This is a general question, but what materials do most people like for small objects? Furniture is easier in a way, you look at the house, the room, tastes and budget. More of a discussion than anything, with a bit of background.
I would like to make a match striker. We have candles around, and I quite like making cool but slightly out of fashion things. It would be way cheaper to just buy one on ebay or new because nobody really uses them these days. it made me think...
Giant 20thC Hardwood Globe Match Striker with Sterling Silver Mount, 1933 For Sale at 1stDibs this is a reference. it is a small pot with a textured outside. Going rate is from a fiver to infinity- brand names, silver, age, all add to the going rate. This one has good images, it isnt representative of what I would expect to pay.
For me, cast bronze would be great. possibly even white bronze. The sand cast texture would be enough to strike the match on, and the rest could be machined surfaces for contrast. Alternatively, I could use timber. boxwood, lignum perhaps. some texturing with the Dremel, or some lines turned in. Ceramics aren't my thing, but I presume it is an option, and some texture could be included. Plastics probably another.
However my thought is that my wife would hate all of these. I think that most partners would. A piece of bronze would look to anybody else as a big lump of gold metal (and gold = out of date). It is only us lot that appreciates a machined surface and the sand casting! I admire a nice piece of boxwood and the crisp detail that it can take, but as a small object it would be described as an odd lump of yellowish wood. it would eventually age to "an old looking lump of wood". Plastics look plastic and are assumed to be cheap even if it is unjust.
What material would look good on Kristin Scott Thomas' mantlepiece?
I would like to make a match striker. We have candles around, and I quite like making cool but slightly out of fashion things. It would be way cheaper to just buy one on ebay or new because nobody really uses them these days. it made me think...
Giant 20thC Hardwood Globe Match Striker with Sterling Silver Mount, 1933 For Sale at 1stDibs this is a reference. it is a small pot with a textured outside. Going rate is from a fiver to infinity- brand names, silver, age, all add to the going rate. This one has good images, it isnt representative of what I would expect to pay.
For me, cast bronze would be great. possibly even white bronze. The sand cast texture would be enough to strike the match on, and the rest could be machined surfaces for contrast. Alternatively, I could use timber. boxwood, lignum perhaps. some texturing with the Dremel, or some lines turned in. Ceramics aren't my thing, but I presume it is an option, and some texture could be included. Plastics probably another.
However my thought is that my wife would hate all of these. I think that most partners would. A piece of bronze would look to anybody else as a big lump of gold metal (and gold = out of date). It is only us lot that appreciates a machined surface and the sand casting! I admire a nice piece of boxwood and the crisp detail that it can take, but as a small object it would be described as an odd lump of yellowish wood. it would eventually age to "an old looking lump of wood". Plastics look plastic and are assumed to be cheap even if it is unjust.
What material would look good on Kristin Scott Thomas' mantlepiece?
