




From: "James M. Sakoda" <James_Sakoda@BROWN.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 13:40
Subject: Free Form Origami

     My second candidate for Origami for the century is a mathematical
finding by Jacques Justin.  It is a natural inclination of innovative
folders to want to change the shape of the bird base from four
identical flaps to one with varying sizes of flaps.  In Modern Origami
I introduced the offset bird base by moving the center along the
diagonal line,   making it possible to make one flap longer than the
one opposite it.  It was then possible to make the neck of a
traditional crane long and the tail short.  One problem with this
approach was that that the flaps could not be moved freely.  In 1982
Jacques Justin wrote a technical paper titled Mathematical Remarks
About Origami Bases.  It was later published in British Origami (Penny,
can you provide the issue date?)

     When I read the article I felt it was an important contribution to
innovative folding and not merely a clever exercise in mathematics.  I
included a chapter in Origami Flowers to provide flowers with petals of
varying lengths  including step by step directions and drawings.  The
procedure involves two major steps.  The first is to cut a a square
paper so that some of  the four sides are not equal and have sum of the
opposite sides equal to the same total length.  This can be done most
easily by using a one-cut method which I learned from Professor Husimi
coauthor of  The Geometry  of Origami (<italic>Origami no
Kikagaku</italic>).  The second step is to find the center of the bird
base before proceeding with the square preliminary fold and the petal
folds follow it.  The center is described as the meeting point of two
hyperbola and frankly I have had a little difficulty grasping its
meaning.

     The net result, however, is a perfect bird base, with the
undersides of the petals covered and the petals lined up neatly so that
flap easily.I have applied this procedure to the blintzed bird base,
which has allowed me to make flowers with petals of different lengths.
Jacques Justin has informed me that he has been unable to prove its
feasibility mathematically, but it can be done from a practical point
of view.





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 14:28
Subject: Re: Can you help me?

Another "oooh" and "ahhhhhhhhhhhh" model is the hyperbolic paraboloid.

Its dead easy to fold. If you want it to stand, make it from a hexgon, that'll
give you three feet down and three up, and three is enough to stand on. Its
usually made from a square (the origami version I've seen creditted to
different folks, I don't know who the first/correct credit is, but I heard
about via Tom Hull).

-D'gou





From: Jeff & Helen Sperber <jlsperber@SPRINTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 14:49
Subject: Re: folding bath towels?

I went on a cruise to Mexico a few years ago.  One day, returning to my
cabin, I saw something unusal on the bed.  Laying there was a frog made out
of a towel, wearing my sunglasses.  I loved it.

Helen Sperber





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 15:11
Subject: Re: Montroll's Spotted Giraffe

>I'm folding Montroll's Spotted Giraffe, from African Animals in Origami,
>for
>a friend. I've done this model before, but unless I fold it out of tissue
>foil, the neck gets thick, unmanageable, and kind of ugly. Do any of you
>have any suggestions as to how to minimize the thickness. I've thought
>about
>just using thinner paper, but am concerned that the model won't support
>itself.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Howard

I cant get the model to look half decent unless I wet fold it. One way of
doing this is to paint an orange sheet of large origami paper with black
indian ink, and start folding when the ink has dried enough so that it
doesnt go all over your fingers, but not completely dry. If you fold fast,
you can complete the model before the paper is rock solid. Fold accurately,
but the paper will distort slightly. Dont worry about this, it actually adds
to the appeal of the model.
Alternatively, you can use fast drying waterproof ink, and occasionally
spray the paper with a plant sprayer full of water.

There are lots of comments about wet folding in books and on the archive
site. Basically, use fingers rather than finger nails, and dont get the
paper too wet...its an acquired art!

Enjoy,

Stephen

PS : If you use the indian ink, dont lean on your best tablecloth or your
lap. Trust me.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 16:07
Subject: Re: the Price of Technical Virtuosity

It seems to me that the discussion about ugliness and beauty is sort of
hanging in the air and getting nowhere...
Everyone assumes he/she knows quite well what is beautiful and what is ugly
and reacts at others seeing things differently, and this is quite human.
But I've been thinking of a couple of examples in painting...
Leonardo is one of my favourite painters, and he certainly knew how to
paint beauty... Yet he drew dozens of protraits of ugly people, some so
ugly they can only be caricatures, and yet in the end you have to admire
them because they are so lifelike at the same time, and concede them a kind
of reluctant beauty.
And the painting I find most ugly is Picasso's Guernica. It's the colour of
sick stuff and it used to make me feel sick just to look at it, and as a
teen-ager I wondered why people called it art, because I naively thought
art should depict beautiful, true or good things. But one day, an art
history teacher told us the story behind the painting, and then I realised
Picasso had been *right* to paint that picture, and to paint it like that.
He'd wanted to express his feelings about a massacre, and he certainly
succeeded in conveying the ugliness and the meaninglessness of the event,
and his revulsion at it. This doesn't make his picture any more beautiful,
but it makes it paradoxically "true" and "meaningful".

If you consider beautiful only that which is generally called beauty by
consensus, it seems to me you have a poor, narrowed-down, and eventually
stale vision of beauty; if you try to understand what others find beautiful
that you don't, and why they find it beautiful - you may still disagree
with them at the end, but you have enriched your own vision, and - maybe -
enriched the vision of the other person too.

So I have come to appreciate that "reluctant beauty"...

I'm not sure how I relate this to origami, or whether I've just run off on
a tangent or what. I know I am fascinated by the detail and "realism" of
complex models, and enjoy the challenge of folding them now and then, but
somehow they often "bore" me  too, while I find simpler models more
satisfying to my own sense of aesthetism.

Anyway, excuse me for getting onto the soapbox...

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch

__________
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I
I__I__I__I__I   There are more possibilities than you imagine.





