Judith Enright on sun 11 apr 99
Don't know about the rest of you, but I've typically had high breakage when
separating Orton's senior cones. When visiting the Orton factory during
NCECA, Jim Friedenrich, senior engineer there, told me the trick: lay a
pencil along the groove between the two cones, then press down sharply on
either end of the pencil and the two cones'll just snap apart. I tried it
this morning and it was like magic!
(Many of you probably already know this trick, but I'm so tickled I thought
I'd share it anyway!)
Be well....
Judith (in cone heaven) Enright
@ Black Leopard Clayware
Vince Pitelka on mon 12 apr 99
>Don't know about the rest of you, but I've typically had high breakage when
>separating Orton's senior cones. When visiting the Orton factory during
>NCECA, Jim Friedenrich, senior engineer there, told me the trick: lay a
>pencil along the groove between the two cones, then press down sharply on
>either end of the pencil and the two cones'll just snap apart. I tried it
>this morning and it was like magic!
Judith -
But then you have to find a pencil every time you need to separate cones.
Sorry to sound like mister-know-it-all, but it is easy to separate them by
hand without ever breaking them. Just grasp each cone by the LARGE end, and
snap them apart. Always works.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Cheryl L Litman on mon 12 apr 99
Judith,
You must have had a different tour guide because we asked the same
question and got a different answer. We were shown (and got to practice)
grasping a cone between thumb and forefinger of each hand and pressing
down and in. Worked well and all we tried.
Cheryl Litman
Somerset, NJ
email: cheryllitman@juno.com
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:42:24 EDT Judith Enright
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>Don't know about the rest of you, but I've typically had high breakage
>when
>separating Orton's senior cones. When visiting the Orton factory
>during
>NCECA, Jim Friedenrich, senior engineer there, told me the trick: lay
>a
>pencil along the groove between the two cones, then press down sharply
>on
>either end of the pencil and the two cones'll just snap apart. I
>tried it
>this morning and it was like magic!
>
>(Many of you probably already know this trick, but I'm so tickled I
>thought
>I'd share it anyway!)
>
>Be well....
>
>Judith (in cone heaven) Enright
>@ Black Leopard Clayware
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Martin Howard on tue 13 apr 99
Judith -
But then you have to find a pencil every time you need to separate
cones.
Sorry to sound like mister-know-it-all, but it is easy to separate them
by
hand without ever breaking them. Just grasp each cone by the LARGE end,
and
snap them apart. Always works.
Best wishes -
- Vince
I have Orton cones, 02, 01 and 1. The 1 is a shocker. I can score along
the line between the two with a sharp knife and get one whole cone, but
very rarely the two.
But, with the 02 and 01 Vince is right. It seems that the problem, in my
experience, is with a particular batch of one cone. Or is it because
they have been stored in the wrong conditions. I will certainly be glad
when this batch of 1s is finished.
Martin Howard
Webbs Cottage Pottery and Press
Woolpits Road, Great Saling
BRAINTREE
Essex CM7 5DZ
01371 850 423
araneajo@gn.apc.org
amy parker on thu 15 apr 99
>Judith -
>But then you have to find a pencil every time you need to separate cones.
>Sorry to sound like mister-know-it-all, but it is easy to separate them by
>hand without ever breaking them. Just grasp each cone by the LARGE end, and
>snap them apart. Always works.
>Best wishes -
>- Vince
>
Vince - Maybe I should send you this last box of 7's that I got where the
join between the cones is TWICE as thick as any other box I have on hand!
I have had to score the hell out of them, all the way up the groove, to get
them apart!
amy parker Lithonia, GA
amyp@sd-software.com
Erin Hayes on fri 16 apr 99
Hi All!
I also hate the attached cones. I don't know why they don't separate them
anymore. Cost, I suppose. (I also liked the vermiculite packing better than
the foam, but whatever.)
The best way I know how to separate them is to put them flat on a table and
place both thumbnails (as short as they are) right in the join between them
and push down. That usually breaks them apart without snapping them. Not
always, of course. I guess I'll have to try Vince's trick and using a
pencil.
On the other hand, they are very nicely dyed now. It does make for a
festive conepack!
