The casting not hand made discussion

Jewelry Discussion
21

Despite my fried brain, I do agree with Daniel and Jim. The people
who buy my work directly from me seem fascinated by the fact that
I’ve coiled the wire myself–especially when its 26 on 24, then
coiled into a bead. But even the simplest things I make excite
people. I think it’s because they see, even in my simple pieces,
evidence of what the young Marx called “sensuous human
activity”–freely and purposefully changing the material of the
world to meet human needs, including the need for beauty and
adornment.

One woman gave me a lecture about how she doesn’t want to buy stuff
made in sweatshops or factories, but wants to support American
craftspeople. Then she bought $378 worth of Christmas presents (for
next year!). May her tribe increase! But then there’s the dress shop
owner who wants to know if I can make an low-end line by using coils
from Reactive Metals, because she couldn’t sell my “handmade” stuff.
So, it’s not simple (and I probably will try to make the line–with
"value added"!).

However, if this is really a “conservative” list (as “starving
artist” claims), I won’t keep harping on why it isn’t simple. I’ll
just keep praying that someday it all becomes transparent, within a
free association of producers.

Lisa Orlando
Aphrodite’s Ornaments
Benicia, CA

22

This seems like a terribly short sighted and shallow view of a
process that can be used in a variety of ways and with a variety of
aims.

Certainly casting is a method of efficient reproduction.

It is also a step in a process of producing a one of a kind piece.

But it is also a strategy for producing elements that could only be
produced by casting: organics (bugs, twigs), dripped bits of wax ( a
la the 50’s and 60’s), impressions (like the cuff links personalized
w/ the client’s fingerprint impressed into the soft wax master),
shattered bits of carving wax, etc.

There is truth in what you say: Casting can be a way to
inexpensively generate work that would be economically prohibitive to
produce by hand. But your statement seems to discount–if not
disregard and dismiss-- a whole jewelry movement that utilizes
casting as a creative or conceptual tool rather than a simple
business solution.

Andy Cooperman

23

Just when I think this thread might go away, there seems to be yet
another twist. Why do we need to ‘prefer’ one over the other in the
sense of one (casting or fabrication) being inherently better than
the other. Shouldn’t we prefer them according to their suitability
to the project? Even within my production lines of cast
reproductions of my own original pieces, I sometimes carve a wax,
sometimes fabricate in metal. Some designs are better suited to one
form, some to the other. I’m afraid I just can’t bring myself to
look down my nose at one method or the other. Suitability to purpose
is a key element. Jim

24

Robb, in response to the new question,

Why does it have to be either or? Sure, a piece should be able to
communicate the concept, content or intent behind it without some
sort of supportive statement. This is strong, confident work. But
such a statement can, to paraphrase you, add to the experience of the
viewer or wearer. The best work is multidimensional: various ideas
unfolding over its lifetime. (So there may be no specific
"narrative".) Like poetry, I believe, such work provides signposts
(in this case visual) along the way, pointing out a path or direction
but loose enough in construction or narrative to leave room for the
audience to bring their own and experience to the piece.

If we are talking about narrative work, as opposed to strictly
formal,then the worst work is that which is too specific, a one line
joke that offers no compelling reason–visual or metaphoric-- to
return. Once you get this specific content, concept or narrative,
that’s it. To paraphrase you again, I think that you are right: The
biggest sin to commit in producing something is too not trust your
audience. Most people get the joke, they don’t need to be told when
to laugh.

Sorry for the ramble, Andy

25

What is the purpose of the FTC guidelines? It was written to define
what can be called hand made. The definition is intended to prevent
items that are fabricated with purchased, non-handmade pieces from
being called hand made. A piece that is created from purchased,
fabricated parts can not be called hand made. Does the use of a
purchased gem setting on an otherwise totally hand created piece
prevent that piece from being called hand made? If so most of us
who make gem set pieces of art can not call our work hand made. The
guideline does not say some pieces of the final creation may be
purchased or machine made.

I don’t see how a piece in which all the assembly is hand made from
scratch, whether from metal or wax, can not be called hand made. The
use of the torch to solder pieces together is no different than the
casting process used to create a one of a kind piece. Both processes
are used to create the final piece of art. They are both created from
raw material.

My Two cents worth of opinion ... Casting is not a tool, it's a
method of reproduction, for reduced cost. Maybe art, but not
original. Hammers and torches do not "mass produce thousands of
pieces that look exactly the same", casting does.

Rubber molds can be made from both fabricated and cast originals. If
a mold is made from the original piece does that mean the original
piece is not han d made? I think not. A piece made from a rubber
mold is not hand made. It i s a production piece.

I think I will continue to call my one of a kind cast pieces “hand
made.” I will tell my customers if a piece is created from a mold
made from an origin al hand made item.