From: Thomas C Hull <tch@ABYSS.MERRIMACK.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 16:13
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

Hi everyone!

Well, I do have one tip to give about the Five Intersecting
tetrahedra model.  (I can't remember if this tip is on my web page.
If it isn't I should put it there!)

The hard pyramid is the 3rd one, and there's something you can look
for to help get this in place.  In the final model all the pyramidal
corners will be sticking out, kind of forming tripods.
Underneath each of these tripods will be three "strutts" or "sides"
of three different pyramids, weaving together perfectly in a
triangle "1st one over the 2nd one over the 3rd one over the 1st one"
pattern.

Soooo, when you insert the units for the 3rd pyramid, you'll
be creating two of these "triangle weave" patterns, and these
two will be at polar opposites to each other.  Take one of the units
and look for a place where you can make one of these triangle patterns
by sliding in this unit.  That's where it needs to go, and there'll
be a place for another new unit (which won't touch the previous
one, but will be part of the same pyramid) to make another
triangle pattern on the other side of the model.  I don't know
if that made sense, but it can really help.  Even if you've done
this model before it can still be tricky getting the third tetrahedron
in place.  The above trick can make it a lot easier, especially
if you don't have a model or picture handy to guide you.

Jeff Kerwood suggests developing a labeling system to make it
all crystal clear.  I don't see how this would work becasue
the "holes" are not always well-defined.  One strutt might have to
weave through several openings at odd angles and orientations,
and this would be hard to codify.  But hey, if someone can make it
work, I'd sure like to see it!

Someone else complained that the drawings aren't in the right
perspective.  If this is the case, I'd like to know exactly
which pictures are flawed so that I can fix them.  The 3D
pictures on my web page were all made using Mathematica,
which usually does an excellent job with perspective, so
I'm surprised by this complaint.  But if something's
wrong, I want to know!

I'm glad people are enjoying this model!  Thanks for the
nice comments.

---- Tom "ice, baby, ice ice, baby, tetrahedra" Hull
     http://web.merrimack.edu/~thull
     thull@merrimack.edu





From: Alex Barber <barber@ADMIN.CARLBERG.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 16:30
Subject: Suggestions for Toronto?

It looks like I'll be going to Toronto in mid-November. Can anyone
recommend any paper or origami book vendors in that city? I know there's
more to do there than just feed my habit, but I thought I'd ask for
pointers ;)

Alex Barber

--
tel 713.965.0764 fax 713.965.0135
barber@admin.carlberg.com
barber@the-village.com | http://www.the-village.com





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 16:55
Subject: Re: the Price of Technical Virtuosity

Julia Palffy wrote:

> It seems to me that the discussion about ugliness and beauty is sort of
> hanging in the air and getting nowhere...

No, that's when the "work" is happening! Its when everything makes sense, that
the work is done and is being packaged up for "understanding." ;-) But I
digress.

I suppose that I agree with everything that has been said, to degrees.

It might just be that we're equivocating over the term "Beauty," though I will
avoid attempting to define it other than by usage. ;-)

Paul Jackson raised, and elucidated, a point that I've been thinking about for
a long time, though not always in relation to origami. Socrates/Plato and
Aristotle had opposing views of the "ultimate good" (for this we'll substitute
origamic beauty). The measure of good had two components, good
in-and-of-itself, or intrinsic good, and good-for-another-purpose, or
extrinsic good. The two camps (I don't recall who was on which side) disagreed
over whether the ultimate good was something which while having intrinsic
goodness had extrinsic goodness as well, or not.

In origami, I have thought of this as this in terms of the process of folding
and the resultant model. To me, the best models, the most beautiful, if you
will, are those which are both fun/good/beautiful to fold, _and_ which produce
beautiful models.

In so far as I lean more in one direction than another, I agree with Paul
Jackson that a beautiful folding sequence which leads to an ugly model
(however you wish to define those terms precisely) is a waste of the folding.
In some models (tesellations by Chris Palmer and others come to mind) the
folding and the final model are both beautiful, though often beyound my
threshold of precreasing, so while I can admire them, I do not have the desire
to create any myself. But I digress.

Since I usually only fold in isolation or with other folders, I do not "do
origami" as a performance art. To me, the final form is what others see, and
their appreciation of "origami as art" does not (whether it _should_ or not)
involve any appreciation or account of the folding, but merely of the final
result. I am somewhat biased in favor of a nice looking final result that
might have a less than stellar folding sequence. Lang's Golden Eagle might be
OK as an example here. Lang has a tendency to use nasty maneuvers like closed
wraps and such, which while not impossible to execute cleanly, certainly
stress the paper much more than other manuevers do. In my personal opinion,
the final model's look (beauty) far outweighs any temporal/procedural/folding
difficulties in attaining it.

It isn't just a matter of whether the model is "more realistic" (or less
realistic), but how well it uses the paper, and the features of the subject
which the model represents.

Balance of detail is another sub-consideration. Many many many models ignore
the "boring" parts of the subject, such as the feet or arms/hands to
concentrate on the cool parts. That is a tricky call to make, because as has
been discussed here before, our eye/mind focusses on certain aspects of a
subject more than others, so a priori one cannot cite imbalance as a negative
factor.

Balance can also refer to how the paper is distributed in the model. There is
a beauty of economy, but to me when the bulk and look of the model are too
biased in favor of economic/paper-usage beauty, the model as a whole suffers
(Montroll's Moose from North American Animals in Origami seems a prime example
of this).

Whatever Beauty is, I would deny it is a single dimensional quality. Detail
per se, its presence or absence, can only be a factor when all other things
are considered. Of this I _am_ sure, that as the sole criteria for Beauty,
detail is patheticly inadequate.

