The look of hand made

Jewelry Discussion
41 
If am setting a customers gem and I scratch it, I will inform them
that it is an aesthetic tool mark and if they make an issue of it
I will let them know that they are an aesthetic bigot.

Seriously Richard? You get away with this? Accidental damage may not
always be avoidable, but it’s still damage… Protect yourself by
informing the customer before hand, the degree to which you accept
responsibility for such damage. Then, if something happens, do your
best to fix it within the responsibility you’ve accepted, and at
least apologize for damage you can’t fix and/or couldn’t avoid…

Peter

42 
Have I missed something here? I think that that the poster used
the term without any malice intended.

In these days, when using such emotionally charged words as “bigot”
and “intolerance”, it is difficult if not impossible to do so
without conveying malice, even when that is not the intent. Those two
words are generally not accompanied by a warm, friendly smile, if you
take my meaning.

That said, I’m not sure I agree that having the opinion that poorly
made jewelry that is either not finished or has haphazardly applied
finishes is unattractive actually makes someone a bigot, aesthetic
or otherwise. I also don’t think that having and stating such an
opinion makes one intolerant. It’s my observation that more and more
lately, such words are usually used to disarm and shut up someone
with whom we disagree; a tactic which has proven in modern politics
to be quite effective. I mean who wants to think of themselves (or
worse, risk that others may consider them) as an intolerant bigot,
even if it is only about the aesthetics of jewelry? The charge of
being called a bigot or intolerant is somewhat indefensible, it has
become kind of a modern version of “when did you stop beating your
wife?” People that use those terms usually know exactly the position
they are putting their opponent in, and do so on purpose, either to
deflect attention from the issue at hand or otherwise put their
opponent on the defensive. Pretty much a cheap shot if you ask me.

I make a wedding band that is a bare bones flat 7mm save for a
very prominent weld bead at the top. Am I wrong for not faring down
the bead? It takes a lot more time to get the weld bead that I want
and that works with the ring. It is most definitely an aesthetic
decision.

My guess Andy, is that were you to make such a ring, your attention
to detail would show. After all, a plain, bare-bones band shows any
fault in craftsmanship quite plainly. I would also venture to guess
that you would completely finish such a ring before applying the
bead, making it obvious that it was intended to be placed there,
probably with the intent of using the grimy, industrial feel of the
weld bead as a counterpoint to a nearly perfect, finely finished
band.

That is quite different from some of the work that I have seen
recently and that is getting a lot of press these days. Much of that
class of jewelry is just plain poorly made, with uneven, unlevel
stone setting, gappy, irregular bezels, plier, file and hammer marks,
lumpy, pitted and obvious solder joints and other forms of poor
craftsmanship, all finished up with an equally unprofessional and
unimaginative finish, then marketed as the newest, freshest most
beautiful examples of modern high-craftsmanship, exhibiting exquisite
hand-wrought detail. You’ve been around the block Andy, you know what
I’m talking about. You know the difference.

I was going to say that I don’t really care if someone considers me a
bigot because I uphold a more strict standard of what constitutes
decent jewelry, but I really must say that I do care. I don’t like
being called a bigot, even if it is said with a smile. I also think
that any intolerance on display here is not necessarily only on the
part of those of us that hold higher standards. Unless, as is
becoming more and more common, any questioning of, or calling out of
a lack of standards, or having an opinion that reflects any
disagreement with anything someone might feel, is considered bigotry
and intolerance. If that’s the case, and being able to define,
discern, and then point out the difference between using a hammer
and coarse sandpaper to make a half-assed attempt at hiding poor
craftsmanship and a carefully applied, aesthetically pleasing
non-traditional finish makes one a bigot, then call me a bigot. I’ve
been called worse.

In any case, I’m not lowering my standards regardless of what is
currently acceptable in the trade, or what pejorative is used to
describe my opinion of that class of jewelry. Nor will I buckle to
the opinion (no matter how popular that opinion might become) that
such work is anything more than what it is. The emperor is as naked
as a jay bird, and I don’t mind saying so.