To me the term “hand fabricated” indicates that all of the piece is
not created by the artist. It also indicated that the piece may be
made in a pro duction shop. That is why I do not feel that the use of
hand fabricated for my one of a kind pieces is an accurate statement.

This thread may never die until all Ganoksin participants have their
say, and when we are all done there will still be not clear cut
definition. The only final interpretation of the FTC guideline will
come from a court finding. Thats my 2 cents worth and at that it is
over charged, Lee Epperson

26 
    What is the purpose of the FTC guidelines?  It was written to
define what can be called hand made.

Yes this is the intent.

The definition is intended to prevent items that are fabricated
with purchased, non-handmade pieces from being called hand made.

No I think your bias is showing a little here. It is intended to
prevent factory or massed produced items from being passed off as
hand made.

 A piece that is created from purchased, fabricated parts can not
be called hand made.  Does the use of a purchased gem setting on an
otherwise totally hand created piece prevent that piece from being
called hand made?

Yes I believe this its the case if any part of the piece is cast or
die struck then it cannot qualify as hand made in the strict
interpretation.

 If so most of us who make gem set pieces of art can not call our
work hand made.  The guideline does not say some pieces of the
final creation may be purchased or machine made.

If you use manufactured findings or settings yes this is true.

   I don't see how a piece in which all the assembly is hand made
from scratch, whether from metal or wax, can not be called hand
made.  The use of the torch to solder pieces together is no
different than the casting process used to create a one of a kind
piece. Both processes are used to create the final piece of art.
They are both created from raw material.

This is like saying that there is no difference between a hand
raised vessel and a die struck vessel. They both started out as a
sheet metal blank, right? I seriously doubt that you would call a
die struck vessel hand made even though it took a very skilled
operator to make it.

        I think I will continue to call my one of a kind cast
pieces "hand made."  I will tell my customers if a piece is created
from a mold made from an origin al hand made item. To me the term
"hand fabricated" indicates that all of the piece is not created by
the artist. It also indicated that the piece may be made in a pro
duction shop.  That is why I do not feel that the use of hand
fabricated for my one of a kind pieces is an accurate statement.

This is where a term like sole authorship fits in it allows you to
claim the complete work as your own without getting into this very
very hard to define hand made business. I am not sure i like the
sound of sole authorship as a descriptive phrase for jewelry butit
does have the right meaning.

Jim

27

Lee and William, You are both insisting that this section does not
exclude casting. However it makes no mention of casting grain it
says sheet, wire, strip. It is referring to mill products not shot
or grain. The act of casting does not fit the definition of “hand
labor and manually controlled methods that permit the maker to
control and vary the construction shape, design and finish…” You
can not apply this to the act of casting. You can to the carving but
if you try to “vary the shape design or finish” while casting you
will get a failed casting. Again I repeat casting is a reproduction
process even if only done once it is still a reproduction of the
original wax carving. You cannot get around this just because you
don’t feel like it should apply to what you do.

But whether your work can meet the FTC definition of hand made is
really irrelevant. It is a political tool to try to protect a class
of work that really does not exist anymore (or if they still exist
it is a vanishingly small number) in the US. I believe it was meant
to protect the old world style goldsmiths who made everything from
scratch using metal that they alloyed themselves. It has been
suggested that it might also be aimed at the Southwest Native
American jewelry makers (I know they cast many of their items but
that does not mean the folks who wrote the regulations were aware of
that, but that is nothing new)

Two truly important questions are is it well made, is it quality
workmanship? The definition of hand made is a red herring. If you
come down to its most basic aspects and try for a rigorous technical
definition there is almost nothing that qualifies as hand made. If
you stick to the legal definition then there is a huge amount of
junk that is made in sweat shops and cottages in the third world
that nicely fits the FTC definition but is pure dreck. Somehow the
idea that if something is "hand made " it is some how better has
been accepted by a certain part of our society but this idea is not
looked at with a rigorous eye because all one has to is look at the
often inferior quality imported “hand made " jewelry that floods the
lower end of the market place to be disabused of the superiority of
"hand made” work. I think that this idea elevating the hand made
comes from a misunderstanding of the philosophy of William Morris
and the Arts and Crafts movement and also part of it is based on
early mass production where the quality of mass produced items were
not as good as what a skilled craftsman could produce. Now days
this is not the case. there are few if any craftsman that can work
to the same level of quality that is easily achieved in mass
production. As an example look at your computer. I doubt you can
find many craftsman that can achieve the quality of line and surface
finish as is represented in this very common mass produced item. But
does it have any soul, or any human feeling, is it a work of art or
of sole authorship, certainly not. It is these qualities imbued in a
piece by an artisan that is what many of us are interested in making
and it is what many of our clients want to buy. And few if any will
really care if it was cast or fabricated. If we need a name for it
how about artisan made?