My ramblin' $0.02,
        -D'gou





From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@SPACESTAR.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 17:25
Subject: Re: Using tape

David Whitbeck asked about my use of tape in making the Kawasaki Spiral
Snail Shell, which I began to do when preparing to teach an OUSA class.

To start with, I came up with the idea because I wanted all my students
to leave the class with a successful (i.e. intact) shell. The class would
be using the ordinary kami provided by OUSA. And in fact, everyone, even
the three students who were not good enough folders to be in the class,
left with a perfect shell.

Here is the process: Make the two book folds and two diaper folds of the
bird base. Put a square of tape on the underside of the paper at the
center point.

This technique had a few unexpected advantages: 1) the bottom point of
the shell (where the tape was hidden) was very sharp. 2) uncollapsing the
sink was magically easy. I know the sink is optional, but I thought for a
group of two-(not three-)handed folders that had never done twist
folding, working with a flat model would be easier.

I know there was further discussion, primarily between David W. and Doug,
of the most efficacious way to fold the shell (involving wet folding and
precreasing) while I was first on vacation and then too ill to
participate. But here is my defense: I like to use thin, hand-decorated
(my hands) washi to make the model, and I really don't feel the need to
wet fold it. Also, I think of my tape as a kind of back coating.

If I ever get done making stars for the OUSA tree and annual gift, and my
own Christmas cards, I will try folding the shell wet.

Best wishes to all!
-Jane





From: Debra Nelson <debnels@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 17:31
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: The Paper]]

DonnaJowal@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> Wow!  you are really organized.
>
> Donna
Sigh, so much so that I forgot to send reminders a week before deadline.
When can you get the international stuff to me?
Debra





From: Gillian Wiseman <gilladian@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 17:43
Subject: Re: folding bath towels?

Tell her to look into napkin folds. They're usually found in books on how to
serve fine meals, or etiquette books. They might serve her purpose!

Gillian

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Bob Stack <Noobob@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 17:58
Subject: Re: Origami show

I haven't see the show either but it is sure to be wonderful!!!!  As
wonderful as is Ruthanne.





From: Daniel Scher <dps207@IS8.NYU.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 18:14
Subject: attractive or not?

it's interesting that alongside the discussion of beauty in origami should
come the question about folding Montroll's spotted giraffe. It's a model
that is definitely high on the 'wow' factor (how did he get those spots?),
but not (to my mind) nearly as pleasing overall as Montroll's simpler
giraffe without spots.

Last week, I know there were several people who were knocking Montroll's
models for their overall look. I can only say that having folded his new
squirrel, bison, and hippo (from Bringing Origami to Life), they are quite
beautiful. I wouldn't say any were complex a la Kawahata, but in my
opinion, they contained just the right mix of folding pleasure (ie., there
were interesting folding sequences that I hadn't seen) and final
appearance.

 -daniel





From: Jake Crowley <jakecrow@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 18:52
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Toronto?

Try the Japanese Paper Place, here is their web site:

http://www.interlog.com/~washi/

Jake Crowley

>From: Alex Barber <barber@ADMIN.CARLBERG.COM>
>Reply-To: Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Suggestions for Toronto?
>Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:16:30 -0500
>
>It looks like I'll be going to Toronto in mid-November. Can anyone
>recommend any paper or origami book vendors in that city? I know there's
>more to do there than just feed my habit, but I thought I'd ask for
>pointers ;)
>
>Alex Barber
>
>--
>tel 713.965.0764 fax 713.965.0135
>barber@admin.carlberg.com
>barber@the-village.com | http://www.the-village.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 19:36
Subject: Fuse Boxes

Hi,all
I've just finished folding a four module crane box by Fuse, can anyone think
of a way to turn those bird bases into something that resembles a turtle (or
a a Squirrel!!)? 17 fine examples of crumplegami say haven't succeeded ;o)

Dave-S





From: Jeadams1@AOL.COM
Date: 18 Oct 1999 19:38
Subject: Lang's Biplane

I just finished folding Lang's Biplane from "The Complete Book of Origami"
and have some specific questions and one general one about the folding
sequence.

Some steps, like 19, 21, and 29 seem to contain judgment folds that, to me,
seemed somewhat essential to the final success and appearance of the model.
Am I missing some reference points, or is this simply a case where a folder
must rely on their experience and artist eye?

In the picture of the biplane, is it made from monocolored paper, and wet
folded, to boot? I folded mine from ordinary kami and the propeller blades
came out white. And, aside from a couple spots of glue to keep the struts
together, the model seems to lock very well, negating the need to wet fold to
keep its shape.

Like everything else, I assume origami models evolve over time and improved
folding sequences for published models are discovered. Are there any such
improved sequences for the harder models in this book that are available, or
is this sort of thing left as an exercise for the student and not generally
reported?

My interest in these models at the moment is spurred by a local art gallery
that is soliciting origami for its upcoming Christmas tree. They are enamored
with the models in Lang's book and have made a special request for things
like the biplane, the musicians, and the cuckoo clock. (We did all of the
easier models last year. (Grin!))

Thanks!

Jim





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 20:01
Subject: *!$#~%& Closed Sink's

While I remember, could any one point me in the right direction as to how to
accomplish closed sinks. I've seen the diagrams in Origami Insects but
unfortunately I haven't a clue as to what the end result is actually meant to
look like...