Dave Phelps

43 
I understand there are a lot of weird requests. I am asking what
is the aesthetic value?

Often the aesthetic value may lie in the makers desire to have the
process by which the piece came into being, be evident in the work
itself. The tools we use are extensions of our hands, and our brains,
and our thoughts, and for some designers, it can be just as important
to communicate that personal aspect of the makers identity and
thinking, as it is to communicate a finely done design by itself. But
it also comes down to a question of intent, and choice.

Perhaps it may help to use a term other than “tool mark”. If,
instead of simply calling such marks “tool marks”, we distinguish
between those marks left simply because the maker didn’t care, didn’t
have the skill to not leave them, or didn’t consider those marks to
be an issue for them; from the marks that various tools can leave on
the metal which are there intentionally.

The latter can be considered a finish, not a flaw. For a given piece
or situation, it may not be acceptable craftsmanship to neglect to
remove file marks or coarse abrasive marks when polishing, so a
surface just looks sloppy and improperly or poorly polished.

But on the other hand, carefully applied file marks, or abrasive
marks, hammer marks, and even plain old plier marks; the exact same
tools who’s marks one might object to, can also be carefully
considered, deliberately chosen, and desired final finishes.

The difference may not be in the marks themselves, but rather in the
intent of the maker, and the reasons why the marks are there. If
intentional and part of a successful design, it normally would be
fairly obvious that the marks were intentional, and likewise, if
simply the result of carelessness or a lack of craftsmanship, that
too would normally be reasonably obvious.

It does help, however, in the case of a desired final finish, when
the maker has the skill level to actually choose to leave certain
marks as a finish or not. Sometimes such finishes are there simply
because the maker does not have enough skill to do it right another
way. This can still be a valid finish and a correct aesthetic choice.
But the choice itself is more defensible when the maker actually can
choose to do it this way or not. Often, in such cases, that skill
level will be evident in other areas of craftsmanship in the piece,
and an educated viewer should not normally have much trouble telling
the difference.

Peter Rowe

44

Leonid asks what is the aethetic value [of distressed objects] ? I
think the Japanese concept of wabi sabi is what is behind the fashion
of distressed objects.

from wikipedia: The words wabi and sabi do not translate easily.
Wabi originally referred to the loneliness of living in nature,
remote from society; sabi meant “chill”, “lean” or “withered”.
Around the 14th century these meanings began to change, taking on
more positive connotations.[1] Wabi now connotes rustic simplicity,
freshness or quietness, and can be applied to both natural and
human-made objects, or understated elegance. It can also refer to
quirks and anomalies arising from the process of construction, which
add uniqueness and elegance to the object. Sabi is beauty or
serenity that comes with age, when the life of the object and its
impermanence are evidenced in its patina and wear, or in any visible
repairs.

Some artists strive to understand and create with this aesthetic in
mind. On the other hand, I’m sure there are those people who think
"Hey, this is popular-I can get the same look if I whack this thing
with a hammer."

Maureen M

45 
I see what people buy and what they bring in for repair that they
have bought. The percentage of jewelry that has texture (or tool
marked) is so negligible as to basically not count other than a
means of expression of opinion in defense for or against on this
forum.

Richard, I suspect that you don’t see a full spectrum of what the
public buys. For example,the owner of a Chevy is more likely to take
it to a Chevy dealer than to a Toyota dealer when it needs service.
Since your own store sounds mostly oriented to more traditional
looks, those customers who bought things with less traditional design
or technique, including work that’s clearly hand made, and/or “artist
made”, or otherwise different in aesthetic than the work you carry,
are more likely to take it back to the store, or type of store, where
they originally bought it. So you may see much less of this type of
work.

As an example. I essentially work two jobs. One, the main one, is
for a local jewelry manufacturer and trade shop. We specialize in
higher end bridal jewelry, and also do work for a number of smaller
jewelers who do not have their own shops. The work we take in for
repair, or the custom orders outside of our manufactured line,
generally is similar to the work you describe seeing. Traditional,
normally using traditional fine finishes.