Jim

28 
     Note to paragraph (a): As used herein, "raw materials"
include bulk sheet, strip, wire, and similar items that have not
been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished
parts, or blanks.

I think one POSSIBLE problem would be if the wax model (or burnt-out
flask cavity) is considered a ‘blank’. But then, I could buy discs
or use my own disc cutter - is this less handmade than using my saw
to cut a disc?

     (b) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by
implication, that any industry product is hand-forged,
hand-engraved, hand-finished, or hand-polished, or has been
otherwise hand-processed, unless the operation described was
accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which
permit the maker to control and vary the type, amount, and effect
of such operation on each part of each individual product."

During the actual casting of the molten metal into the flask
cavity(‘blank’?) how can the maker “control and vary the type,
amount, and effect of such operation on each part of each individual
product.” ?

     Of cousnip This leads to a jungle of complexities
which are simply impossible to deal with.

Agreed And Will, no one is denying the artistic talent and expertise
you or another ‘wax worker’ puts into a design. But, (and I may not
agree) ONE interpretation could be you are making a ‘blank’ for a
susbsequent step which you OR SOMEONE ELSE could use to
‘manufacture’ a piece of jewelry in a way that offers little chance
for variation from the design of the ‘blank’. This is also not meant
to detract from the extreme tediousness of good casting. It is a
process that is intolerant of the type of ‘on the fly’ alterations a
‘fabrication-type’ jeweler ‘could’ introduce into a piece. But then,
what happens to his piece when he sets a stone HE did not cut? Or if
I mount a stone I cut into a piece you designed and cast? Handmade
by 2 different people? Suppose you sprue up a dead cricket to cast.
Is the cricket a ‘blank’?

Perhaps - instead of letting bureaucrats decide, the Jewelers
Vigilance or (maybe we) should develop our own definition.

Carl
1 Lucky Texan

29 
    The act of casting does not fit the definition of "hand labor
and manually controlled methods that permit the maker to control
and vary the construction shape, design and finish..."  You can not
apply this to the act of casting. You can to the carving but if you
try to "vary the shape design or finish" while casting you will get
a failed casting.  Again I repeat casting is a reproduction process
even if only done once it is still a reproduction of the original
wax carving.

Jim, with all due respect, I have to differ with you.

  1. Casting is a requiremant for ALL items to be manufactured. Before
    I start to roll out sheet or draw wire, I will cast an ingot. This
    ingot may be any shape at all. Do you mean to suggest that because I
    alloy my own metal and move on to an ingot that what I might be
    making can not be described as handmade? How would you produce
    anything without an ingot? I bet you use a metal mold that reproduces
    that ingot as well.

  2. Casting is not necessarily a reproduction process. I very rarely
    reproduce anything that I cast. If you want to split hairs, when
    using a wax model to build a unique item, casting provides the means
    to convert a wax form to a metal form. The term reproduction is
    defined in the American Heritage Dictionary “Something reproduced,
    especially in the faithfulness of its resemblance to the form and
    elements of the original: a fine reproduction of a painting by
    Matisse.” Do you really think that a forger would burn the Matisse
    when he was done with his copying? Well, that is what happens to the
    wax model in virtually all of my castings. I destroy the original
    work to transform the form into metal. Furthermore. The work is not
    nearly done at this point in most instances as often I will work
    harden the shank on the bench, further shape the item and do any
    required engraving or carving and setting to bring to work to a
    finished state.

I do a lot of fabrication as well as casting. Of late I have been
getting some experience with rapid prototyping. I don’t really care to
call my work “handmade” and haven’t stamped any of it such since high
school. I refer to most of the things that I do as “unique” or
“custom”.

You are absolutely right to point out that “handmade” can also mean
drek. I have done a little of that myself in a pinch. Not something
to be proud of, just happens to be part of the process of doing my
best to make people happy. Do they want it right or right now?

I have to disagree with the idea that mass production is somehow the
key to quality. I see a lot of mass produced drek in most of the mall
stores. Especially the department stores. A close friend has made
plenty of reference to “jewelry for the blind”.

    As an example look at your computer. I doubt you can find many
craftsman that can achieve the quality of line and surface finish
as is represented in this very common mass produced item. But does
it have any soul, or any human feeling, is it a work of art or of
sole authorship, certainly not.

Call me simple. I have no trouble at all marveling at the creative
work of industrial designers. They go nameless, yet I see thousands
and thousands of works of commercial art every day that affects me in
ways that I’ll probably never know. I find it pretty humbling.