The result of the closed sink seems to look exactly the same as for an open
sink I'm obviously missing something v.important here ... and it's stopping
me from getting past step 19 of the butterfly =( (

C'yall
   Dave-S

P.S For anyone who's shied away from this book take heed there's quite a few
relatively easy diagrams in the book such as the scarab beetle, ladybird,
treehopper and paperwasp which just require a little patience ... and in the
case of the paperwasp a piece of paper measuring 30"  =) )





From: Kim Best <kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 20:45
Subject: Re: Montroll's Spotted Giraffe

Howard Portugal wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm folding Montroll's Spotted Giraffe, from African Animals in Origami, for
> a friend. I've done this model before, but unless I fold it out of tissue
> foil, the neck gets thick, unmanageable, and kind of ugly. Do any of you
> have any suggestions as to how to minimize the thickness. I've thought about
> just using thinner paper, but am concerned that the model won't support
> itself.
>

I agree with Stephen that this model is best wetfolded.  Dry fold comes
out fluffy, and foil paper doesn't look good.  I get the bests result
backcoating a thin sheet of paper with tissue paper.  Make sure the
tissue paper is strong and doesn't bleed to much.  With the methyl
celuluse the model has plenty of support.

--
Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 22:34
Subject: Re: Using tape

Jane, how clever!  That tape sounds like a real ingenious little trick.
Wetfolding it is good for that point and also it is easier to make the
spiral more right circular coned shape without having those embarrasing
gaps that go through the model.  Also by making the tip of the spiral wet
you can give a much better twist than you can dry.  For the lazy approach
you can dry fold the shell but wet the tip before twisting it off.  I'm
excited that I found a beautiful shell by David Derudas in Tanteidan
convention books 4 or 5 that I just recently got.

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 22:36
Subject: Re: attractive or not?

>it's interesting that alongside the discussion of beauty in origami should
>come the question about folding Montroll's spotted giraffe. It's a model
>that is definitely high on the 'wow' factor (how did he get those spots?),
>but not (to my mind) nearly as pleasing overall as Montroll's simpler
>giraffe without spots.
>
>Last week, I know there were several people who were knocking Montroll's
>models for their overall look. I can only say that having folded his new
>squirrel, bison, and hippo (from Bringing Origami to Life), they are quite
>beautiful. I wouldn't say any were complex a la Kawahata, but in my
>opinion, they contained just the right mix of folding pleasure (ie., there
>were interesting folding sequences that I hadn't seen) and final
>appearance.
>
> -daniel

Lucky!  Let me guess you got it at the convention..  I'm still waiting for
it to even come in print!  Dagblarbit!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 22:49
Subject: Re: Fuse Boxes

>Hi,all
>I've just finished folding a four module crane box by Fuse, can anyone think
>of a way to turn those bird bases into something that resembles a turtle (or
>a a Squirrel!!)? 17 fine examples of crumplegami say haven't succeeded ;o)
>
>Dave-S

How's this: small flap make three mountain folds to make head shaped, do
the weird fold that Lang does on his shells from Sea Life to make them 3d
but bend the point inward and do folds to tuck in like you see on the flap
on Lang's ant's abdomen.  There are no legs though. Sorry this is just off
the top of my head :-o

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 22:55
Subject: Re: *!$#~%& Closed Sink's

For normal closed sinks think of taking the point with your thumb and
pushing it in until it turns inside out and your paper is happy to collapse
on your boundary creases, done!  For this step think of doing it from the
inside out.  That is your thumb is in the paper and you're pushing outward.
But if you have trouble with this step there is a certain step that is
very icky!!  Yuck and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this list that
thinks of it associated with a bad taste on their mouth.

David





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:27
Subject: Re: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

Ronald Koh indited:

+he is coming from. However, in my simple minded way, I seem to be
+somewhat incapable of understanding the following statements:

I don't think I can help on these, without more information about why
they are incomprehensible (they made sense to me, so I'm at a
disadvantage).

+The fundamental objection, as I understand it, is not necessarily
+applicable only to complex models. It appears to be equally applicable
+to a plethoria of other simple and intermediate non-modular models,
+including the traditional crane and flapping bird with their
+'sticky-out' hunchbacks.

I would concur with that. The hunchback of the traditional
crane/flapping-bird has always bugged me, and it is one of the reaons
while I'll likely never fold 1000 of them. I might fold 1000 of
Harbin's Bird in Flight though.

+we be left with? Will origami as an artform or craft be better off
+without these 'ugly' models? Does the appeal of origami to its
+practitioners and observers rest solely on the form and visual impact of
+the end product? If so, why do we bother with an artform/craft which
+generally restricts us only to folding as a means of construction?
+(Okay, some people do cut, glue, staple,  paint, etc. etc).  If form and
+visual impact are the only aspects that matter, we might as well remove
+all self-imposed restrictions and do something akin to paper mache
+instead.

Ah, but as you note, it is the restrictions which make it interesting!
How can you create beauty under those restrictions? (And I'd take
Beauty in the larger sense, not restricted to "nice" or "good"). Do we
need to obliterate any consideration of artistic merit of the final
result simply because we have imposed constraints upon the process?

+The term 'ugly' suggests senses of hopelessness and rejection to me.

I think this is where we might be getting into potential equivocations
or just outright differing ideas of ugly and beautiful. If Beauty is
not just "pretty looking" but encompasses a larger concept of "well
executed art" even if it is a subject that is not pleasant, or pretty,
or whatever "good" is often associated with Beauty in the more crass
sense, then ugly is not a rejection in the crass sense, but one of
avoiding skill-less-ness. Those "ugly" models may be necessary in a
developmental sense, but they are not the kinds of models one would
choose to exhibit as the acme of the art (or at least not after the art
has advanced to "less ugly" models). But art and beauty and
utility-in-a-steps-along-the-way-to-less-ugliness-sense are also
subject to context, so that it might be very interesting to see an
exhibit of how a model evolves from an idea to the final (published,
perhaps) form. One usually never gets to see an artists intermediate
steps, though Montroll is known for using OUSA convention classes to
get diagram (and model) testing, one knows that he doesn't present half
baked models for consideration even then. ;-)

+Origami is not perfect; nothing is. Perhaps some forms of origami are
+being subjected to too high a level of critique without due
+consideration of the limitations of the artform/craft. We may be looking
+for perfection where it does not exist.