But then my second job, evenings/weekends/ etc, is doing work for a
local art jewelry gallery. This gallery carries both antique and
estate jewelry, and a selection of works from other 50 jewelry
artists from around the world. They do not have their own shop, and I
do all their bench work, and some of their custom work (that which
did not specify one of the artists they represent). The types of
pieces I see coming in to this gallery are often much different than
what I see in my other job. Much of it is “designer”,
artist/craftsman pieces, as well as antique restorations, and
similar. There is some of the usual traditional modern jewelry too,
in for repair, but it’s a minority. If I dealt only with my “day”
job, I’d agree with you that few, if any, people buy anything but
traditional jewelry. But if I worked only for the gallery, I might
have the view that much of what people buy and wear is more unique
and artist oriented work, than the “normal” mall store stuff.

And this observation extends further. My day job, as I said, does
work for several local jewelers who may not have their own shops, or
may not be equipped to do the more complex repair or custom work. I
almost don’t need to look at the job envelopes to know which of our
clients sent us which jobs. Each of these shops has a different
clientelle, and a different “flavor” of jewelry they both sell, but
also, the similar “flavor” of what they take in from their customers
for repair. We have one such client, for example, who’s jobs into
our shop might lead someone to believe, if they saw no other work,
that badly done or cast in place invisible set diamonds were all the
rage and selling wildly more than other types of diamond jewelry.
Thankfully, for all concerned, I know that this is not the case, but
for this particular store, it seems to be something they deal with a
lot. Go figure.

cheers
Peter

46

I see mass produced items of art and craft that are quite good in
design and execution marred by crude attempts to add the hand made
look. It’s not really deception because so many people are satisfied
with this version of “The Look”.

Then there is the item genuinely made by hand by craftspersons who
have perfected the hand process to the extent that every tool mark is
a work of art. If left in the hammer forged state then every hammer
mark will show the artistry at the forge. If left in the filed state
the file marks are beautiful and accurate. Same with the rough
honing, the fine honing, and the polish.

In the first scenario the polisher will be required to hide previous
imperfections. In the second scenario the polisher will be careful
to not mar the perfection achieved by the preceding craftspersons.

I am sure similar discussions are held in the pottery forums and the
stitching forums.

Alastair

47 
I have never heard, in 22 years of retail, anything like this
articulated by a customer.

Maybe just because I’ve been doing this for almost 40 years now, but
I most certainly have heard exactly this sentiment in appreciation of
work that shows such influence. And even more, the desire to separate
ones work from run of the mill commercial aesthetics seems very
common, perhaps even prevalent, among the many artist/jewelers I’ve
known, especially the younger ones and students. In part, this may
still be youthful rebellion, or a realization that achieving that
mass produced look isn’t actually so easy, but often it’s simply the
desire on the part of these artists, to establish their own unique
artistic identity, and for that, looking too much like something sold
at Zales is not helpful. But either way, the desire to produce such
works, and an appreciation for them, has never seemed rare to me at
all. I see it virtually daily (and keep in mind, most of the work I
do in my “day” job is custom or limited run “designer” bridal jewelry
in platinum and 18K. When a more “organic” or rough look gets into a
piece, it’s completely intentional, and often played with a bit to
get it just right…

Peter

48 
To be honest, I can't think of other examples - and to be able to
see file marks or the end of a saw cut in work is cringe making.

Other examples… How about chasing and repousse? There, almost the
entire surface consists of careful tool marks. I’ve seen hammer marks
used very effectively on even small pieces of metal, such as cross
peen hammer marks giving texture to an edge while thickening it, or
to the sides of a ring shank while the flats are textured with ball
peen hammer marks. You can buy hammers with specifically textured
faces for use in giving a surface various flavors of intentional
texture with the hammers. And file marks need not be just plain ugly
things. I sometimes take a fully polished surface, such as a ring
shank or other pieces, and “scrub” the surface gently in all
directions with a file. The result is a neat random pattern of fairly
bright scratches. One can do much the same with a bit of coarse
abrasive paper or other tools that leave a mark.