    It is these qualities imbued in a piece by an artisan that is
what many of us are interested in making and it is what many of our
clients want to buy. And few if any will really care if it was cast
or fabricated. If we need a name for it how about artisan made?

You got that right! To the best of my knowledge, most of my clients
don’t care how it was made. They just want it to look right, feel
right and to outlive it’s warantee, and “artisan made” sounds good to
me.

Bruce

30

Jim, I agree with so much that you write about the importance of the
qualit y of work and about handmade being an antiquated concept in the
world we live in. But I still differ with you on the interpretation
of the FTC text. First, you say that the section (23) excludes
casting because it makes no mention of casting grain. It refers to
mill products, but not to shot. But, in fact, the paragraph deals
with raw materials which include bulk, sheet, strip, wire and similar
items as long as these items have not been cut, shaped, or formed
into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks. Whil e shot is not
mentioned, I (not being a lawyer) feel that the text is written in
such a way as not to exclude things which are not explicitly
mentioned (i.e. include, similar items). Furthermore, casting grain
is not something which has been cut, shaped or formed into jewelry
parts, etc. So, I think that we have two readings here, which are
both possible (and I stil l find mine more possible). Second, you say
that the act of casting does not fit the definition of “han d labor
and manually controlled methods that permit the maker to control and
vary the construction shape, design and finish…” You agree that it
can apply to the carving, so letB9s talk about the casting. I donB9t
have to explain anything about this to you, as you know much more
about it than I do. However, after carving (say) a ring, I sprue it.
I use a waxpen, but I consider this a tool, which is basically in the
same league as, say, a hammer or a torch. I make the investment and
burn the thing out. I control the oven manually. It is not
computerized. ItB9s me, the human, who controls the temperature.
After that, I melt the metal with the torch. It is me who is looking
and evaluating the process of melting the metal. It is my hand who
reaches for the knob, I decide when to add a bit of deoxidizer and,
at the precise moment I see fit, I let the centrifuge spin. I quench
the flask when I decide that the time is ripe. Why do I use the
centrifuge? Because I am not strong enough to generate this spinning
power all by myself, just as I not able to generate enough heat all
by myself to solder something together. WhatB9s the difference? I
completely fail to understand why this whole process could not be
called manually controlled. If anything, it is exactly manually
controlled: I control it, with my hands. Third, you say that You can
do the carving but if you try to "vary the shape design or finish"
while casting you will get a failed casting. With all respect, I
think that this is a misreading. Note that this paragraph (b ) deals
with objects which have been hand-engraved, hand-finished, or
hand-polished, or "been otherwise hand-processed (my emphasis) and
with manually controlled methods. For the rest, it is not necessary
for exampl e to vary the size of the piece at each step of the
fabrication process. This is impossible anyway. When you are
soldering a bezel to a ring, you are not polishing it in the
meantime. It suffices that the maker manually controls each result of
each operation on each part of each individual product. Fourth, you
say that Again I repeat casting is a reproduction process even if
only done once it is still a reproduction of the original wax
carving. IB9m sure that many people see it like this, but it isnB9t
precise at all and therefore not accurate. For if I would reproduce a
wax model, my result would be another wax model and I would have a
copy of an original like a photocopy machine. I am sorry to repeat
myself, but since you are doing it too: the result of a casting is
not a reproduction and the wax model is not the original. I used the
analogy of the photocopy machine to illustrate my point. Casting does
not reproduce an original, since the original - which would even be
useless if casting would be impossible - becomes completely
transformed during the reproduction. You reproduce the form of the
model, but you transform the medium by doing this and the result is
something of a n altogther other nature than the original wax model,
which doesnB9t even exis t anymore. So, did I make a copy? No, I used
a technique which enables me to make something in a material which
can be more easily worked upon than meta l and then I destroyed it
while transforming it into metal. For this reason, a wax model nor
the burned out flask cannot be called a blank either. If I reproduce
something, the result is the same as the original. A reproduction of
a text is another text. A reproduction of a painting is another
painting , otherwise it is a print. Casting, on the other hand, has
been done for thousands of years, by people whithout any notion of
modern technology whatsoever. And suddenly we couldnB9t call it
handmade anymore? Fifth, you say that whether your work can meet the
FTC definition of hand made is really irrelevant. It is a political
tool to try to protect a class of work that really does not exist
anymore (or if they still exist it is a vanishingly small number) in
the US. I agree with your second sentence and , for this reason, I
disagree with the first one. Some people are marketing their work as
being handmade, and while some are honest about it, some are not and
I think that this is a problem. Sixth, I totally agree with your
answer to your two important questions. Also, I do not see why a
piece could not be handmade by several people. Whe n I make a ring and
someone sets a stone and still someone else cleans and polishes the
ring, why would the result not be handmade if all steps of the
process were manually controlled? But suppose I want to cast a dead
cricket … I do not think that one could call the result handmade.
Thank you for reading. Best, Will

31

I have finally been drawn into this endless discussion of terms that
are obviously definable in as many ways as there are people. The FTC
definition is of course definable by how good your lawyer is and his
ability to convince the judge or jury. So perhaps we should start to
look for new terms that are less ambiguous to define and
differentiate our merchandise from the mass produced, imported
items.

