etc etc etc.
Then an abrasive such as the 3M trizact abrasive drums or the
microfilm sanding films or drums or sometimes one or another of the
several 3M diamond drums or films. Both Gesswein and Stuller also
sell a really nice little premounted line of emery drums. Like the 3M
products, these are high quality uniform abrasives. From Japan, they
come in a range of grits all the way up to 800 grit. All of these
choices in abrasives are the keys both to getting an initial true
surface, and one which then eliminates the occurance of those pesky
lines that show up later, since their very uniform particle grading
means all scratches on the resulting finish are the same size, so
when it looks like you’ve buffed them all of, you have. None are
those deeper/larger ones that seem to stay hidden only until you find
them remaining at a later stage. The abrasive cleans up the coarser
file or bur marks. I could eliminate it with fine enough files, but
then it might take a bit longer. After the abrasive, don’t use
tripoli or greystar. Too slow, and not really so good with platinum,
even if lots of people still use it. Instead, try the Gesswein
platinum polishing compounds they import from Japan. These are all
micro graded aluminum oxide. Hard enough so things like solder joints
or the like won’t polish out faster. On the right buffs, brushes or
laps, the 800 grit platinum tripoli cuts fast. Fast enough that you
can, if you want, directly polish a rough casting or even fairly
coarse file marks, especially with medium or hard felt laps. But
that ends up not saving you time. Take enough time with the 800
compound. It’s perhaps the most important step. Be sure no ripples or
defects show. Use a loupe or other magnifaction if needed, to be
sure. This stage is the one that really needs the most time on it.
Get it right, and the next step, the 8000 platinum tripoli, also in
the same family of platinum polishing compounds from Gesswein, goes
as fast as any other rouge on gold. If you still have lines, it’s
because you didn’t do the 800 step right. The 8000 compound leaves as
good a mirror polish as most situations usually require. You can, if
you need the highst possible polish, finish with kissing the surface
with red rouge, or one of the other platinum rouges, but I find the
difference to be small, and often not needed on most work. Even so,
that adds only a moment or two if you do it. The nice thing about the
800 compound is that despite giving you a high polish, it also still
has some cutting ability to it, which helps with things like the
occasional stray bit of something that can get on rouge buffs leaving
that slight annoying scratch just when you thought you were done. The
800 compound cuts enough so that those simply don’t appear. Do be
careful with it, though. Too much, and crisp or millgrained edges or
fine beads and prongs can get decidely blurred. Finesse is the trick
here…

While there may be rings or other pieces that do indeed take a lot
of time, it’s usually because there are unforseen problems, like
porosity you find and then have to go back and burnish or otherwise
fix. Typically, most of the rings I polish can be brought to a mirror
finish in twenty or thirty minutes or less, starting from a raw
casting. These are cast rings in the line of my employer. Nothing
special in the castings. Sprues need to be cleaned up, sizes checked
and adjusted, rings stamped, details cleaned up, etc. About half the
time is the initial bench work. The rest at the polishing machine.
And again, these times are highly dependent on the tools and media
you use for the job. The 3m microfinishing films, their imperial
diamond sanding films, etc, and other micro graded abrasives make an
enormous difference in the amount of work you then have to do at the
buff. And there, those Japanese aluminum oxide platinum polishing
compounds from Gesswein are king. I’ve tried other competing
products, but have yet to find one I feel is totally their equal. If
I had, I’d have switched in a heartbeat, because those compounds are
quite costly. But the savings in time more than make up for the cost.

It used to be that to get a perfect polish on platinum you’d have to
go through a whole sequence of polishing papers all the way up to
about a 600 or 800 grit paper before you went to buffing compounds at
all. And often, it was necessary to burnish the surface too, even if
there were no porosity, in order to get a uniform enough surface
hardness that the old compounds like tripoli could give you a good
result. (It’s still needed if you find you have porosity to deal
with, but that’s another topic.) Done that way, it could easily take
an hour to finish a nice piece properly. But times have changed,
folks… It’s still not a quick few minutes. But it’s a lot easier
than it once was.

cheers
Peter Rowe

Wow Andrew! Take out the first and the last four paragraphs, and
there’s a resume that will be hard to resist. You are not of the
common herd and it’s so unfortunate that someone or some system
demands that you become a commoner complete with fake smiles and
synthetic la-di-daas.

Those five paragraphs must be completely eliminated. The past cannot
be changed and the future cannot be read, yet the mind creates all
kinds of scenarios. The present moment is all we have to deal with.
Deal in a positive manner using all available resourses, accept the
results whatever they are, and keep going moment by moment
regardless. We cannot put an end to our own will. Starting again will
be exactly where we left off which is where we are right now.

I have my up’s and down’s. Some of my up’s lead to egotistical
crashes, and some of my downs have produced lasting lessons. I learn
and keep going. Sometimes I think, “What if a slip of the graver
meant instant death”? This scenario has existed in history many times
over. I’m pleased that today accidentally destroying a $20,000 stone
will not result in death, but it would sure feel like it.

