Tom McHugh wrote:
> However I do not mean to imply that any material in particular is
> inherently unworthy, nor that any particular assortment of tools is
> inherenly inappropriate. From my readings in the subject, dialists have
> always used what was at hand, and were not ashamed of their work.
Dear co- diallists,
call me a perfectionist if you like, but I have been always of the
opinion that a material should reflect the dignity of the finished piece
in its entirety. Having built several astrolabes and other instruments
myself, I simply cannot conceive of using such a petty material as
aluminum for that purpose, tempting as it may be for its ease of
machineability. I even excluded copper from the list of my working
materials for although being used by historical instrument makers it is
too soft to stand the hardest of all trials, time.
However, I agree that no tool should be excluded from use, PROVIDED its
effect (engraving, cutting, etc.) is coherent with the desired period of
time. But there is a limit to that: Even I would not go through the
dangers of hot gliding my works because of the all to real possibility
of mercury poisoning.
Wolfgang Abratis
--
------------------------------------------
^ ^
Wolfgang Abratis ^(_)(_)^
(_) __ (_)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \
(_/\_)
------------------------------------------
