We've all done it...

[Kalimna]

Mod edit: text deleted.

To the OP - I've done that a few times, my fix being to enlarge the 'design opportunity' and glue in a further turned plug, then finish as per normal.

Adam

 

[CHJ]

you're right, normally I would use a tenon rather than a recess and then remove it using cole jaws, unfortunately this isn't possible when turning a natural edge bowl, is there a way of reverse chucking a natural edge?

Of course there is, several if you think around the problems, Here is a thread with one example smaller items I just mount on a 8mm screw chuck for starters rather than the spigot jaws.

 

[Woodmonkey]

Yeh I knew that really, just being lazy! I will give it a go.
Rich

 

[KimG]

Another way to deal with natural edged bowls is to turn a bun shaped jam chuck that fits inside the natural edge bowl, pad it to protect the interior and then deal with the base as per a normal bowl against the plywood chuck. As long as you take care to remove the tenon with small cuts it works fine.

 

[Tazmaniandevil]

The inch thick base is for added stability........

 

[winemaker]

I just ended up with a nice ring and a flat plate (hammer) :mrgreen: last week have to start again #-o (must get a wood burner :lol: )

 

[EnErY]

your not the First and wont be The last
Regards
Bill

 

[chipmunk]

Another way to deal with natural edged bowls is to turn a bun shaped jam chuck that fits inside the natural edge bowl, pad it to protect the interior and then deal with the base as per a normal bowl against the plywood chuck. As long as you take care to remove the tenon with small cuts it works fine.

Another way which Bert Marsh used to do was to finish the whole of the outside first and then hold the finished foot in some soft jaws (nylon or wood) while hollowing the inside. Axminster used to make Havita jaws for a similar purpose but they seem to have been discontinued in the new catalogue. This approach does put restrictions on the shape of the foot which I'm not keen on but it might work for some.

HTH
Jon

 

[CHJ]

I personally don't like the widely accepted reference to the 'foot' whenever the Base of a turned piece is mentioned.

As said above it can be very restrictive and even worse I think it unnecessarily influences the mind-set of new turners to 'having to have' a foot on every piece.

I try to view every piece as having an appropriate 'Base' then it's a case of how to hold it whilst turning to achieve that rather than the accommodating of a foot in the design.

 

[chipmunk]

I think I agree with you Chas.

Pieces clearly should be designed and then held in the most appropriate way to achieve the desired result.

....but I happen to think that the base needs to be considered carefully rather than being an afterthought and dictated by the chucking method or perhaps worst motivated by creating something that maximises the use of turning blank. IMHO calling the bottom something specific gives it some focus.

I may regret this but the expression "lipstick on the pig" springs to mind as I think about humungous decorated recesses on bowls created in an attempt to legitimize leaving the chucking point on, and cow-pat like items without a foot that sit flat on the deck. But on the other hand, footless bowls which have almost hemispherical bottoms or footless boxes can clearly look great without.

So sure, a foot isn't always necessary but in many cases it can literally lift a piece if it is nicely proportioned and in keeping.

Jon

 

[Mark Hancock]

I think I agree with you Chas.

Pieces clearly should be designed and then held in the most appropriate way to achieve the desired result.

....but I happen to think that the base needs to be considered carefully rather than being an afterthought and dictated by the chucking method or perhaps worst motivated by creating something that maximises the use of turning blank. IMHO calling the bottom something specific gives it some focus.

I may regret this but the expression "lipstick on the pig" springs to mind as I think about humungous decorated recesses on bowls created in an attempt to legitimize leaving the chucking point on, and cow-pat like items without a foot that sit flat on the deck. But on the other hand, footless bowls which have almost hemispherical bottoms or footless boxes can clearly look great without.

So sure, a foot isn't always necessary but in many cases it can literally lift a piece if it is nicely proportioned and in keeping.

Jon

Nicely put Jon. Couldn't agree more =D>

Whenever I see threads like this about going through the base and wall thicknesses I always wonder why turners have an aversion to using calipers. :roll: If the appropriate ones are used it is highly unlikely these issues would arise.

 

[CHJ]

I....

So sure, a foot isn't always necessary but in many cases it can literally lift a piece if it is nicely proportioned and in keeping.

Jon

Agreed but I'd rather think of it as an integral plinth.