And another example of tool marks I don’t find objectionable might
be found on much antique jewelry, diamond set, where the areas under
the diamonds has been carefully azured out with a saw. These little
square shaped openings to the inside or underside of a ring or
diamond set piece, might sometimes have those pierced out holes
polished, but more often, they’re simply cut with a saw. Done well,
the skill of the person handling the saw is clear, and the fact that
the piece was hand made instead of being just cast in that shape, is
also clear. I find, for me at least, that I don’t mind those saw
marks at all. They do not affect the appearance of the jewelry when
viewed normally, and examined carefully, disclose about
the pieces origins and the skill of the maker.

Or take a look at Tod Reed’s work. Virtually every surface of his,
is textured, via hammers, files, chasing punches, and more. All
clearly tool marks, yet contributing to an overall look that is more
than mere tool marks. Then there’s Alex Sepkus. Virtually every
surface on this detailed and complex cast pieces is finished not with
a polished surface, but by use of a small hammer handpiece to put a
micro hammered texture everywhere. Very much a tool mark, but you
might describe the end result as a sort of stippled finish…

Peter Rowe

49 
I think the Japanese concept of wabi sabi is what is behind the
fashion of distressed objects.

At the same time, the most prized object of craftsmanship in Japan
is katana blade which is polished to perfection over many months and
maintained in this state throughout the life.

Leonid Surpin

50 
Often the aesthetic value may lie in the makers desire to have the
process by which the piece came into being, be evident in the work
itself.

But that is simply sign of insecurity. A maker does not trust
himself/herself to be able to express the process of creation via
design and technique. So an extra proof is provided.

Leonid Surpin

51 
I guess that for me, an example of tool marks left for aesthetics
would be the beautifully even indentations of hammer marks on some
forged pieces

Quite agree! But that is not tool marks. I did some repousse and I
always finish with very fine hammer marks all over. The surface looks
much richer, and it allows to refine shape. Also when working in low
relief, these marks should be denser in intended shadows and less
pronounced in highlights. It is in essence a hammer produced patina
to refine volume relationships.

The same can be said about Silversmithing. After each raising course,
a piece undergoes several courses of regulating. That produces a very
fine set of marks. Over many courses that require to raise an object,
these marks combine in quite uniform finish which sometimes left as
they are. These are truly tools marks which do have decorative value.
However, they often used to conceal defects in craftsmanship.
Overheated metal during annealing; micro-cracks caused by faulty
raising techniques, - makes metal impossible to polish, so hammers to
the rescue.

Leonid Surpin

52

I just don’t see the word “intolerant” as emotionally charged.
And–sorry-- but I have seen what I interpret to be intolerant
attitudes expressed regarding a variety of subjects including art and
now, in my opinion, aesthetics. (I get a whiff of sour grapes too…)

Perhaps it is, in fact, a matter of interpretation. Not only words
such as “intolerant” (I did not ever use the word bigot) but in this
case “tool marks”. As some have said, there are “tool marks” and
there are “tool marks”. But I don’t think that the distinction is that
simple-- or the topic that silly. Like it or not there are different
aesthetics and while there are certainly standards of craft, the
careful and purposeful application or inclusion of tool marks is
valid.

I often use a heavy file to create a surface that could be described
as “tooled” and I have often use plannish or hammer marks in a
similar way. Both are tools. It is, as some have noted, how it is
executed. David is correct in stating that I finished the band before
I went back and welded. That is the visual strength of the piece: the
juxtaposition.

You've been around the block Andy, you know what I'm talking about.
You know the difference.

I do. But the subject was “tool marks” not “certain tool marks”.
It’s sloppy dialogue, in my opinion, to state something as
categorical and then explain that, well I didn’t really mean all the
time- you know what I’m talking about.

And Richard, the “blob” comment on FaceBook was made by a friend who
knows my work and was gently teasing me about the obvious weld bead
in relation to my recent retinal/ vision problems. An inside joke.
“Faring” as in “to fare something down” means to feather in or smooth
out. And Richard, I am happy to have my work used as an example to
further a discussion. It has happened several times. I would hope
that others would be willing to put there work out for open and
honest discussion.