Erin.
Vince Pitelka on fri 16 apr 99
>Vince - Maybe I should send you this last box of 7's that I got where the
>join between the cones is TWICE as thick as any other box I have on hand!
>I have had to score the hell out of them, all the way up the groove, to get
>them apart!
>amy parker Lithonia, GA
Amy -
That is something I have not run into, and I can see how that would make
things difficult. Maybe you ought to send them to Orton! They need to know
about this.
Best wishes -
- Vince
John Baymore on mon 19 apr 99
------------------
Not to sound too paranoid here but............... picture this scenario.
The Vice President of Profits (VPP) sits down at a management meeting and
says to the assemblage:
=22As you all know, during the manufacture of cones when we part the pieces
into individual cones we break a few. These broken cones of course can't
be sold, and therefore represent a certain percentage of waste per every
100 cones sucessfully shipped to the consumer. Annually I estimate the
cost of these broken cones to be =24XXXXX.XX, including lost product, wasted
raw materials, waste disposal costs, and unproductive labor and overhead.=22
=22I propose a new way of looking at this problem. Instead of being waste,
these broken cones represent an OPPORTUNITY.=22
=22If we stop separating the molded cones here in the factory, we can have
the end user break the cones apart themselves, thereby saving that
=24XXXXX.XX in wastage we are currently incurring. When THEY break =
them.....
it is then THIER cost, not ours. We shift the cost liability for this part
of the production process to our end user. They then pass this cost along
to their end users... the purchaser of their goods.=22
=22Additionally, our end user will then have to replace those cones that
break because they NEED them or they wouldn't have bought them in the first
place. So this shift in manufacturing tactic will also result in =
=24XXXXX.XX
in additional sales of large cones per year.=22
=22This revolutionary approach requires little investment in new equipment
and very little change in plant operations. In fact, it is mostly
eliminating some hand labor in the factory....... providing more reduced
production costs.=22
=22Combined, I predict this simple reductive approach to future production
methods will increase corporate profits by =24XXXXX.XX annually.=22
The Vice President of Customer Service (VPCS), fidgeting in his/her chair,
now chimes up:
=22But won't this move be precieved by our customers as a negative thing?=22
The VPP responds:
=22To our main market, the industrial customers, cone usage is such an
insignificant cost that they probably won't really notice this subtle
change. There won't even be blip on the P+L. The secondary craft pottery
market will certainly be a little more affected, but they probably will
just accept it like they do bad batches of clay from their suppliers.=22
=22Tell you what..... I appreciate your concerns. Let's just try this for a
year and see how many complaints we get. If those complaints are
significant enough we can always go back to the old way. But I think it
will work with little resistance.=22
The President then speaks and all are quietly attentive:
=22I like it. Now, lets move on to that other matter............... ... . .
. . . . .=22
Food for thought.
Best,
.......................john
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40Compuserve.com
John Hesselberth on tue 20 apr 99
Hi John,
I have this feeling that you, like I, have lived in the corporate world
and know this is exactly how it works in today's corporate America. That
is one of the many reasons I am now so happy to be living in the potter's
world instead. Great post! John
John Baymore wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Not to sound too paranoid here but............... picture this scenario.
>
>The Vice President of Profits (VPP) sits down at a management meeting and
>says to the assemblage:
>
>"As you all know, during the manufacture of cones when we part the pieces
>into individual cones we break a few. These broken cones of course can't
>be sold, and therefore represent a certain percentage of waste per every
>100 cones sucessfully shipped to the consumer. Annually I estimate the
>cost of these broken cones to be $XXXXX.XX, including lost product, wasted
>raw materials, waste disposal costs, and unproductive labor and overhead."
>
>
>"I propose a new way of looking at this problem. Instead of being waste,
>these broken cones represent an OPPORTUNITY."
>
>"If we stop separating the molded cones here in the factory, we can have
>the end user break the cones apart themselves, thereby saving that
>$XXXXX.XX in wastage we are currently incurring. When THEY break them.....
>it is then THIER cost, not ours. We shift the cost liability for this part
>of the production process to our end user. They then pass this cost along
>to their end users... the purchaser of their goods."
