Newbie in Oxfordshire - first attempts at enamelling.

[weodmonath]

Greetings, everyone. I have no experience whatsoever of making jewellery, so I am likely to be pestering all of you for a while!

I am in the process of writing an historical novel, set in Anglo-Saxon times. One of the characters will be a jeweller. My problem is that I will not write about anything of which I have no first-hand knowledge. Accordingly, I have acquired some tools and materials and read up all I can find on the subject. Yesterday, I decided I could not put off starting any longer, so, not without some trepidation, I fired up the enamelling kiln for the first time.

An hour later, I had managed to produce the piece on the left, and two hours after that, I had the piece on the right - a copy of the Minster Lovell Jewel (in the Ashmolean Museum). I am quite pleased with the results, but I have a question - why am I getting little black specks in the white enamel?

[Goldsmith]

Greetings, looking at your photos I would suggest that you need to wash your enamel powders in distilled water to remove any inclusions in the enamel powder. Also try filling the enamel cells with enamel, then after firing use a stone to grind the enamel surface flat and then wash clean before re firing which will replace the gloss on the enamel surface. Whites are not easy to produce in enamelling and cleanliness is important.


James

[josef1]

They look great

[CJ57]

I can't answer your question about the enamel but you've made a great job if this is your first attempt at any sort of making

[weodmonath]

Thanks, all. It didn't occur to me that the contamination could be in the powder. I was scratching my head wondering where it could have come from.

It is indeed my first attempt. I did try cold enamelling a while back. The results were not encouraging. The real thing seems a lot better.

[Aurarius]

I'd be encouraged if those were my first attempts at enamelling, Weedy Month. You'll be attempting some Sutton Hoo replica next.
Can you tell us a bit about the enamelling kiln you've been using?

[weodmonath]

Aurarius - The kiln is an Efco 150, with regulator and a cheap Digital thermometer with a decent pyrometer probe. It seems to work well. It heats from cold to 1400F in about 20 minutes, and holds the temperature well.

Strange you should mention Sutton Hoo. I have been fiddling about...



I am still snipping and bending, too...



Wes hal!

[Aurarius]

Aurarius - The kiln is an Efco 150, with regulator and a cheap Digital thermometer with a decent pyrometer probe. It seems to work well. It heats from cold to 1400F in about 20 minutes, and holds the temperature well.

Strange you should mention Sutton Hoo. I have been fiddling about...



I am still snipping and bending, too...



Wes hal!

Thanks for the information!
I don't know how you got a garnet to assume that shape. Did you grind down a more regular-shaped stone?

One thing I'd be fascinated to know is what sort of status the maker or makers of the highest quality work such as that done for Raedwald (if it was in fact Raedwald who was buried at Sutton Hoo) enjoyed in Anglo-Saxon society and how independent they were in terms of who they were allowed to do work for. Presumably they weren't very independent unless they had the means to purchase the significant quantities of gold (as well as other materials) required for some of their work. Or maybe commissions, even from kings, required the client to pay money up front.

Wes hal to you too!

[weodmonath]

I just cut a piece of rough garnet with a diamond saw on a Dremel. The Saxons would have done the same thing, though they didn't have diamond saws, so the process would have been slower. They probably used a copper blade and a hard sand, particles of which will embed themselves in the soft blade - that's what I gather from my reading.

I, too have wondered about the status of the Saxon jeweller. Did he have his own stock of precious metals, or was he allocated some by a high-status individual to make a piece, then paid, possibly in kind, for it? I guess that it was probably a combination of both, since an enormous number of low to middle status pieces, usually cast in bronze, were produced. These were sometimes enamelled. Another group of pieces were copper-gilt. These were obviously of better quality, and some of them were quite high status. Really high-status pieces seem to me to have been gold, or occasionally silver, though it would appear that silver was used more often as decoration on a piece, rather than as the primary material - possibly something to do with silver being the main metal for coins? Who knows?

I think I had better start a new thread on the subject. I know a fair bit from my research, but there are still quite a few unanswered questions about how the Saxons were able to do some things - in particular, the backing foils for the cloisonne garnet enclosures (makes the garnets glitter). These are patterned with quite precise pyramids - at three, or even four, per millimeter! How did they do it? Some of them are even 'blocked' into groups, with slightly broader lines between each block.

It's possible that these were made from stamps made by very short-sighted people, but....???

[metalsmith]

there are still quite a few unanswered questions about how the Saxons were able to do some things - in particular, the backing foils for the cloisonne garnet enclosures (makes the garnets glitter). These are patterned with quite precise pyramids - at three, or even four, per millimeter! How did they do it? Some of them are even 'blocked' into groups, with slightly broader lines between each block.

It's possible that these were made from stamps made by very short-sighted people, but....???

Perhaps the 'stamps' were mineral, with pyramidal crystal termini. Just a thought: best using what occurs naturally if its too tricky to create.

& Lovely work btw.