> >Possibly because it's the only one that has been
> >in half and Stocks uses it for internal
> How about he was a student at the UofM and
> completed a Thesis there in 1988 on the subject?
> >You should have no problem in explaining these.
> Ya that low-res jug image from 20 years ago...
> unfortunately it's travertine again (could be a
> limestone breccia from the close-up I've just seen
> though but in this case that's also travertine
Again you are referring to materials.
Again that is not the issue.
The issue is one of technique and tooling.
In this case materials and relative hardness are a non issue.
I understand you wanting to stay within your comfort zone, but it is not answering my questions.
So can you enlighten us first as to why
> a granite vessel (about 20 cm in diameter, one of
> the larger ones known in this class)
Granite? That's interesting, with an overall diameter of 20cm. Can you estimate the neck diameter?
> smaller andesite porphyry vessel are too difficult
> for the AEs to carve other than it takes longer
> than travertine grinding?
It that a question or a statement?
In both cases the
> feldspar phenocrysts (just like the large calcite
> crystals in the travertine examples you keep
> presenting) have been sectioned by grinding and
You seem to know how this form was manufactured.
In that case can you please explain how the undercut was achieved, especially in the granite example.
Is it possible using the Stocks stick and stone method?
If so how exactly?
Regardless of relative materials hardness.
Could you please provide stage by stage drawings which I'm sure you are fully capable of.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-May-16 11:42 by Jon Ellison.