| Original Message: A few Additional Thoughts On This Problem. |
|---|
|
In antiquity, core-forming was essentially parallel to what we now normally think of as "winding" in a bead context (that is, making a wound glass bead). An ancient bead was often formed around a rod that was coated with a friable refractory material, so that the rod or mandrel could be released. At that time, this was exactly the same thing that was done in making small vessels (and large vessels basically didn't exist at all, until glass-blowing was devised). The difference, as I have mentioned, is that the core for a vessel was shaped to form the shape of the intended vessel—typically being enlarged to form the cavity of the body of the vessel. And the vessel is formed on the end of the rod, versus a bead—where the rod penetrates all the way through the body of the bead. In either instance, the cores were removed. Or you could say the bead was pulled off its core. Granted, even from early times, beads were formed on pig-iron rods, and were knocked-off once they had cooled enough for this to be practical. (And thus they did not require a separating compound.) But, until the invention of mosaic-glass productions and glass-blowing, vessels and beads were much more alike than different—and were clearly made by the same artisans. (This has been demonstrated by G. Eisen in his under-appreciated works that often covered beadmaking, as well as by other authors.) Modern lampworking or torchworking ALSO routinely uses a separating compound to facilitate the removal of a bead from its mandrel/rod/wire. So it is not an anachronism from the long-ago past to be concerned with "cores." I'll grant this, in the context of drawn beads, if we were to speak of the "core layer(s)" of a cane or bead, I would not find this objectionable. However, I think the words "base(s)" and "base-layer(s)" are equally serviceable in discussing the anatomy of beads. Nevertheless, I expect that just as "chevron bead" is frequently presented as "chevrons," core layers will be called "cores"—and almost no one will object to it. Likewise "millefiori beads," and "millefioris," etc., etc. You all have a good day. I'm going to sleep...... Jamey P.S. Thirty years ago, most authors described chevron beads by discussing them from the outside layer to the inside layers. I was probably the first author to advise people to reverse this and to account for their structure from the inside-out—following the sequence of manufacture of the cane. Nowadays, most people follow this logical and useful advice. I do manage to score once in a while.... All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|