As everyone liked yesterdays box so much..........

[johnny.t.]

........I made another ,Beech this time, 5" tall 3 3/4" wide at the widest point(the top!). :lol:

Let me know what you think.. :shock:

JT

 

[Bodrighy]

Still not sure about the foot but apart from that I like this one a lot more. As usual can't fault technique, finish etc. :lol:
Pete

 

[wizer]

Much nicer. I like the ripple and the lid very much. The foot doesn't quiet do it for me, I think it needs to be shorter and a bit wider.

 

[CHJ]

It would work for me without the foot, still not a preferred shape but can envision that for some it would hold an attraction being different from the norm. I think the closer figuring of the Beech works better.

 

[Walter Hall]

That one works much better IMHO. The lid has a bit of shape to it which gives it a lot more interest. Go on, lose the foot completely, you know you want to.

Walter

edit: -Beech was a better choice of timber too.

 

[cornucopia]

much better JT

the foot does work imo maybe just a slightly sharper transition would be better.

I would have liked to have seen the ribs (gentle beads) carry on into the side of the lid- and then the transition into the top with its gentle curve or maybe just a simple dome would also work.

Are you getting enough sleep? [-X don't turn when your deprived :lol: :roll:

 

[Paul.J]

Yes this one is a lot better with this type of wood.
You seem to have a good join on the bottom opening.Can't see the join :shock:

 

[Turn It In]

Hi Johnny,
I must agree with other replys this is a much nicer style but I personally would have preferred the foot to flare out to make it more stable.
Your first 3 part box was interesting and I started thinking out of the box and wondered if you could use the tubular section as a napkin ring and then devise a roll for each end???
Hows your head recovering? I have had a couple of weeks away on Hols and have missed the buzz of the forum.
Best regards,
Ian

 

[Oakbear]

I like this, the dome on the lid looks as if something is emerging from the box!

I agree with George that the foot works, but could do with being a sharper transition.

A significant improvement of the last one, but still quite original and quirky (in a good way).

 

[Walter Hall]

Don't get me wrong, I love the originality and the design is a real development from the last one, but the foot just looks like a spigot that is meant to fit into something else. It needs to have a shape that gives it a purpose or it needs to go. (IMHO)

 

[johnny.t.]

Thanks for your input chaps .
Now the foot,it is important,it raises the whole thing and gives it that just balancing look :?

George,the transition from foot to side is crisp! The only way to make it more so would be to score a line! And what is this sleep stuff you talk about :lol: :lol: Its in short supply ATM :lol:

Paul :roll: :lol: yes this ones just 2 parts :lol:

Ian, just a cool scar left on me head :lol:

..........the foot just looks like a spigot that is meant to fit into something else. It needs to have a shape that gives it a purpose.......

Why? The tiny base is the look I wanted and after all cylindrical is a shape :lol:


I am very happy with this piece and may do a bigger one still.

JT

 

[Walter Hall]

T

..........the foot just looks like a spigot that is meant to fit into something else. It needs to have a shape that gives it a purpose.......

Why? The tiny base is the look I wanted and after all cylindrical is a shape :lol:

Hi Johnny

Just my opinion, If you are happy with it you need take no heed of my ramblings. Look forward to seeing the next one.

Walter

 

[mikec]

Hi Johnny, better shape, well executed. IMHO

Mike C

 

[johnny.t.]

cheers Mike