I don't get that sense at all. Personally, based on private
conversations, both in person and in e-mail, critique has been long
overdue in this field of compulsive sharing, where every effort is
praised in hopes of encouraging the folder, to an extent where (I have
at least) felt the praisee knows that the model (as folded) isn't
worthy of the praise it receives. All origami isn't wonderful, and not
all foldings of the same model are as good. Pretending otherwise isn't
going to advance the art any either.  At the moment, I'm willing to let
the pendulum swing the other way a bit and say:  This model isn't as
good as that one, your folding was sloppy, or the design is klunky (so
long as reasons are given and a resort to a "I just know its better"
isn't taken ;-) ). It all depends on context, and I do _not_ suggest
that criticism be given when not asked for (this is a more general life
rule, but it applies just fine to origami). And similarly, if false
praise be the only way to sustain this pastime/craft/art/etc then it is
on very suspect ground.

-D'gou





From: PErick3491@AOL.COM
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:29
Subject: BELLS

Hello, everybody,
Does anyone know of a good, three-dimensional fold for a candle--the kind
with a handle on it?  Thanks. Pat





From: Elaina Quackenbush <elaina_quackenbush@NETZERO.NET>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:40
Subject: Re: Can you help me?

What I get the most notice on is a Buddha I folded from "creative Origami"
by Kasahara, and a few lotus blossoms I came up with (after ripping off
Kashara as well, I didn't like them blah blah).  Out of all the things I
have folded that is the most that gets attention.

Elaina

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:44
Subject: Re: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

I've got to agree about constructive criticism is needed.  It's not that
hard to get constructive criticism from friends and family.  I think it is
important to get opinions from non-folders who have to try harder to see
the model from the paper.  If it wasn't for that I might actually think
that my tiger looked like a tiger or that my violinist is not clunky.

David





From: P Bailey <pbailey@OPENCOMINC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:53
Subject: Re: The Paper

Hi all,

I just got my copy of the paper today, I sat down and promptly read it
cover to cover.  Some comments, the new cover art is more than faintly
similar to that used by life magazine when I was young.  I like it and I
think it is a much more professional look.  As to content, well... there
is a real problem because it was so late in coming out most of the
coming events are already history, again not something I see as a
continuing problem, probably just clearing away the deadwood from the
past unfinished issues.  The articles, I thought they were interesting
and informative. Definitely stuff I wanted to hear about, especially as
I don't do much traveling myself.  As to the models in this issue well I
liked the robot even if he did use a lot of paper and it is a model I
can see me folding in the future.  On the whole I thought it was well
done and look forward to the next issue.

Perry

--
"Each time he shifted gears he did it as if the Moment of Truth
had arrived in a bullfight"
H. Allen Smith "The Pig in the Barber Shop"

http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/           <--Website w/ diagrams!
Icq 23622644





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:54
Subject: Re: Newcomer and Question

Joseph Wu indited:

+aesthetically. I agree with you: I like Kawahata's models better, too. But
+to dump on Montroll's work because it is different is very narrow-minded.
+Think first about motivation. Why were the models created? Kawahata wanted
+to present "realistic" models. Montroll chose to produce models that were
+recognisible but also foldable by more people.

I would agree. I love Montroll's models for their foldability. They are
by far the most joyous to fold, as a whole, of any creator's models
I've come across. I don't always like the final results, but of the
ones I do like, they rank high among my favorites. Montroll more than
anyone else seems to hit the cost/benefit ratio (cost - time/effort to
fold, benefit - the final result) more than any other creator I can
think of. (I'm sure I'll be corrected soon ;-) ).

A point that might have become lost, or forgotten. A long time ago on
this list, it was revealed that Montroll considers his last diagram to
be just the starting point for the model. The folder is to go beyound
the final diagram to "finish" the model with details. Such a strategy
cannot "fix" the imbalance of paper in his Moose, for example, but it
can add worlds of difference to many of his models (his dog model, for
example, has been extended to a very nice greyhound, and if I recall
Terry Hall has made some changes to his Horse). I suppose it would be
nice if the books would say this somewhere, but I have to admit that
I've not reviewed the introduction/preface to any of his books in quite
a while, so they might well say this! ;-)

So, in a sense, Kawahata's models put in the details that the folder
cannot be trusted to come up with on their own. For the structural
issues, that isn't quite fair, but for the details.... ;-)

-D'gou





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 01:07
Subject: Re: *!$#~%& Closed Sink's

At 08:01 PM 10/18/99 -0400,Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM> wrote:

>While I remember, could any one point me in the right direction as to how to
>accomplish closed sinks. I've seen the diagrams in Origami Insects but
>unfortunately I haven't a clue as to what the end result is actually meant to
>look like...

I have already written detailed instructions on closed sinks (check the
archives).An example of a closed sink would be inverting the corner of an
envelope. Note that you are sinking through a two-seded shape. Sinking a
waterbomb base is sinking throuh a four sided shape. to perform a closed
sink, you must keep two sets of sides together (to resemble your envelope
model), and (gracefully) shove your way through.





From: Vicky Avery <vavery@WENET.NET>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 01:21
Subject: Origami Fountains Ceremony

Hi everyone -

This wednesday there will be a "Welcome Back" dedication ceremony for
Ruth Asawa's Origami Fountains on Buchanan Mall in San Francisco's
Japantown.  The two cast-bronze sculptures are patterned after the
"trouble-wit" pleated designs, one is about 8' tall and narrow, and the
other is around 5' and has a wide brim center.

The ceremonies will honor Ruth - whose scultures include the mermaid
fountain at Ghirardelli Square, and several other pieces throughout San
Francisco - and the Mall's architect Rai Okamoto.  The events begin at
5:00pm 10/20/99.

