Talk:Lost-wax casting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Serkatet. Peer reviewers: Sunfloweryellow007, Plantnoob.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
"For a more detailed description of the process, see Patrick Kipper's book Patinas for Silicone Bronze; Roger's and Nelson Publishers:1995. He is a true guru of the art."

This looks like a plug to me, should it be kept?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalRushDude (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 16:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold in updating pages! (And pls sign on talk pages with four twiggles, like ~, this will automagically insert your signature and a timestamp).
 * I've made a standard book entry out of this, but it's somewhat off topic here, so plain deletion would be an option.
 * Pjacobi 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture used to display the lost-wax method is not clear at all. There are terms used in the image that are not used in the artcile. What is the importance of the; Chaplets? Mantle? Vents? &c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.91.18 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bronze-centric
In it's current form, this article has a strong lean towards bronze-casting. While it is certainly a major use of the technique, it is far from the only one. I'd like to remove the sections that imply that bronze-specific steps, such as applying a patina fall within the relm of "Lost-wax casting". There is already an article on Bronze sculpture, and such topics are appropriately covered there. -Verdatum (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right Verdatum, it is indeed far from the only one, but why not add just a small chapter or footnote covering bronze casting, with a direct to other articles? By discussing it in a separate chapter, it's immediately clear that bronze isn't the only metal or even material cast in this way. I was the one who put it back in, but perhaps it can be shortened drastically, because Patina covers that technique. If I were looking for more information on lost-wax bronze casting and landed up here, I certainly would value the information, and if I were only looking for the process as such, I wouldn't mind this information, as long as it was clear that bronze is just a sub-chapter. I know, I'm probably a bit prejudiced, as a sculptor, but that's how I see it. By the way, I am not too happy with the latest addition of a largely unreadable portion on casting history. It look like a monograph on casting history, not like encyclopedic material. I'm glad it's being improved, but I think there are still too many quotes and weasel words. This portion is also largely bronze-centered. Then again, I think with improvements going on, it could clean up nicely. Lots of references though, I respect the work. Anyway, thanks for the valuable contributions here, cordially,--Satrughna02 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I shortened the patination part a little. Hope you can agree, if not, please change it as you wish. Please don't get me wrong, I think you've done great work on this page- I noticed that you've already changed the things I complained about above; apologies. Best wishes, --Satrughna02 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be sure, I find patina really really interesting, but it just isn't at all part of the lost-wax casting process. It's off-topic here.  It belongs in [Bronze sculpture#Finishing]] and patina.  I do think the finishing section of bronze sculpture can be expanded into more of a WP:SUMMARY style. -Verdatum (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I get the point, you're absolutely right. I throw in the towel; but as I have little experience with the summary style, is it OK with you if I just watch how you do it? ;-) If I see possibilities for improvement, I'll get back to you here. I'll keep watchng the changes though, interesting stuff. Greetings, --Satrughna02 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased with how the page has been refined. It looks and reads much better. I am concerned that in-text notes/references have been left included in the article, albeit, the text itself being heavily modified. In short, the notes/quotations left included may no longer directly relate to the sentence to which they are attached. This can be very misleading. Not all of the historical textual references may always appear directly related to the lost-wax process. However, they do allude to it - a word used in the introduction. It is ashame now that they have been removed, as they would, no doubt, provide a useful backdrop for those wishing to investigate the topic further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.110.141 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Overlap with Investment casting
The topic scope between this article and investment casting is a bit blurry. As a technique, the two terms refer to the same thing. The investment casting article states that this is the artistic process; and the history section effectively supports this. But the demo moreso discusses the general techique of investment casting. I think I may reorganize the articles so a clearer line may be drawn. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. -Verdatum (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you mention this, Verdatum, I noticed this as well a while ago, but thought myself too unfamiliar with the topic of investment casting to adress this. To make it absolutely clear, the title may have to be changed into "lost-wax casting in art", with a reference to investment casting.

