Carl Cravens on thu 15 sep 11
The Potter's Dictionary is worth every penny.
On the surface, the Dictionary looks pretty boring... I was initially disap=
pointed when it arrived because it was rather dry, and I didn't see clearly=
how I was going to use it. You can't just read it front to back and readi=
ng random articles gets boring. I really wasn't experienced enough to know=
how to use it.
Yet, the more I learn about pottery by *doing*, the *more useful* the Dicti=
onary becomes. Pages and pages about cracks! How dull! Until you have a =
problem with cracks... and then those are the ten most enlightening pages y=
ou've ever read.
Start learning about modifying and creating glazes and the various articles=
on coloring oxides became fascinating. The article on the potter's period=
ic table of elements is eye-opening. The Dictionary isn't a course on glaz=
e science... but it goes into a depth about individual materials and the ov=
erall chemistry of glaze that no "lesson book" on glazing I've seen does. =
If you want to learn to create and modify glazes, you need the Dictionary a=
s a companion to whatever other "how to" guide you're following. When you =
want to know why manganese dioxide is black as night, yet produces a light =
brown color in MC6G Oatmeal... the Hamers will enlighten you. (Between bla=
ck and brown, it turns green and purple... and you can make it stop at purp=
le if you know what material to exclude from your glaze.)
I think calling it a "Dictionary" is misleading... it's an encyclopedia, an=
d contains far more than just definitions of words. The knowledge of potte=
ry materials contained in this book is both wide and deep.
My hat is off to the Hamers. I can't imagine the amount of work that must =
have gone into the creation and continued revision of this book.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)
"I'm wearing Boots of Escaping, I'm wearing Boots of Escaping..."
Carl Cravens on thu 15 sep 11
On 09/15/2011 03:53 PM, Dick C wrote:
> I have the 1975 printing of this book. It is just Hamer prior to Janet b=
eing part of the publication.
> The book is dedicated to Janet.
> How important, are the revisions of this book.
> Have the revisions been significant enough to outdate this early edition?
Dick,
I wish I could answer that... I'm "young" in potter years and the current e=
dition (5th) is my first. It's 544 pages ... Amazon says yours is 349 page=
s, so the newest edition is 195 pages longer. So there's certainly more ma=
terial... I would hope the existing material has been significantly updated=
. Nearly 30 years passed between the first and fifth editions.
I don't think you copied clayart with your question, but I'm going to send =
my reply there, as I know someone there has to have a better answer than I =
do.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)
Ignoramus? I prefer the term "informationaly impaired"
Steve Mills on fri 16 sep 11
Frank & Janet are still very much involved in keeping their work bang up to=
d=3D
ate, and still very active as Potters as well, though Frank, now well into =
h=3D
is 80s, works at a much gentler pace and also writes witty, informative, an=
d=3D
highly perceptive articles, many for our Club (South Wales Potters) Newsle=
t=3D
ter.
It is a real pleasure to be not only informed, but entertained as well.=3D2=
0
Steve M
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
www.mudslinger.me.uk
Sent from my Ipod touch
On 15 Sep 2011, at 23:08, Carl Cravens wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 03:53 PM, Dick C wrote:
>> I have the 1975 printing of this book. It is just Hamer prior to Janet =
b=3D
eing part of the publication.
>> The book is dedicated to Janet.
>> How important, are the revisions of this book.
>> Have the revisions been significant enough to outdate this early edition=
?=3D
>=3D20
> Dick,
>=3D20
> I wish I could answer that... I'm "young" in potter years and the current=
e=3D
dition (5th) is my first. It's 544 pages ... Amazon says yours is 349 page=
s=3D
, so the newest edition is 195 pages longer. So there's certainly more mat=
e=3D
rial... I would hope the existing material has been significantly updated. =
N=3D
early 30 years passed between the first and fifth editions.
>=3D20
> I don't think you copied clayart with your question, but I'm going to sen=
d=3D
my reply there, as I know someone there has to have a better answer than I=
d=3D
o.
>=3D20
> --
> Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)
> Ignoramus? I prefer the term "informationaly impaired"
| |
|