The original fountains were shut down during our drought many years ago
and deteriorated.  They were removed a few years ago so many of you may
not have ever seen them.  We will have a series of troublewit patterns
on display at Paper Tree on Buchanan Mall, and a casual folding session
on Saturday Nov 23.  For additional details please email me directly at
my new email address vicky@paper-tree.com





From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 01:25
Subject: Amazing origami story

I could be truthful nd say I've slept with Tomoko Fuse - but you have to
remember that communal rooms at Japanese inns are quite common - I may have
even had a bath with her!

My most embarrassing experience with an (un-named)origami sensei was going
to their residence and being offered sushi made with bread instead of rice!
The dish sat there for several minutes, untouched, before being whisked away
and replaced by 'proper' sushi!  Mind you, this was over 15 years ago, when
many non-Japanese were unused to Japanese food!

Embarrassing in a different way was being put into the role of interpreter
between the late lamented Michael Shall and a representative of the
Government of Hiroshima debating the use of origami in peace... a great
struggle for my very basic Japanese!

And to digress - not all of us want to fold the Maekawa devil - I have had
THE book for years, and never the inclination to fold that particular model
- I only bought the book because there are so few 'grown up' origami books
in ordinary Japanese book shops!  Toshie Takahama's yacht still remains my
favourite model!

Clare, just warming up as the rain has stopped and it's almost 30 degree
Celsius!





From: Hatori Koshiro <hatori@JADE.DTI.NE.JP>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 03:19
Subject: Re: Anything in Kyoto?

> this year, I will spend a few days around Christmas and New Year in
> Kyoto and I am wondering if there are any must-sees, must-buys or
> must-meets related to origami in the area. So if anyone knows about any
> exhibitions, places to buy paper or to meet people, please let me know.

We JOAS have meetings in Kyoto as well as in Tokyo.
Since we hold them irregularly now, I can't tell when the next.
As to Tokyo meetings, we hold on the last Saturday of every month.

Mathias, I will e-mail you later privately for details.
For now I must go to work. Sigh...

 _ _ _ _ _
|         |  Hatori Koshiro (Koshiro is my first name.)
|_._._._._|          hatori@jade.dti.ne.jp
|         |      http://www.jade.dti.ne.jp/~hatori/
|_ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 If they keep on risking failure, they're still artists. (S.Jobs)





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 04:35
Subject: Nishikawa's Pegasus

Can anybody help me with this?  I can't make sense of the transition
between steps 2 and 3 of Pegasus (170 of Tanteidan 4) I can't make it match
the diagram.

David





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 05:25
Subject: Re: attractive or not?

>===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
>Last week, I know there were several people who were knocking Montroll's
>models for their overall look. I can only say that having folded his new
>squirrel, bison, and hippo (from Bringing Origami to Life), they are quite
>beautiful. I wouldn't say any were complex a la Kawahata, but in my
>opinion, they contained just the right mix of folding pleasure (ie., there
>were interesting folding sequences that I hadn't seen) and final
>appearance.

I like John Montroll's designs too. They are straightforward, have a very
intuitive folding sequence, and the results are well worth the effort.

It's true that some of them don't look so hot if all you do is follow the
folding instructions. However, if you take the time to shape the models (using
wet-folding or laminated paper), some of these creatures can really look very
impressive. My favourite still is the Coyote!

I wet-folded one of his rabbits (from Chinese Zodiac) from elephant hide
paper, and after some shaping it looked ever so cute! I sent it to a
bunny-loving friend in England, and he was really delighted.

And I folded the tiger (also from Chinese Zodiac) from used 'baking paper'
(the paper used to keep your bakery from sticking to the tray, or whatever
it's called-geez my English is rusty after three weeks on Corsica!). The paper
had nice brown stripes where it had touched the grilles, and these stripes
look great on the finished tiger. Because the paper was very brittle (I used
it for Pizza, I believe) I made it wet, and now the finished model is quite
sturdy.

Matthias 'am I babbling?' Gutfeldt





From: Mark Plant <mplant@UK.ORACLE.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 06:07
Subject: Re: Lang's Biplane

Jim

After several practice sessions with Xerox paper - so I got those judgement
     calls
right - I folded the biplane with gold-foil-backed paper, and got a very nice
result. The foil holds its shape well, and removes the need to encourage glue
manufacturers.

Jeadams1@AOL.COM wrote:

> I just finished folding Lang's Biplane from "The Complete Book of Origami"
> and have some specific questions and one general one about the folding
> sequence.
>
> Some steps, like 19, 21, and 29 seem to contain judgment folds that, to me,
> seemed somewhat essential to the final success and appearance of the model.
> Am I missing some reference points, or is this simply a case where a folder
> must rely on their experience and artist eye?
>
> In the picture of the biplane, is it made from monocolored paper, and wet
> folded, to boot? I folded mine from ordinary kami and the propeller blades
> came out white. And, aside from a couple spots of glue to keep the struts
> together, the model seems to lock very well, negating the need to wet fold to
> keep its shape.
>
> Like everything else, I assume origami models evolve over time and improved
> folding sequences for published models are discovered. Are there any such
> improved sequences for the harder models in this book that are available, or
> is this sort of thing left as an exercise for the student and not generally
> reported?
>
> My interest in these models at the moment is spurred by a local art gallery
> that is soliciting origami for its upcoming Christmas tree. They are enamored
> with the models in Lang's book and have made a special request for things
> like the biplane, the musicians, and the cuckoo clock. (We did all of the
> easier models last year. (Grin!))
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 07:11
Subject: Re: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

>===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
>Ah, but as you note, it is the restrictions which make it interesting!
>How can you create beauty under those restrictions? (And I'd take
>Beauty in the larger sense, not restricted to "nice" or "good"). Do we
>need to obliterate any consideration of artistic merit of the final
>result simply because we have imposed constraints upon the process?
I think beauty (or Beauty) can't exist without these restrictions. There are
certainly many different definitions of what beauty is. But if we say
something is beautiful, it is usually because this particular
object/tune/whatever fits within our own framework, our own reference system
of what "beauty" is for us. This implies restrictions, a reference system, and
a certain narrow-mindednes (to refer to another message in this thread).