Then the article may pretty much be the same, but with a list of castable materials in the beginning, like bronze, aluminium, glass, etc. I'd like to hear your view on this. Greetings, Satrughna (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the two articles, and it seems like they are both divided into sections on the process and sections on the history. I'm now thinking that we can reorganize the articles so one is just on process, and one is just on history, instead moving this page to History of lost-wax casting, becoming a WP:SPINOUT article from investment casting, and having "Lost-wax casting" redirect to the investment casting article.  (I realize that in the artist community, this term is often used almost exclusively; but obviously, the process really is just a specific type of investment casting involving wax.  Thoughts on this organization? (I'll put a note on the investment casting article directing editors to this discussion too.) -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this, but couldn't make up my mind. On the one hand, perhaps it would be best to make this an article about investment casting in art, but modern art uses all of the industrial investment casting techniques as well. Perhaps you're right to split off the part on history of lost-wax casting. It would need some proper linking then, and the history part of investment casting could perhaps be merged with it.
 * I think that, from an encyclopedic point of view, merging the two is the best thing to do. I like the lost-wax article part on the process as it is at the moment, from a sculptor's point of view, even though it only talks about the modern technique of ceramic shell and not of clay-based and plaster-based molds. If it were joined into one article, it would need chapters dividing it into industrial and artistic use. And where would the apple pictures go??
 * So ruminating about this, I think it takes a lot of work to keep things clear. For instance it would need some (minor) reference to the history part, mentioning the historical development of lost-wax casting techniques and briefly explaining the techniques used in antiquity, before moving on to the present day processes, then splitting out, as mentioned above, into artistic and industrial uses and techniques, and other, if needed. Like to hear your views. Greetings, Satrughna (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Verdatum, I fully agree with you. It appears that there is enough information there to warrant an article for the history. I might jump the gun a little bit and actually copy the process section from here, because I was planning on completely writing it in the investment casting article, but see that this one is well laid out. I'm also going to add the merge templates to both now. Wizard191 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes condensation
I wish to condense the notes and references sections together by changing to named references. I don't find any of this content to be terribly controversial, so citing the page number for every fact is a bit overkill. This should make it easier to see the frequency of use of each source, and reduce redundant content. I just want to give notice before doing the work in case anyone has a problem with this. -Verdatum (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! Good idea, waaay too much references anyway. --Satrughna (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. PRRfan (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I did a bunch of changes, so here is the diff for posterity. I removed all the page number citations.  I could add them back into a page range (eg "pp. 1, 6, 9-24"), but I sort of got lazy.  I removed the footnote messages.  Usually transforming them to statements in parenthesis.  I left the references that weren't cited anywhere, though they can potentially be deleted.  I started trying to convert the references into using template:cite book, but that got boring really fast, especially when I couldn't figure out the meaning of some of them. -Verdatum (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well done. PRRfan (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me, but why are there so many books missing from the ref list? For Instance Agrawal, which has been cited in the first lines, isn't mentioned in the reference list. Am I missing a point here? Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, that's just a naming convention. The footnotes section is really the references section, and the references section would either be further additions to the same section, or in an "Additional works" section. I'll fix that now. -Verdatum (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Now I see, Apparently there was an edit flaw with the Agrawal causing it to not show up as the proper reference. I didn't remove any of the reference descriptions anywhere intentionally, so if anything else looks amiss, it shouldn't be anything too hard to fix. -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work Verdatum, but what happened to refencerences 8a-b-c-d about Pliny? The article is shaping up fine now, much better this way. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arrg! Fixed now, thanks! -Verdatum (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor corrections suggestions
Just a few changes made to clarify basic techniques (for example, "heated metal tools" aren't used in chasing - the tools are simply hardened and tempered to make them last. Bronze is always chased cold). Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for basing an unwarranted criticism on my own misreading. Still, while I'm here - the article's good on ancient sources, and thorough on modern techniques but a bit sketchy on context in the modern era. Lost-wax shell investment tends to be used for smaller and more intricate, undercut castings, and piece-moulds for larger ones - one has not really displaced the other. There's also no mention of plaster-backed gelatine as the precursor to rubber, vinyl and silicone. Haploidavey (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the article implied that multi-piece molds had in any way replaced lost-wax casting. If it does, that's just silly.  Concerning plaster-backed gelatine, I'm unfamiliar with such a technique, but it sounds like it's off-topic to this article. -Verdatum (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Just to expand a little on gelatine: it was very widely used before synthetics came along. The technique was exactly the same as for vinyl. A long-winded process, and the wax temperature was a major issue, but it was cheap and re-cyclable. The rats loved it... I'm sure you're right - as gelatine has been consigned to history, it might belong in an extended article on the history of lost-wax. It would be an unwarranted discursion in this one.