  1. Made in the USA ( no problems with this definition)

  2. Made using traditional techniques ( That leaves the door open for
    a lot of ways to make things)

  3. Numbered editions. ( helps to develop a non production image)

These seem like usable descriptions that help develop product
differentiation and that is after all what this discussion
eventually boils down to. Any one else got any interesting
descriptive labels that can be used??? This is my 2 cents. Frank Goss

32

In a nutshell, if you cast (that nasty process where everything
begins) a block of sterling, then carve that block, as you would a
wax – using the basically the same hand tools, it is considered
"handmade," … but running the original wax carving through a
mold/casting process takes it out of the realm of “handmade.” (Just
don’t get caught using your milling machine on that block of
material :slight_smile:

Wanna really get technical? Do these FTC guidelines take into
consideration modern tools? If you use a power assisting tool such
as a Foredom, or a common polishing machine, does that not take the
piece out of the realm of truly “handmade”? If not, where do you
break the definition? Shouldn’t you be rubbing the metal with found
implements made of stone, or using animal skins impregnated with
tallow and fine sand to get your polish?

Can you use a screw press or an arbor press to punch a disk (powered
by your arm & augmented by leverage), or must you punch the disc
with a hammer? To my eye, and even under a microscope, the results
of all three look the same. Could you say any of these methods are
within the FTC definition? If not, why not? Then there are "hand"
plier punches too – and if you have the strength in your hands …
where does it end? How will you know? Certainly not by looking.
You’ll have to take the craftman’s word for how he did it – or go
watch it being done. Or maybe you are only allowed to use a sawblade
to make those disks – even though that sawframe and the blades you
put in them are mass produced by the thousands/millions…

Drilling a hole with a Foredom? Using a drill press with a vise to
hold the piece? Or drilling the same piece in a milling machine? Is
there a difference in how you create the hole? Again, how will you
know? Must you prove you used an Archimedes drill or an awl?

Say you have completely handmade (fabricated) a dozen pieces … and
then you dump them into a “mass finishing” device - a tumbler or pin
finisher. Have you now violated the “handmade” rules?

Seems to me that the FTC definition needs to specify the tools &
techniques “allowed” to produce the “handmade” product … and even
then there will be some people who cannot be stuffed into a
category. I personally know of several people who are handicapped
in one way or another and must use various devices/machines to
accomplish what the rest of us take for granted. One has no hands
… do you want to be the one who tells him his work isn’t good
enough to qualify because he had to use a tool or technique that the
rest of us don’t need?

Can anyone in this group give me some actual court cases that might
apply to real life - wherein the FTC (or anyone else for that
matter) litigated over whether an item of jewelry was “handmade”? In
30+ years at the bench, I’ve never seen or heard of the FTC entering
a single store, workshop, or factory to check on how a piece of
jewelry is being produced, hallmarked, karat stamped, or labeled.
Have you?

Brian Marshall

33

I don’t know of any cases involving hallmark, or production
questions but I was privey to some about a karat
stamping case. It seems that a local jewelry manufacturer was under
karating his goods. He was casting 13kt and marking it 14kt . The
feds came to his place of business with a warrant and seized all of
his finished goods. They then took the case to court and three years
later ( here is where I got involved as a bystander) after he was
found guilty the feds brought all of his merchandise to a local
refiner and had it melted and assayed as a lot. It assayed at 13kt.
The federal agent asked the jeweler ,who was present, if that was
correct and he answered that it was. The agent then commented that
it was the first time since the beginning of the case that the guy
had admitted to under karating. The final out come was the feds took
a check for 50% of the value of the gold and gave the manufactuer a
check for the other 50%. Quite a bite. The jeweler lost 50% of his
gold and all of his labor to manufacture the under karated goods.
Was it worth the money he made under karating his goods? I don’t
think so. I use the term feds and federal agents because I am not
quite sure which branch of the government they were with. Frank Goss

34 
        1) Casting is a requiremant for ALL items to be
manufactured. Before I start to roll out sheet or draw wire, I will
cast an ingot. This ingot may be any shape at all. Do you mean to
suggest that because I alloy my own metal and move on to an ingot
that what I might be making can not be described as handmade? How
would you produce anything without an ingot? I bet you use a metal
mold that reproduces that ingot as well.