Matthias 'way outta my league' Gutfeldt





From: Mark Plant <mplant@UK.ORACLE.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 08:33
Subject: Re: Tom Hull's Five intersecting tetrahedra [assemble]

Tom

It was me complaining about the perspective on the diagrams, I'm afraid.
There is definitely more fore-shortening on the real thing than in the
pictures.

Now (after making a few of these things) I have had another look at the
instructions on your site, it is much clearer. I have been working from a
colour printout I made of your page a while back, and I guess the printer
I used wasn't all that good. The problem is with the diagram which shows
four pyramids in place - on my printout, it is hard to see what is
happening at the back of the model to complete the fourth (blue) pyramid.

Maybe if the model was rotated slightly so that back point is easier to
see ? Maybe the diagrams need to be a bit bigger ? Maybe if the blue
pyramid was a lighter colour - yellow ?

I will try the hint you give about the weaving effect to see if I can
perfect the construction process without resorting to peeking at the
notes, or swearing.

It is a great model !

Thomas C Hull wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> Well, I do have one tip to give about the Five Intersecting
> tetrahedra model.  (I can't remember if this tip is on my web page.
> If it isn't I should put it there!)
>
> The hard pyramid is the 3rd one, and there's something you can look
> for to help get this in place.  In the final model all the pyramidal
> corners will be sticking out, kind of forming tripods.
> Underneath each of these tripods will be three "strutts" or "sides"
> of three different pyramids, weaving together perfectly in a
> triangle "1st one over the 2nd one over the 3rd one over the 1st one"
> pattern.
>
> Soooo, when you insert the units for the 3rd pyramid, you'll
> be creating two of these "triangle weave" patterns, and these
> two will be at polar opposites to each other.  Take one of the units
> and look for a place where you can make one of these triangle patterns
> by sliding in this unit.  That's where it needs to go, and there'll
> be a place for another new unit (which won't touch the previous
> one, but will be part of the same pyramid) to make another
> triangle pattern on the other side of the model.  I don't know
> if that made sense, but it can really help.  Even if you've done
> this model before it can still be tricky getting the third tetrahedron
> in place.  The above trick can make it a lot easier, especially
> if you don't have a model or picture handy to guide you.
>
> Jeff Kerwood suggests developing a labeling system to make it
> all crystal clear.  I don't see how this would work becasue
> the "holes" are not always well-defined.  One strutt might have to
> weave through several openings at odd angles and orientations,
> and this would be hard to codify.  But hey, if someone can make it
> work, I'd sure like to see it!
>
> Someone else complained that the drawings aren't in the right
> perspective.  If this is the case, I'd like to know exactly
> which pictures are flawed so that I can fix them.  The 3D
> pictures on my web page were all made using Mathematica,
> which usually does an excellent job with perspective, so
> I'm surprised by this complaint.  But if something's
> wrong, I want to know!
>
> I'm glad people are enjoying this model!  Thanks for the
> nice comments.
>
> ---- Tom "ice, baby, ice ice, baby, tetrahedra" Hull
>      http://web.merrimack.edu/~thull
>      thull@merrimack.edu





From: Mark Plant <mplant@UK.ORACLE.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 08:44
Subject: Re: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

Reminds me of something I saw on TV a while back.

A teenage boy was introducing his new girlfriend to his family.

I thought she was gorgeous, and the boy's father clearly shared my frame of
reference in this respect.

The boy's younger brother (maybe 6 or 7 years old), simply said 'YUK !'

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:

> >===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
> >Ah, but as you note, it is the restrictions which make it interesting!
> >How can you create beauty under those restrictions? (And I'd take
> >Beauty in the larger sense, not restricted to "nice" or "good"). Do we
> >need to obliterate any consideration of artistic merit of the final
> >result simply because we have imposed constraints upon the process?
> I think beauty (or Beauty) can't exist without these restrictions. There are
> certainly many different definitions of what beauty is. But if we say
> something is beautiful, it is usually because this particular
> object/tune/whatever fits within our own framework, our own reference system
> of what "beauty" is for us. This implies restrictions, a reference system, and
> a certain narrow-mindednes (to refer to another message in this thread).
>
> Matthias 'way outta my league' Gutfeldt





From: DonnaJowal@AOL.COM
Date: 19 Oct 1999 08:52
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: The Paper]]

HI Debra,

I liked your first edition.  Your professionalism shows!  I'll look and see
what I have.  Some of it will be very outdated.  And I haven't been to the
office for a while.  I sent you the Singapore text and photos didn't I?

I'll probably not get to this until Thursday.

Donna





From: Cathy <cathypl@GENERATION.NET>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 09:00
Subject: Re: The price of Technical Virtuosity

At 06:18 PM 99-10-17 +0100, you wrote:
>Maybe we should start a parallel List to talk about the work of
>Correia (the most important creative folder after Yoshizawa?),
>Floderer, Joisel, Baretto and others!
>
>Paul Jackson
>
>

I've enjoyed this thread a lot.  Please do not continue it some place
else--I do not want to miss the next installment!

                                                Cathy
******^^^^^*****^^^^^*****

Cathy Palmer-Lister
Ste. Julie, Quebec
Canada
cathypl@generation.net





From: Tim Rueger <trueger@CRYSTAL.CIRRUS.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 09:30
Subject: FW: Question about Map Folding

Hi, all,

I got this email when a net.surfer came across my origami pages.

I don't know of anything like what he's describing, but if it existed,
it'd be really cool.

