| Original Message: Re: Sizes |
|---|
|
Dear GS, Very small beads are often called "micro-beads." Typically, these are small drawn beads, made exactly like any typical beadwork-beads, except the cane was drawn to an even thinner diameter. I cannot agree with Juel that a size 13 bead means that thirteen beads strung together would equal about one inch. If only life (and beads) were so simple. Seedbead sizes are specific to the industry that makes them, and each industry uses a different sizing system. I don't know of a numbering/sizing system that has any relation to measurements. Since only the UK (and greater empire) and US use the inch as a standard of measurement, there would be some suggestion that a company that sells beads gauged by numbers (a certain number per inch) would be an English or American company. But, I believe this (in this instance "size 13 beads") is the Venetian system. (Or failing that, it's Czech—but I think the former.) A size 13 seedbead is pretty small, but many folks routinely use size 16 and 18 beads—and these are preferable for work that is to be considered intricate—demanding a real investment of time and skill. Nevertheless, size 20 and 22 seedbeads are well-known, and some people create impressive work using them. I have known people who just collect them, to have them. I have done a few projects using 20s and 22s, but not many. ( What I have just composed is based on my practical experience, having discussed this many times with my Sioux friend, Jo Allyn—and thus presents my understanding from a Native American point of view—from the days when we did a lot of beadwork together.) I have some seedbeads that are SO SMALL, I don't know what number they would be given. I know these to be called "sand-beads." I have not attempted to string any of the sand-beads I own (yet). I only know of two industries that make micro-beads—these being Venice and India. A basic problem of trying to use micro-beads in any sort of construction is two-fold. 1) since most seedbead work (beadwork) is performed using a needle, one has to have a needle that is fine enough for the beads to pass over it, onto the line that is used. Finding a needle for size 20 and 22 beads can be a challenge. 2) Then, the issue of an appropriate line comes into play. The thread has to be super-fine, but also dependable (not subject to easy breakage). Until about ten years ago (or so) the most likely line would have been silk, or nylon thread that has been broken down. (Meaning a three-ply thread, taken apart, and individual lines from it used alone. I take lines apart frequently—so if this seems like an odd suggestion, it isn't to me.) Not only must the thread be thin enough to pass through the eye of the needle, but also thin enough so that when doubled, the beads can still pass over the needle AND the eye where it holds the doubled thread. This is a very limiting proposition. In recent years, some remarkable lines have become available—perhaps the most intriguing one (for fineness and strength) being Fireline. I can see from replies to my earlier post about bead sizes, that one thing I wrote has been misinterpreted (!!). Please allow me to clarify. I was discussing whether a perforated object should be considered a "bead" or not. And I remarked that a perforated object that is too small to be seen is probably not to be considered a "bead." My point directly relates to the fact that beads, as objects of personal adornment, are of sizes that conform to their function—essentially, that of being worn on the body to serve as decorations. This is something we may want to consider WHEN we are confronted with an object that may or may not be a bead. If a thing is MADE to be a bead, it IS a bead. Beads are made by beadmakers. However, if we are considering ALL perforated objects we can find in the world, and if we are thinking about what they are, MANY (gazillions) are not "beads." And, when referring to the human body, I mean the prospect of wearing these objects, but also the prospect of actually having to string them—this being normally accomplished by-hand. On a microscopic level, there are gazillions of tiny lifeforms called "diatoms," that have (let's call them) "skeletons" called "frustules." These are amazing structures, in such a broad variety of shapes, it would be very difficult to classify them, even into—like—100 categories. But MANY of these shapes are perforated—and consequently, diatomaceous frustules are exactly like remarkable microscopic beads. But, they are not beads (because they are much too small to serve as that for the typical human usage, of stringing perforated objects together). Danny wrote, "I think there is no size limit (small) for beads to be called beads, if you can put a hole in it and then a thread through the hole I'd call it a bead." I have to agree. I was thinking about things that are TOO SMALL to be beads, because they are too small to string, and even too small to see. So, GS, when you ask "... I wonder just how small a perforated object has to be before its not considered a bead"—my response is that the micro-beads and sand-beads mark the place where the line is drawn. It's not that it's impossible to use these..., but it is very difficult (even if done occasionally by certain people, who challenge themselves to do that). I suppose someone could take a million frustules and some space-age line, and (using a microscope) string them together to create the smallest necklace in the world (or the universe?)..., but this exception is not going to change the commonplace nature of normal everyday life. And let us not forget, at all times, I am making generalizations that speak to normal, average, or commonplace situations—since this is what makes these generalizations valid. But if we want to talk about the unheard-of-but-possible, everything changes, and all bets are off. As I remarked earlier, in making a determination as to what is quantifiably a "bead" or not, this rests first on size, in relation to the human body. There are other considerations too, of course. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|