This is the problem with these definitions that the FTC uses because
you are right all metal we work with starts out as a cast ingot.
However I was referring to the casting of jewelry or findings not
ingots in my post.

    2) Casting is not necessarily a reproduction process. I very
rarely reproduce anything that I cast. If you want to split hairs,
when using a wax model to build a unique item, casting provides the
means to convert a wax form to a metal form. The term reproduction
is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary "Something
reproduced, especially in the faithfulness of its resemblance to
the form and elements of the original: a fine reproduction of a
painting by Matisse." Do you really think that a forger would burn
the Matisse when he was done with his copying? Well, that is what
happens to the wax model in virtually all of my castings. I destroy
the original work to transform the form into metal. Furthermore.
The work is not nearly done at  this point in most instances as
often I will work harden the shank on the bench, further shape the
item and do any required engraving or carving and setting to bring
to work to a finished state.

Well if you want to use the dictionary then Miriam Webster provides
the following synonyms for reproduction: REPRODUCTION ,DUPLICATE
,COPY ,FACSIMILE ,REPLICA mean a thing made to closely resemble
another. REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation of an
existing thing < reproductions from the museum’s furniture
collection>. DUPLICATE implies a double or counterpart exactly
corresponding to another thing . COPY
applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced
mechanically .
FACSIMILE suggests a close reproduction often of graphic matter that
may differ in scale . REPLICA implies
the exact reproduction of a particular item in all details but not always in the same scale
.

I am not in any way trying to denigrate the act of casting here. I
am merely pointing out that In the strict interpretation that a
casting is a reproduction. There is no discernible difference
between one copy and the next in a casting. Once the master is
carved one or thousands can be made via a simple repetitive process
that does not require the original artisans skilled hands to make it
(it does require a skilled caster but that is not the same set of
skills that are required to carve the original). Whereas with a
fabrication you need the same skill level for every item every time
and each piece will vary from the next because humans are not nearly
as precise as molds when it comes to copying.

I started out in jewelry making learning lost wax casting in High
School. I have done many castings of both my own work and tens of
thousands of pieces as a production caster. I know that the best
quality cast work still requires lots of additional hand work to
turn the raw casting into a piece of fine jewelry and that the cheap
stuff is hardly touched by human hands before being shipped out the
door.

    I do a lot of fabrication as well as casting. Of late I have
been getting some experience with rapid prototyping. I don't really
care to call my work "handmade" and haven't stamped any of it such
since high school. I refer to most of the things that I do as
"unique" or "custom".

I think this is really the heart of the matter we have been
discussing, how to separate the quality artisan produced work from
the mass manufactured or the “hand-made” imports. I think that was
the intent of the FTC regulation. The problem comes in in trying to
make a definition for this . If you try specify by techniques then
you are always going to get into this problem that we have been
going on about here. There are many artisans that produce high
quality work of an original nature that use industrial techniques.
For example your work with CAD/CAM or rapid prototyping. That
certainly is not “hand-made” but it can certainly be high quality ,
original, one-of-a-kind work. Is it of any less value or meaning if
it was designed on a computer and produced on a 3D printer and then
cast? I don’t think so but it certainly cannot be considered hand
made.

    I have to disagree with the idea that mass production is
somehow the key to quality. I see a lot of mass produced drek in
most of the mall stores. Especially the department stores. A close
friend has made plenty of reference to "jewelry for the blind".

My point is not that mass produced work is of a high aesthetic
quality but that the “workmanship”( this is the wrong word but I
cannot quite come up with one that says what I want here) of most
mass market consumer items is very good. Not that there are not
design problems or other issues with it but when you take it out of
the box and look at the surface quality, fit and finish it is more
often than not very good. Now I am not saying this is the case with
all mass produced items but for the majority this is true. There is
always stuff out there that is crap because it is being made to be
cheap but early on in the beginning of mass production most mass
produced items were not as good as one made by an artisan and that
is where some of the attitudes we have about mass produced items
come from.

Jim
35 
I control the oven manually. It is not computerized. ItB9s me, the
human, who controls the temperature. After that, I melt the metal
with the torch. It is me who is looking and evaluating the process
of melting the metal. It is my hand who reaches for the knob, I
decide when to add a bit of deoxidizer and, at the precise moment I
see fit, I let the centrifuge spin. I quench the flask when I
decide that the time is ripe. Why do I use the centrifuge? Because
I am not strong enough to generate this spinning power all by
myself, just as I not able to generate enough heat all by myself to
solder something together. WhatB9s the difference?

I suppose the difference is none of the above alters the ‘design’ of
the wax ‘blank’(or investment cavity).