Anyone out there know of anything like it?

Thanks,
-Tim
--
Tim Rueger             Crystal Semiconductor
Phone: (512) 912-3420  4210 S. Industrial Dr., Austin, TX 78744
Fax:   (512) 445-2831  Email: trueger@crystal.cirrus.com

------------------------------------------------------------

> From: robertsss <robertsss@uthscsa.edu>
> Subject: Question about Map Folding
>
> Dear Sir:
> I discovered your work by web surfing.  Here is a question that I thought I'd
> ask you because you seem to be an origami guru:
>
> Is there a way to fold a large map that enables the user to view a
> conveniently small section of it, but also to view adjacent sections of the
> map with minor manipulations?  This question was raised by one of my fellow
> medical students.  I had shown him a tessellation and he was impressed with my
> folding technique, though I told him I got it off the internet.  My friend was
> in desert storm.  He was an Army jeep driver for a general.  There was another
> general who had his own jeep driver but this other jeep driver knew this great
> way to fold maps.  He was able to take a large map and fold it so that his
> general, in the jeep, could look at one section of it, and then with minor
> manipulations, look at adjacent sections without having to unfold it.  My
> friend claimed that this manner of folding could allow the user to go to
> sections of the map both North, South, AND East and West.  This was quite a
> feat, because the map could be used as the jeep was being driven around, with
> wind blowing.  The other jeep driver was very jealous of his map folding and
> would not share it because it gave him a step up above all the other jeep
> drivers and made his general more efficient than the other generals.
>
> I asked my friend if there were diagonal folds and he said that he thought so,
> but he never got closer to the other's maps than two jeeps parked side by
> side, as generals compared notes.  I asked if there were cuts in the maps, he
> said there might have been but he didn't remember any.  He said that maps
> tended to wear out and break at the creases.  My friend suggested that I come
> up with something because I was obviously interested in origami.
>
> I then called up another friend of mine who was also in Desert Storm but he
> was in the Marines and described the situation.  My second friend had not
> heard nor seen anything like this map folding description but said that it
> would give a soldier quite an advantage and maybe it was kept secret.  He
> related what a pain it was to stop, unfold the map and then refold it each
> time, all the while making a big white target for the enemy to shot at.
>
> Next I hunted around the internet, doing searches on map folding, military map
> folding, etc.  I suspect that I have spent a total of three hours on the web
> and came up with nothing!
>
> I then tried folding on my own and have several well-creased pieces of paper
> but nothing to show for my efforts.  I believe that my army jeep friend was
> mistaken.  It is easy to go either North and South, but to then go East or
> West requires unfolding a big map.  The jeep driver might have had two maps,
> one prefolded to be viewed North and South, and a second map prefolded to go
> East and West.
>
> Have you heard of anything like this?  Do you have any ideas?  I suspect that
> it might be topologically impossible, but I am not sure.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shannon S. Roberts





From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 10:03
Subject: Wet behind the ears

Hello everyone!

I'm finally here with a serious question, now that I've been flapping my
fingers more than my gums.  I attempted wet-folding for the first time last
night with elephant-hide paper with less-than-stunning results.

I attempted Joisel's Rat for my first time, which might have been a mistake.
I started by "misting" the paper with the bottle, then wiping it down with
the sponge.   I continued in this way, spraying and wiping before folding.
If the paper became too limp I just wiped it down with the sponge again.

Towards the end of the model, the da*##$@ thing kept coming unfolded, and the
tail unfolded itself.  I wasn't able to get in a good crimp-- seems i
couldn't soak all the layers of paper enough.

Any ideas? Tips?

Rob





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 10:12
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

>>From: Rob Hudson <FashFold@AOL.COM>

>>fingers more than my gums.  I attempted wet-folding for the first time last
>>night with elephant-hide paper with less-than-stunning results.
...
>>Towards the end of the model, the da*##$@ thing kept coming unfolded, and the
>>tail unfolded itself.  I wasn't able to get in a good crimp-- seems i
Wet paper does try to unfold itself very quickly. You must subject it to
proper shape while it dries. Try wrapping the model with thick but soft thread.
You may use large paper clips, but they can mar the paper surface.
After a while, the paper's own sizing (adhesives) will dry and keep the paper
fibers in a permanent shape.

        Sincerely,
                Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 10:35
Subject: Re: The Price of Technical Virtuosity

>===== Original Message From Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU> =====
>Having said that, I shall now get back to diagramming more ugly clumps
>of paper with disjointed 'sticky-out' pieces. :o)

Please do! I'm especially curious to see the one with the sticky-out piece
coming out the rear end <g>.

Matthias





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 1999 10:39
Subject: Re: Wet behind the ears

Carlos Alberto Furuti indited:
> Wet paper does try to unfold itself very quickly. You must subject it to
> proper shape while it dries. Try wrapping the model with thick but soft
     thread.
> You may use large paper clips, but they can mar the paper surface.
> After a while, the paper's own sizing (adhesives) will dry and keep the paper
> fibers in a permanent shape.

Another technique to use is doll house sized wooden clothespins. Michael
Naughton told me about that one, for sections that need to be clamped, that
works quite well. I've found several sizes in local craft stores. The plastic
ones are much harsher and usually have serated gripping surfaces (though I
suppose if you were trying to achieve a certain effect, that might work quite
well). I've also seen wire of various characteristics used. Plain wire can
leave a trough mark, but really cheap twist ties, which have a paper coating
and quite thin wire, have worked well, and I've recently started experimenting
with pipe cleaners (I use only white so far, fearing, but not knowing for
sure, that the dye on the colored pipe cleaners much run when next to the damp
paper).

Good luck Rob - I canna believe a salty sailin' man such as yerself ain't've
done wet-foldin' afore! Usta be a time when...

-D'gou