Take care, Andy

53

I was being facetious…if I damage anything, the customer never
learns of it as I would never allow the customer to have to make an
issue about anything.

And I stick by my opinion that you are “one of the most knowledgeable
members of the forum”. I have found little over the many years we
have been members to quibble about with your posts. The information
you share is a major asset to this forum, you have earned my respect.

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

54

If you presented a gallery owner, or customer, with a hand made
piece that was perfectly formed with no trace of “tool marks”,
(however you want to define tool marks). Would the perceived value of
that piece be greater, or less, than if the receipients had sat and
watched you make the same piece?

55 
personally, find appropriateness itself to be a very large
component of beauty.Up to the point when an appropriate level of
finish has been reached the tool marks generally become less and
less obvious to the eye, but even in your most perfect work a
microscope would show how far the surface is from true perfection

Jewellery always has been the Art of not what is necessary, but of
what is possible. Achieving high degree of surface finish is a sign
of quality of metal and soundness of construction. Since client
cannot constantly be with goldsmith during the construction,
insisting on perfection of the finish is a client way of insuring
that she is getting her money worth.

The interesting question is what drive us to posses these small and
very expensive objects. One does not have to have any jewellery to
survive. A diamond can be mounted onto rough shank as well as on fine
one. All this is true. Nevertheless, jewellery thrived over thousands
of years and with every year requirements for more refinement, more
complexity constantly grew. It seems like there is some inner
motivation which compels humans to own expensive, highly refined
jewellery, forcing goldsmiths to develop sophisticated techniques of
working with metal. It may be difficult to understand on one hand,
but on another there may be something to it.

Consider the importance of spring driven clock mechanisms in Human
History. They could have never been constructed if jewelers would not
perfect the technique of hand working on tiny scale and achieving
perfectly mated surfaces. One of such mechanisms was used as a
prototype in creation of first wheellock pistols, and from that we
progressed to modern weaponry, which eventually resulted in
development of Space exploration. Sooner or later humanity will
expand to other planets and beyond. And all this can be traced back
to a lonely goldsmith; laboring in badly lit shop; trying to perfect
surface of spring; so clasp would operate smoothly.

Leonid Surpin

56

I had a jeweler friend who said many years ago that regarding
hand-made jewelry, that “Every surface should be rendered”. Rendered?
That’s a very different term to most of us, and one that I have not
yet read in this conversation. I absolutely love that statement.

So that just means that when you hold a finished piece of work in
your hands, and look at it from every angle, inside and out, you
should address ( or render) every surface the way you intend it to
look. Plan on every surface to be scrutinized by the eventual owner
of this piece, with no excuses for poor craftsmanship.

Tool marks? Why not! Just make them deliberate, so it is obvious
they are a part of the design. Want to scratch the set stone? Then
scratch it, perhaps in an overall pattern, so it looks intended. As
an artist, this is your choice, to put your own finishes (or tool
marks) where you want them. Hopefully your creative efforts have
selling potential to buyers who can appreciate finishes other than
high polished.

Jay Whaley

57

As a person who makes artisan jewelry, I guarantee my work against
breakage. Maybe I am crazy to do it but I stand behind my work. My
father had a business in testing and casting repair (the big mining
stuff) and he did the same thing - I learned from him. So far I have
had very few pieces returned for repair. I do also explain that if
you lose the beads or a piece, you just get a shorter necklace or
bracelet.

Barbara, on PEI on the day after the storm. It was a lulu.

58 
But that is simply sign of insecurity. A maker does not trust
himself/herself to be able to express the process of creation via
design and technique. So an extra proof is provided.

I disagree, Leonid. In some cases, the maker may consider the actual
process to be a sufficiently important part of the whole concept and
design, that it needs that extra statement, and that extra statement
can be essential to conveying the ideas behind the design. I’d
characterize it more in the same category as a painter choosing to
use a red paint that is brighter and more vivid than the rose he is
painting. In painting, one thing that distinguishes it from
photography is the ability to hone in on, and emphasize specific
aspects of an image to a greater degree than simple photography can
do (though photoshop changes that a lot) This isn’t a lack of trust
in the viewer or in the designers skill, it’s simply another design
decision. However, I think perhaps one should distinguish between
tool marks produced intentionally and with planning and thought,
over tool marks left unintentionally and from carelessness. One can
be deliberate and a good choice, while the second is just sloppy.