>
>"Additionally, our end user will then have to replace those cones that
>break because they NEED them or they wouldn't have bought them in the first
>place. So this shift in manufacturing tactic will also result in $XXXXX.XX
>in additional sales of large cones per year."
>
>"This revolutionary approach requires little investment in new equipment
>and very little change in plant operations. In fact, it is mostly
>eliminating some hand labor in the factory....... providing more reduced
>production costs."
>
>"Combined, I predict this simple reductive approach to future production
>methods will increase corporate profits by $XXXXX.XX annually."
>
>The Vice President of Customer Service (VPCS), fidgeting in his/her chair,
>now chimes up:
>
>"But won't this move be precieved by our customers as a negative thing?"
>
>The VPP responds:
>
>"To our main market, the industrial customers, cone usage is such an
>insignificant cost that they probably won't really notice this subtle
>change. There won't even be blip on the P+L. The secondary craft pottery
>market will certainly be a little more affected, but they probably will
>just accept it like they do bad batches of clay from their suppliers."
>
>"Tell you what..... I appreciate your concerns. Let's just try this for a
>year and see how many complaints we get. If those complaints are
>significant enough we can always go back to the old way. But I think it
>will work with little resistance."
>
>The President then speaks and all are quietly attentive:
>
>"I like it. Now, lets move on to that other matter............... ... . .
>. . . . ."
>
>
>Food for thought.
>
>Best,
>
>.......................john
>
>John Baymore
>River Bend Pottery
>22 Riverbend Way
>Wilton, NH 03086 USA
>
>603-654-2752
>JBaymore@Compuserve.com
John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
P.O. Box 88
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com
"It is time for potters to claim their proper field. Pottery in its pure
form relies neither on sculptural additions nor on pictorial decorations.
but on the counterpoint of form, design, colour, texture and the quality
of the material, all directed to a function." Michael Cardew in "Pioneer
Pottery"
Frank Tucker on wed 21 apr 99
At 11:22 PM 4/20/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi John,
>
>I have this feeling that you, like I, have lived in the corporate world
>and know this is exactly how it works in today's corporate America. That
>is one of the many reasons I am now so happy to be living in the potter's
>world instead. Great post! John
>
I would like to clear up a misconception here.The Orton Ceramic Foundation
is NOT a corporation.It is a foundation set up over 100 years ago.As I
understand it the profits from the foundation are put into ceramic
research.Say what you will about the way the cones are packaged but don't
get carried away.
Frank Tucker
Tuckers Pottery Supplies
1800-304-6185
John Baymore on fri 23 apr 99
------------------
(snip)
=3EI have this feeling that you, like I, have lived in the corporate world
=3Eand know this is exactly how it works in today's corporate America. That
=3Eis one of the many reasons I am now so happy to be living in the potter's
=3Eworld instead. Great post=21 John
I would like to clear up a misconception here.The Orton Ceramic Foundation
is NOT a corporation.It is a foundation set up over 100 years ago.As I
understand it the profits from the foundation are put into ceramic
research.Say what you will about the way the cones are packaged but don't
get carried away.
(clip)
I too would like to clear up a misconception here =3Cg=3E. I am well aware
that Orton is not a =22for-profit=22 corporation. In my posting I never =
said
it was. I just described the large organization =22group-think=22 , =
=22drive to
have more money available to work with=22 BS that often goes on in such
settings. How one individual with a certain perspective (make more money)
can often drive an organization. Profit...non-profit...... probably makes
no real substantive difference.
(I probably should have LEFT the original wording that I had when I first
wrote the post that used =22board meeting=22 instead of =22management =
meeting=22
and labeled the two main characters as BOD members. Should have stuck with
my first gut impulse =3Cg=3E. Edited it out. In that, I am certainly =
remiss,
particularly if I gave the impression that Orton was a for-profit entity.
=22Vice President of Profits=22 just had such a nice =22ring=22 to it =
=3CRBG=3E. Sort
of a =22Cruela DeVille=22 moniker.)
I DID intended the original post to possibly stimulate other potters to
COMPLAIN to Orton that they don't like the new manufacturing process and
packaging. I know as a BOD member, =22the voice of the people=22 was =
powerful
and could cut through a lot of BOD meeting BS at times.