  Fourth, you say that Again I repeat casting is a reproduction
process even if only done once it is still a reproduction of the
original wax carving. IB9m sure that many people see it like this,
but it isnB9t precise at all and therefore not accurate. For if I
would reproduce a wax model, my result would be another wax model
and I would have a copy of an original like a photocopy machine. I
am sorry to repeat myself, but since you are doing it too: the
result of a casting is not a reproduction and the wax model is not
the original. I used the analogy of the photocopy machine to
illustrate my point. Casting does not reproduce an original, since
the original - which would even be useless if casting would be
impossible - becomes completely transformed during the
reproduction. You reproduce the form of the model, but you
transform the medium by doing this and the result is something of a
n altogther other nature than the original wax model, which
doesnB9t even exis t anymore. So, did I make a copy? No, I used a
technique which enables me to make something in a material which
can be more easily worked upon than meta l and then I destroyed it
while transforming it into metal. For this reason, a wax model nor
the burned out flask cannot be called a blank either. If I
reproduce something, the result is the same as the original. A
reproduction of a text is another text. A reproduction of a
painting is another painting , otherwise it is a print. Casting, on
the other hand, has been done for thousands of years, by people
whithout any notion of modern technology whatsoever. And suddenly
we couldnB9t call it handmade anymore?

While I understand what you have written here, I think (perhaps
wrongly) you have subtly changed the subject. It seems your defense
of casting as a process yielding ‘handmade’ objects here relies on
the fact that the MATERIAL has changed therefore the ‘reproduction’
is false and THEREFORE the object is handmade. Yet much in modern
life nowadays began in CAD/CAM software and only existed as 1-2-3
types of file data before it was sent to a milling machine to make a
die for plastic injection. It is never ‘reproduced’ but that does
not make it ‘handmade’.

  Fifth, you say that whether your work can meet the FTC definition
of hand made is really irrelevant. It is a political tool to try to
protect a class of work that really does not exist anymore (or if
they still exist it is a vanishingly small number) in the US. I
agree with your second sentence and , for this reason, I disagree
with the first one. Some people are marketing their work as being
handmade, and while some are honest about it, some are not and I
think that this is a problem.

It’s difficult to know what is honest here as the public’s
expectations may not even be close to the FTC or us.

  Sixth, I totally agree with your answer to your two important
questions. Also, I do not see why a piece could not be handmade by
several people. Whe n I make a ring and someone sets a stone and
still someone else cleans and polishes the ring, why would the
result not be handmade if all steps of the process were manually
controlled?

I guess purchasing blanks would be OK if someone else sawed them
out? I suppose there is a subtle difference in leading a customer to
believe an object was handmade completely by the artist versus ‘made
by hand’.

  But suppose I want to cast a dead cricket ... I do not think that
one could call the result handmade.

While I threw this in as another fun quandary, your reply does
illustrate how important maintaining the ‘originality of design’ is
in this argument. I say FTC be damned! Let’s work this out
ourselves!

Carl
1 Lucky Texan

36 
  Do these FTC guidelines take into consideration

Brian, I believe your post does a fine job of illustrating why WE
(actually you more experienced metalsmiths-not me) should be forming
this definition (if we really need one - a different discussion) in
place of the FTC. What are a customer’s expectations when they are
told something is ‘handmade’. And how much/what type of deviation
from that would constitute fraud?

Carl
1 Lucky Texan

37

Allow me to say that this is becoming ridiculous and is making no
sense. What I see here is, in my view, not a discussion anymore, but
a regression of it. This is my last contribution to this thread.

“You are right all metal we work with starts out as a cast ingot.
However I was referring to the casting of jewelry or findings not
ingots in my post.” (Jim Binnion).

Well, this is a nice one. So if you cast sheet and wire, etc. -
ingots - and then you fabricate jewelry from it, it is handmade, but
if you cast as much as a finding your piece is not handmade. Note,
however - and this is important - that there is no basis for this
interpretation in the text that you have cited and that you
introduced to this discussion - I asked you before to point to one
sentence, one part of a sentence or to one word which supports this
reading in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 23. I am still waiting.

“Well if you want to use the dictionary then Miriam Webster provides
the following synonyms for reproduction: REPRODUCTION ,DUPLICATE
,COPY, FACSIMILE ,REPLICA …”

Well, if Miriam Webster does indeed see these words as synonyms for
reproduction then this dictionary is even worse than the text of the
FTC which started this. For, please, can I ask to think for yourself?
If casting reproduces something, what exactly does it reproduce? The
wax model, you say. But the final result is in metal and the wax
model is gone. Are these differences irrelevant or are they
essential? They seem essential to me, and to Webster too, since, to
her, reproduction results in an imitation of an existing thing (not
that this is precise language, I assume that she means that the
original continues to exist after a reproduction of it is being made,
the same cannot be said of casting). If casting duplicates, what
does it duplicate? Do you end up having two wax models? I really
begin to suspect bad will here. It is obvious that the object of mold
making is to duplicate an object. This was never a point in the
discussion. No molds can be considered to be handmade. The words
’individual piece’ exclude all molds.

