View Single Post
Old 04-01-2005, 02:43 PM
Lani McGregor
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Steven O'Day
Lani- I am pretty sure that Therese had the base glasses tested, ...
But what were the "base glasses"? And I'd still be shocked if Mr Loo OK'd dilatometric lab tests, considering the expense.

Some customers were screaming for guidance on compatability.
I remember the pain.

We had a lot of personal experience and anectodal help but no empirical proof. And so the COE number. I don't think that anyone ever represented it at the time as the end all, but a starting point. We always recomended testing with the actual base glass being used.
I believe you. Nevertheless, the information has morphed over the years from "if it has the same COE it's (probably) compatible" to "if it's compatible it must have the same COE". Hence, people in Germany are fusing Bullseye (that famous "90" glass) to Desag Artista and because most of it isn't cracking wildly, dealers are listing Desag as a "90" glass - contrary to what the manufacture lists as their measured COE (which Desag lists as 94)

We were familiar with Boyce and Dan's book and had been around workshops that Boyce did in the early 80's. This was one source, I was also looking at Scholes.
Did you ever find any reference in Scholes that equates a measured COE with compatibility?

I believe Huchthausen had a lecture on it at Appalachian Craft and I remeber that lecture that Maslach gave. I don't remeber a eureka moment but rather a whole lot of sources saying the same thing.
But what exactly was that "same thing"?

Thanks for the input. It's great to hear from someone who was at Bendheim back then. I sure wish I'd held on to catalogs! I just KNEW that cleaning house we fundamentally WRONG .

Last edited by Lani McGregor; 04-03-2005 at 05:15 PM.
Reply With Quote