While we are at it, let's not put the concept of =22non-profit foundation=22=
up
on a pedestal either.
I am familiar with non-profit organizations in a very small way. I sat as
a board of directors member on one non-profit for 9 years and was one of
it's executive officers for 3 years, and also sat as a BOD member on
another =22educational foundation=22 for 3 years. Being VERY involved in =
this
role at the time, I had the opportunity to research other NP's for
reference as to how WE conducted our business in relation to them.
Non-profits can make bad decisions just like any other large organization.
I certainly watched US make a few of those over the years =3Cwg=3E. (I, of
course,.... was NEVER involved in any way in ANY of the bad ones =3CBG=3E.
BTW... anyone need a new bridge?)
I can't remember the exact legal wording of the diferences between the
non-profit 501C =22corporation=22 and the non-profit educational foundation =
I
sat on. But the former clearly had the label =22corporation=22 attached at =
the
end. I think they both had that appelation. A =22corporation=22 is a legal
entity recognized somewhat as if it were an individual by the government.
So in that sense we were a non-profit........... but we were also a
=22corporation=22 at the same time. If I remember correctly, the foundation
was legally a =22coproration=22 also.
(Bonnie H. could shed some light on this legal stuff, I bet. But we are
splitting definition hairs here that really don't matter all that much to
the point at hand.)
Anyway.......... the main difference between a profit and non-profit BOD
meeting is that the NP has to find =22approved=22 ways to spend the =
surpluses
generated so that it reamins =22non-profit=22. There always seem to be =
large
numbers of =22wish-list=22 projects that a BOD has that don't have funding =
at
any given time. And many projects in the works that are underfunded. So
there is always a drive to find more funding so that more can be
appropriated to these projects.
Finding that funding includes making more money. Money makes the world go
round. Only two places to get more money. Cut expenses or increase
revenues. Better yet... do both. Maximizing profits. Increasing the
funding avaialble for research projects. Gettin' da bucks. Whatever you
want to call it.
Orton may be a NP foundaion, and the =22profits=22 in this case may not be
destined for a corporate coffer, a higher CEO salary, nor to dividends for
the shareholders, but they exist anyway and are typically in HIGH DEMAND in
a non-profit. The more money a =22non-profit=22 makes the more it has to
spend on ......... what should we call them......... maybe =22good works=22.
Obviously those sitting in control of the NP feel very strongly that the
research work their organization does is very worthy of funding...... or
they wouldn't be there.
Those so-called =22profits=22 are what funds the various research projects.
The more of these =22profits=22 there are, the more funds there are =
available
for the BOD to slate for research (thereby turning potential unacceptable
=22profit=22 magically into justifiable =22expenses=22). Like any research
situation...... I would bet there are plenty of people screaming for
increased (or any) funding for THEIR particular project at the Orton
Foundation.
Then you get into corporate =22wheeling and dealing=22. Maybe that VPP I
mentioned in the original post (maybe better called in this case =22Head of
the Research Development Committee=22 of the XYZ Foundation, Inc.) is the
friend of someone whose project is not getting funding right now. Private
agendas happen all the time in such settings. =22Palace intrigue=22 and
politics abound. That's the part of the role I hated when I had to deal
with it. Not my =22thing=22, if you know what I mean.
The thing that makes it possible to be a non-profit at all is that you take
the revenues earned and spend them. No different than most other
businesses, in many senses. Plenty of places to spend money in any
organization =3Cg=3E. The difference is that in the NP case, you have to =
spend
a good portion of the profits on projects that are justifiable (to the
government watchdogs) as =22services to the field=22. Those =22good =
works=22
mentioned above. You also have to keep things like executive director and
other salary, expenses, and perks in line with those of other typical
non-profits. That way the annual P+L comes out OK for the CPA that
watchdogs the whole mess, you retain your non-profit status, and you don't
get fined and all those nasty type things.
Often these =22services=22 ARE projects that would never be funded if it =
were
not for the broad, open-minded approach of the non-profit funding them.