If you really intend to split hairs, you could make your case much
stronger if you would be able to give an example of a reproduction
outside the sphere of jewelry making in which an object gets
fundamentally transformed in its nature while being ‘reproduced’. For
then you could reason while using analogies. However, I was not able
to find one. The reason for this is that reproduction does not deal
with the phenomena we are talking about. For example, a synonym of to
reproduce is to procreate. The ‘reproduction’ of two dogs is another
dog. The reproduction of a text is another text. The reproduction of
a wax model is a wax model. Casting, per definition, means
transforming the wax model (and destroying it). People do not cast
in order to reproduce a wax model. It is simply not the same.

‘I am merely pointing out that In the strict interpretation that a
casting is a reproduction. There is no discernible difference between
one copy and the next in a casting.’

I - and others - are merely pointing out that this 'strict’
interpretation is, in fact, your personal prejudice since there is no
way to prove black on white that the text excludes casting. We have
been dealing with ‘manually controlled’ and other parts of the text
before, making the point that they all can be read in a way which
includes casting. However, you do not discuss this interpretation,
you only disregard it. The point that you make in your second
sentence is incorrect: it is not true that there is no discernible
difference between one copy and the next in a casting because
casting does not create copies. If you want a copy, you will have to
make a mold first, which is the act of duplication of a piece and
then, indeed, on the basis of this mold, you can create thousands
of identical wax models which the process of casting will materialize
in metal. Casting does not create any copies by itself. It realizes
the piece in metal. Furthermore, it is also impossible to discern
differences between fabricated pieces if the maker knows his job and
if s/he has the intention to produce identical pieces. Even I can do
it, so it certainly is not too difficult. And finally, and this not
merely a matter of taste, I do not like the term artisan for jewelry.
It doesn’t fit in. In Belgium are big breweries which produce their
beer ‘industrially’, while other people (often family businesses) are
making artisanal beers. Some people also make artisanal clothes. The
word artisanal denotes objects or products being made with an eye to
tradition - in the old ‘authentic’ style - outside the main
economical processes in which the politics of scale are dominant.
But for jewelry, I find it confusing. If I make something with my
hands (including ‘manually controlled’ operations), it is handmade,
nothing less, nothing more. I do not agree that there can be an
infinite multitude of views on this. I think that Lee Einer gave a
pretty accurate definition of handmade, but the problem is that those
who do not agree with it ignore it. I don’t know exactly why I am
quoting this now - let’s call it association - but one of my favorite
quotes comes from Albert Einstein: ‘Don’t quote, just tell me what
you know’. Will

38

Jim,

    Well if you want to use the dictionary then Miriam Webster
provides the following synonyms for reproduction: REPRODUCTION
,DUPLICATE ,COPY ,FACSIMILE ,REPLICA mean a thing made to closely
resemble another. REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation
of an existing thing

Again. This definition calls for an “existing thing” and not a
burned away wax model.

    DUPLICATE implies a double or counterpart exactly corresponding
to another thing  a duplicate of a house key.

Another existing thing.

    COPY applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced
mechanically  printed a thousand copies of the lithograph.

This time we are talking about multiples. I am suggesting a single,
unique item.

    FACSIMILE suggests a close reproduction often of graphic
matter that may differ in scale  a facsimile of a rare book.

Which brings on another point. Can a reproduction, duplicate, copy,
facsimile or replica not be made by hand? I am going to duplicale an
earing between today and tomorrow. The original is a mass produced
item that I am uncomfortable with casting as it will be almost as
easy to mill, saw out drill and shape as to cast. Can I not call this
reproduction “handmade”?

    REPLICA implies the exact reproduction of a particular item in
all details  a replica of the Mayflower but not always in the same
scale miniature replicas of classic cars

And finally, doesn’t “in all details” include a difference in
materials? Wax/gold?.

Bruce

39 
Can anyone in this group give me some actual court cases that
might apply to real life - wherein the FTC (or anyone else for that
matter) litigated over whether an item of jewelry was "handmade"?

Can’t say that I have heard of any cases either in the last 30
years.

Daniel R. Spirer, GG
Spirer Somes Jewelers

40

I think you have stated what I believe to be the root of the entire
proble. Law makers establishing definition of something about which
they know little or nothing at all. I don’t think they ever even
bothered to ask us, but then they never do. Frank Goss