Regards, Alastair

My only guess is that people argue against skill and discipline
because they have none, and want it to be someone elses fault when
the standard of the job isn't good enough. 

That’s hitting the nail on the head, Jamie, and a fine rant
otherwise, too. Me, I’m not arguing - as you say, there’s nothing to
argue about. Perhaps a crusade against pedantry…

To me, it is educational, and what you say about knowing what to do
to begin with is right on, too. Your (hypothetical) task: Make a
wedding band. Many will get some 1/2 round wire, bend it into a
circle, polish it or texture it and call it quits. Some will bend a
rectangular wire into a circle. Then they’ll file it 1/2 round,
meaning it can be any profile desired. Or cut grooves down the
middle or carve it into an endless dragon. That rectangular ring
becomes a blank canvas, not “a wire”. That means two things: First
and foremost it means that the maker ~knows~ that those things are
possible to begin with - that it’s not wire, it’s clay. And second
is the topic of this thread - the skill and discipline to be able to
do the actual work at all. It doesn’t have to be machine-like, but
it does have to be willful. It’s exactly like it is because it’s
exactly how I wanted it and exactly how I made it, not because I
didn’t know any better.

I think the bottom line is the skill part - We’ll use writing as
analogy this time. Some people tend to think they can collect
techniques (tutorials, classes, books) and eventually they’ll
collect enough to be a goldsmith.

“I need two more and I’ll hit 1000!” That’s like thinking you can
learn more words and become a great writer… Writing and
goldsmithing both are about skill - it’s not how many things you
know, it’s what you do with what you DO know that counts.

Polishing and platinum in particular: If there are scratches it’s
because you put them there. Don’t use carborundum sandpaper (ever),
use emery always. Don’t put deep scratches with coarse sandpaper and
expect they will go away, use a finer grit and sand for a longer
time. I use emery, greystar if there’s lapping, white diamond and
green rouge. I use green rouge on a soft lap even on curved
surfaces, often, because it doesn’t put facets. Platinum still take
2x the time, but if you control the whole process (don’t use coarse
sandpaper!) it’s do-able… Like polishing stone, make sure each
step is complete before going to the next…

Sorry Jamie, no pics, not that pics would show it anyway.

It was until about 15 years ago I also struggled along with the
sandpaper bit. What a bore, what a waste. Then I started using the
newer platinum compounds and played with those awhile. Now I use the
file for rough shaping, it might a 2 or a 4 I don’t recall, I’m not
in the shop today to go look, its NOT a 6 but it is very worn. I use
only that one file, its very long and broad, hardly a jeweler’s file
by most definitions. I follow that with a soft blue silicone wheel
(old wheels seem to work better) in the flexshaft and follow that on
the buffer. Mostly I use Zam, rarely plat trip, then a blue pt
compound. BTW, I’ve stared using blue on almost everything.

I believe polishing direction is critical. Rather than polish just
along a crown I also polish across it. This includes the rubber
wheels. By doing this you can actually SEE what the wheel is doing.
Its about blending, its not about mathematical perfection in
following a circumference (as in shank outline). I dunno if I can
describe it better than that.

Let me add I use white soft bristle brushes on the flexshaft alot.
You can really blend with these. Great for touch ups too. These are
great inside the shank too. Use them at an angle so you polish across
the previous wheel marks. Ever notice that with an inside ring buff,
sometimes it seems you just can’t get rid of those circumferential
drag lines? The more you keep following those lines the more they
will NOT go away. So try something different.

If you’re getting parallel lines on flat surfaces after polishing
you might try sanding in circles rather than back and forth. Parallel
lines are tough to get out, curved lines not nearly so, don’t ask my
why, its just what I’ve observed.

If you’re using traditional brown tripoli that might be a big factor
in your dissatisfaction. Throw it away (imho), its older than old
school.

Tradition is great until it no longer serves your purposes.

Ok here’s an admission that will get some folks throttled. I do not
have dedicated platinum buffs(except for the aformentioned rarely
used plat tripoli). Yeah yeah yeah I know I’m gonna hear all sorts of
stuff about that but I do not have a problem with it. That’s what I
mean by don’t care too much what others think, its YOUR results that
matter. I do not get errant flecks of gold in my platinum, I do not
get funny colors or textures. I do not have problems torch soldering
or laser welding after buffing. No sudden pinholes after the final
finalpolish. Maybe I’m just lucky.

If there is an argument in this thread it might be that sometimes
just blindly accepting what one has been taught may not necessarily
be the best route. If something isn’t working to your best advantage,
why the heck not try something different? If you’re dissatisfied with
sanding, why on Earth would you keep doing it? Because someone said
so?

I call this ‘The Class Of Nineteenfortysevenism’. Long story short,
if it was right in 1947 why should we believe its still right NOW?

Ciao and have fun trying these suggestions out… if you do.

If you have a lower standard, where the customer can see
imperfections, then surely you are selling them short, and maybe
yourself too. 

well I’m just gonna let that one go because I’m not insecure about
it and maybe you didn’t mean it the way it sounds.

Tools don’t make jewelry, people do…

BK in AK