No question about it. (Not enough short term payback ROI for a for-profit
corporation.) In that sense, the existence of such non-profits are a great
boon to any field. They fund things no one else would. Here's to these
organizations.... cause many great things have some out of the things they
have funded in too many fields to mention. We have ALL benefitted from
them in some way in our lives.
The Orton Foundation certainly does a lot of good work, and the ceramic
community has benefitted in many ways from its activities. It keeps a
bunch of ceramics-related researchers employed ..... and that is nice in
any case =3Cg=3E. We occasionally get a product available from industry
=22downsized=22 for the studio potter. And so on.
I am not =22bashing=22 Orton Foundation in general.... just this particular
manufacturing and packaging decision. Oh yeah...... and corporate and
large organizational governance procedures =3Cg=3E.
Best,
....................john
PS: First and foremost and (for me) MAINLY......... it is the principle
of the thing. This change is not an =22improvement=22 from the consumers =
point
of view (maybe like the self supporting cone is in some situations)
............ it is an improvement for the manufacturer's processes. I, as
the end user, gain little from this change. I actually lose something, at
the same time I see prices for the product rising.
While we are on the subject, another alternative explanation for the cones
not being broken apart anymore is that Orton just did not consider that to
be important, or just did not consider it AT ALL. In my estimation,
another possible bad decision made.
BAD decision. It is a WIN / LOSE desision.... not a WIN / WIN one. WIN
/WIN is the real goal of a non-profit BOD's decisions. This change may make
things better for Orton... but it doesen't for me. If the changes in
manufacturing improves the consistency of the melting of the cones to the
standard...... as a studio artist I already have variables that make the
original accuracy before the change just fine.
In any case....... I end up breaking more cones than I used to recieve
broken from shipping. So I buy more cones than I used to. And it takes
time breaking cones apart that I didn't used to do. And I buy vermiculite
to mix into the clay for the cone packs.
From my VERY narrow self interest....... I liked the old manufacturing
method and packaging much better. It cost me less. My time is worth
money. If I have to take a lot of extra time in breaking apart cones
carefully.... then it is costing me in my time too. Potters in general
tend to undervalue thier time. I don't. Since I don't have employees.....
the time breaking the cones apart is MY time at MY rate.... not a =245.25 =
per
hour minimum wage person preping cone packs.
BTW...... for a single firing of my climbing kiln it takes a minimum of 24
sets of cone packs of five cones each. Six sets per chamber. 120 cones a
firing. 60 =22snaps=22 to perform perfectly. That's a lot of cones to =
break
apart slowly, and a lot of opportunity to break a number of them in the
process.
Now we are really talking only a few dollars here. Not really worth losing
a lot of sleep over in the long run. (Nor too much of the bandwidth here
on the net. =3Cg=3E) I might buy an additional couple of boxes of cones =
each
year to make up for the broken ones. And a single bag of vermiculite. And
the hours of slow cone breaking probably don't amount to much more than a
hundred dollars extra labor per year.
(Thank god I am a fast typist... or the postings on this subject would have
cost more than the issue itself =3Cg=3E)
Yes... it is a tiny cost when compared to the volume of ware produced. But
in the US, handcrafted pottery is not exactly the most profitable
profession if you actually do handcraft it yourself. So you have to attend
to keeping track of the small costs if you want to make more money.
Just like any large corporation does =3CBG=3E.
PPS: I got a LOT of private e-mail applauding that original post. Thanks
to all. Guess a lot of us have experienced what I described. I'll try to
answer them individually too. But it may take a while. Have patience,
please.
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40Compuserve.com
Evan Dresel on sat 24 apr 99
Thanks for the detail, John. Convinced me evan more that I can take
pride in snapping apart my own cones for the greater good of clay.
Maybe you could hire neighbor kids to do the deed -- they could bring
their own pencils. Or else you could sit in front of the TV breaking
apart cones. Keep a box next to the john...
Oh well, we all have our cross to bear. Personally I hate the plastic
bags my clay suppliers use. One uses bags that are too thin and the
other uses bags that are too small and hard to get the clay back into.
-- Evan in W. Richland who, as always has irrigation to fix.
--------------------------------------------
John Baymore wrote:
...a great deal about the inner workings of not-for-profits and why he
hates those double cones
| |
|