 * The sentence in question is the last in the lead paragraph - it probably needs only a slight twiddle - but then, I seem to be prone to misreadings these days and it may not even need that. Regards. PS: I just twigged why I misread the Chasing section in the first place - British terminology is slightly different: chasing refers to the finishing of the cast bronze. Haploidavey (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

photo
The photo with the plaster model looks wrong. Why plaster needed? Should be direct to wax and the clay coat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.15.194 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, no plaster is needed. What's needed is a hollow wax cast, which is cast from this here same rubber mold. Then on to the fireproof mold with sprucing. Unfortunately the photo came only with the plaster cast, instead of the hollow wax cast. But just read the text....--Satrughna (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For someone trying to understand the process, the rubber mold with the plaster cast is misleading. For the unfamiliar (like myself), since the page is about a casting technique that destroys the mold, why show an intact two-piece mold prominently in the photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.15.225 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubber molds are usually not destroyed in the process. If someone would, he would soon be fired himself ;). If you read carefully, you can see the model in wax is made first, then a rubber mold, from which comes the hollow wax cast. This cast is then covered with a casting mold, which is not to be confused with the previous rubber mold. Those last two are eventually destroyed in the process. Hope that clears the doubts?--Satrughna (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Variety of English
Someone just changed a "mould" to "mold". The article uses both words. Can we agree on a dialect for this article?

This article started out as a redirect, but then PJacobi copies some material in from another article, Lost wax casting process, in 2006. (It looks like it was a rename.) His edit used British English, so I believe the policy is this article should be British English (unless Lost wax casting process was originally AE or there was a some other agreement).

Can we mark this article as BE? Glrx (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sand casting
I can see no good reason for the current redirect of Bronze casting to this Lost-wax casting article. Bronze is often cast using the lost-wax process; large and small bronze statuary, tools, medallions etc., have been and still are very often sandcast. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but where should it go? Casting (metalworking) is super industrial/technical. If bronze sculpture were better, it could go there. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Difficult. Each likely has a different readership, seeking essentially similar information in quite different context. The Sand casting article is also very technical, being mostly concerned with modern industrial technique. Strikes me that some terms and techniques used in bronze sculpture (eg "sprung" patches and so-called "Roman joints") are quite alien to modern industrial production but have been used in many traditional art foundries from ancient times into the modern era - and still are by bronze restorers. I'll think some more on it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oldest example
''The oldest known examples of this technique are the objects discovered in the Cave of the Treasure (Nahal Mishmar) hoard in southern Israel, and which belong to the Chalcolithic period (4500–3500 BC). Conservative Carbon 14 estimates date the items to c. 3700 BC, making them more than 5700 years old.'' This article contains a properly sourced statement of an amulet that is 6000 years old and is claimed to be the oldest. Update needed? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it'll be enough to simply place these claims in sequence. Neither technique is infallible, neither object has been dated using both techniques, and one can expect margins of error in each case. The claimed age of each is what matters. Two bald, cited statements of estimated age will be enough, and we don't need to say which is "oldest" (it's not a competition, after all; and the estimated dates speak for themselves). Haploidavey (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The current papers, and articles, suggest Coper-Gold beads, from the Varna Necropolis, predate the present examples by half a century, see: The Rise of Metallurgy in Eurasia Evolution, Organisation and Consumption of Early Metal in the Balkans, Edited by: Miljana Radivojević, Benjamin W. Roberts, Miroslav Marić, Julka Kuzmanović Cvetković and Thilo Rehren A.j.roberts (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge archaeological and literary history?
Is there a reason to keep the two separate? Archaeology and written history complement each other, I think the article would work fine and flow better, chronologically speaking, if the two were merged. - A Morozov  &#9001;talk&#9002; 03:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

3D printing of metal
Nowdadays lost-wax casting is largely use for 3D printing metal objects. I think it would deserve a paragraph ! Fabrice.Neyret (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)