Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass
Units of Measurement
David Hier:
As Metric is almost universally accepted as the standard form of measurement, most people reading threads in this forum will not be familiar with imperial. That would include almost everyone in Europe and most people in the UK under the age of 40.
For reasons of clarity, I think that metric measurements should be given precedence, with imperial dimensions supplied in brackets.
Not to ignore the measurements originally specified by manufacturers: the original unit of measurement should only be given precedence when referring to advertisements, publications or pattern books that are contemporary to the period when an item was made. In which case, measurements should be quoted from the original documentation and metric (or otherwise) conversions provided afterwards.
If you are not directly quoting from a document, but are still referring to sizes mentioned in a document, these should be stated in inverted commas e.g. "these vases, as mentioned in the original catalogue, were available in '8inch, 10inch and 12inch' heights". You would then provide a metric conversion in brackets.
Bernard C:
--- Quote from: "David Hier" ---... If you are not directly quoting from a document, but are still referring to sizes mentioned in a document, these should be stated in inverted commas e.g. "these vases, as mentioned in the original catalogue, were available in '8inch, 10inch and 12inch' heights". You would then provide a metric conversion in brackets.
--- End quote ---
No, David, the three measurements I cited in my original post were sizes, not heights. The actual measurements vary considerably, depending on whether the rims were flared or turned over (D'ed in Davidson terms).
Citing a metric measurement for a British-made item with an inch measurement in brackets is at best confusing. We are talking here about marrying primary printed and written source material with actual objects.
I can see that this topic is going to raise some interesting views. I do enjoy a good debate.
Bernard C.
David Hier:
--- Quote from: "Bernard C" ---No, David, the three measurements I cited in my original post were sizes, not heights. The actual measurements vary considerably, depending on whether the rims were flared or turned over (D'ed in Davidson terms).
--- End quote ---
I wasn't actually referring to your example, but giving an example of how measurements should be dealt with.
As I have already mentioned, when dealing with measuremnts mentioned by the original manufacturer, the original units should be given precedence. However metric conversions should be provided, so that those who do not understand imperial units can get an idea of the sizes being discussed.
If you refer to the size of a vase being 6" in a pattern book and supplement this with a size in cm (15.2), I can't see how that could be confusing. The sizes are equal to one another. Besides, if someone only has metric measuring devices, they will need conversions to compare dimensions with items they own.
In all other instances, such as describing a piece of glass for identification, metric units should be used, with imperial sizes given in brackets.
Frank:
Most people do use the metric system today so it becomes a historical quirk to continue with imperial as the main measurement. From the start ysartglass has used both units throughout. With a childhood based on the imperial system, I can only estimate in imperial but always convert to metric when communicating. My son in the UK, now in his 30's has no idea what an inch is. I struggle with temperatures though, I can never remember what is normal in centigrade (an archaic term used by imperialists for Celsius).
However in old catalogues it is still common to find other types of units in use and these are not always easy to interpret.
I keep next to my monitor a list of conversions, for my site, from imperial fractional inches to millimeters and I always round to the nearest 5mm. Of course accuracy is irrelevant with Monart where an inch of variation can be found in most size codes in practise. Some old catalogues also state that measurements given are nominal or approximate.
David E:
For myself I'm sticking with the imperial measurement as used by Chance at the time: their plates were listed as 8" or 10" for example, or the Posy Vases are recognised as 4", 5", 7" and 8" in height — as Bernard suggests. But I am also using the metric equivalent as a secondary unit: does add more work, but will help Euro visitors, as well as those British 'youngsters' who were bought up with Metric only :)
As with all things, we do tend to 'visualise' our own terms of reference. I can quickly convert from Imperial to Metric, but cannot appreciate the size until it's converted to 'old money'.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version