I note, thought, as this thread progresses, that we seem to mostly
all agree on most of these aspects. Just the words seem to fail us in
distinguishing the fine details of the concepts one from the other.
Your post describing hammer mark patina on repousse, for example,
illustrates that in that context at least, you’re in agreement that
some tool marks are a good thing. And we can all probably agree that
sloppy work is, well, sloppy. Lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it a
princess…

Peter

59

I think that James Binnion makes a good point. We are are so used to
"perfect" surfaces on metal and other materials that one expects to
see such in any object we buy, whether jewelry or an automobile’s
finish. The same is true of commercially recorded music where
electronics and computer equipment allow recording technicians to
modify the sound of a singer’s voice to produce a more impressive
sound. A sour note can be corrected. An incorrect note in an
instrumental performance can be replaced with the right one.

Even live performance is often electronically enhanced. Part of the
growing enthusiasm for performances with unaugmented acoustic
instruments and voice is the “reality” of it (perhaps with warts and
all). I perform three or four times a month with a string band. We
use unamplified acoustic instruments and only employ microphones for
singing when the room or audience is large enough to make it
necessary. We like it that way, and, apparently, so does our
audience. Mistakes are sometimes (not often) made but seldom noticed
because members of the group tend to compensate for it. Sometimes
the “mistake” is incorporated in our repertoire because it sounds
better than the original. Make an error once and it is a mistake. Do
it several times and you got jazz (joke).

I bring this up because it relates to the discussion of tool marks on
jewelry. Random, undirected scratches and gouges are usually ugly and
are probably indicative of a lack of finishing skill. Rough surfaces
left in a piece of jewelry through laziness or lack of skill seem to
be frowned upon by all of us. On the other hand, patterns made by
hammer strikes or lines scratched in a surface (tool marks) can be
used as a design element to excellent effect. File marks are
particularly annoying to me, but I could imagine a skilled person
might use a file to make such marks to enhance a design.

In my view, this is not so different from using reticulated silver
or many of the texturing strips which are run through a rolling mill
with a sheet of silver or gold. Why are those deformations of a
potentially polished surface so attractive? If your view is narrow
you might want all jewelry to be made with the perfect reflective
surfaces you yourselves certainly employ. Matt surfaces, scratched
and hammer-dimpled surfaces can be attractive alternatives in
finishing metal, particularly when they are in juxtaposition to
brilliantly polished, highly reflective areas. Tool marks left in a
reasoned fashion are not equivalent to those that we see marring the
surface of a poorly executed work. Perhaps the resistance we may
feel to this concept lies in how hard most of us have worked to
learn how to remove or avoid leaving tool marks. Perhaps we should
work to learn to leave some tool marks when appropriate.

Consider the early responses to impressionist painting, cubism, and
abstract painting/sculpture. Many critics railed at the “amateurish
execution” and “unpainterly technique”. I often see a similarity
between that kind of conservative response and what I often read on
this forum. I feel that judicious tool marks on jewelry can be quite
justified and attractive. For automotive enthusiasts, consider the
use of “brushed” chrome in expensive autos where the brilliant shine
of polished chrome is muted. After all, a line made by graver is a
tool mark.

Now, all of the aforesaid is my opinion and may be odds with your
own. Be that as it may, I doubt that I will change my opinion. Though
I would never insist, perhaps you should consider modifying your
own.

Gerald Vaughan

60 
And I stick by my opinion that you are "one of the most
knowledgeable members of the forum". I have found little over the
many years we have been members to quibble about with your posts.
The you share is a major asset to this forum, you have
earned my respect.

Thanks Richard. And I think I can speak for many others in the forum
when I say I have the same respect for your own shared
experience, and postings.

Peter