Uro clear 90 discontinued?

[Lani McGregor]

I believe glass blowers with the non-compatible
Kugler colors must know more about design induced stress.

-Lauri

-

Lauri, as I expect you know, the major advantages that blowers have with compatibility is:

1. the thinness of the color layer on top of the clear base

2. the basic shape: a sphere is a much stronger form than a flat panel.

Blown work has always been able to tolerate much greater incompatibility between color than kilnformed work. Kilnformers have much different demands and therefore much higher standards for compatibility than blowers.

-Lani

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

I believe glass blowers with the non-compatible
Kugler colors must know more about design induced stress.

-Lauri

-

Lauri, as I expect you know, the major advantages that blowers have with compatibility is:

1. the thinness of the color layer on top of the clear base

2. the basic shape: a sphere is a much stronger form than a flat panel.

Blown work has always been able to tolerate much greater incompatibility between color than kilnformed work. Kilnformers have much different demands and therefore much higher standards for compatibility than blowers.

-Lani

I would add 2 this that as work thinner U get get it out quicker n have a look + its not as hot 4 long so U dont get stuff burnig out well as long as its burried

U can also pull cane n get some idea not perfect but a fast method 2 try n elliminate the completaly usless ones

But I stil prefer kiln work methods

I was fortunate quite accidentaly find myself classicaly trained in the tradditional techniques of cutting n blowing

I only did basic blowing but took full advantages of the cutting training stuff

Brian

[Bill Ward]

There are several matters being discussed simultaneously in this thread. In order to respond with an 'official Uroboros' point of view to them, I have
discussed them with Eric Lovell, President and Owner of Uroboros Glass, and we have agreed on the following.

1. Naming of groups of glasses is done for marketing and convenience
purposes. In a world with glass formulas that range in expansion point from near 0 to well over 120, it is convenient to use an expansion point number as a simple reference point for discussion and grouping purposes. These 'handles' of course do not express all the relevant properties of the
glasses in each group, much as the term 'auto' does not precisely define all the known properties of a BMW or Chevy. Compatibility is not established by the Coefficient of Expansion number, nor by any product group name. It is best established for the purposes of the kiln working market by fusion testing and calibrated polarimetric stress measurements of each component product within a group to a known historical standard. Such tests do take into account the relevant physical properties simultaneously. Should there be a different 'handle' for '90' glasses? Maybe so. Group 90? Oregon FX? Anyone have any other suggestions?

2. One wonders why Uroboros is expanding its '90' palette. This seems
obvious to us. We have a great many customers who are '90' users, and whose studio palettes and product lines are built around these items. We do not wish to abandon them.

3. Regarding Lani's proposal to use a common standard for Fusible Bullseye and Uroboros '90' products, we at Uroboros definitely support the concept, since that has been our goal since 1989. We would like to discuss this and related matters in person with Bullseye folks as soon as practical.

4. The catalog error by a distributor is just that. Thanks for pointing it
out. They have been alerted so they can make the correction.

5. We still recommend readers request Artista information directly from
Schott. They are the marketers of the Artista product group and as such
should be the source of such information. As we stated previously, we are
aware of Schott's practices to establish the compatibility of the products
within the Artista group, and they are fully cognizant of, and utilize,
interface compatibility testing against known standards for these products.
Of course they do not buy Uroboros 90 or Sys 96 products to re-label as
Artista.
The fact that end users occasionally mix Artista with other brands (such as
Bullseye, or GNA, or Spectrum, or Uroboros, of any COE) without the use of fusion testing is unfortunate but is likely out of their control.

Best regards,
Eric Lovell
Bill Ward
Uroboros Glass

[twin vision glass]

I welcome this thread very much. As an occasional instructor, it is soo important for us to try to understand all we can before we pass on "correct information" to our students. After 20 years of warmglass, I feel confident that I am able to grasp the importance of this dialogue so that we all will be on the same page. I am so glad that this discussion is being done in a forum where we can all learn and I feel confident that this open discussion will only benifit us all and it "WARMS" my spirit very much. Thankyou to Uroboros and Bullseye for YEARS of dedication to us all. Leslie Rowe-Israelson

[Havi]

I heartly support and join Leslie's attitude.


Thanks to all who contribute to a better quality and better understanding of the very very facinating medium GLASS, which has really bewithced me.

Thanks again -
from this very remote corner [although quite noisy ] of the world.
yours,
Havi

[Glassdogs]

Well, gee whiz!

All this new dialogue between the glass companies is a result of little-old-me asking a simple question about the availability of a glass. How 'bout that?

I was thinking that a complimentary case of glass from both BE and Uro as an honorarium for facilitating this newfound partnership would be in order.

Lani and Bill, please PM me for my shipping address.

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

There are several matters being discussed simultaneously in this thread. In order to respond with an 'official Uroboros' point of view to them, I have
discussed them with Eric Lovell, President and Owner of Uroboros Glass, and we have agreed on the following.

1. Naming of groups of glasses is done for marketing and convenience
purposes. In a world with glass formulas that range in expansion point from near 0 to well over 120, it is convenient to use an expansion point number as a simple reference point for discussion and grouping purposes. These 'handles' of course do not express all the relevant properties of the
glasses in each group, much as the term 'auto' does not precisely define all the known properties of a BMW or Chevy. Compatibility is not established by the Coefficient of Expansion number, nor by any product group name. It is best established for the purposes of the kiln working market by fusion testing and calibrated polarimetric stress measurements of each component product within a group to a known historical standard. Such tests do take into account the relevant physical properties simultaneously. Should there be a different 'handle' for '90' glasses? Maybe so. Group 90? Oregon FX? Anyone have any other suggestions?

2. One wonders why Uroboros is expanding its '90' palette. This seems
obvious to us. We have a great many customers who are '90' users, and whose studio palettes and product lines are built around these items. We do not wish to abandon them.

3. Regarding Lani's proposal to use a common standard for Fusible Bullseye and Uroboros '90' products, we at Uroboros definitely support the concept, since that has been our goal since 1989. We would like to discuss this and related matters in person with Bullseye folks as soon as practical.

4. The catalog error by a distributor is just that. Thanks for pointing it
out. They have been alerted so they can make the correction.

5. We still recommend readers request Artista information directly from
Schott. They are the marketers of the Artista product group and as such
should be the source of such information. As we stated previously, we are
aware of Schott's practices to establish the compatibility of the products
within the Artista group, and they are fully cognizant of, and utilize,
interface compatibility testing against known standards for these products.
Of course they do not buy Uroboros 90 or Sys 96 products to re-label as
Artista.
The fact that end users occasionally mix Artista with other brands (such as
Bullseye, or GNA, or Spectrum, or Uroboros, of any COE) without the use of fusion testing is unfortunate but is likely out of their control.

Best regards,
Eric Lovell
Bill Ward
Uroboros Glass

Thanks Bill

I realy hope U continue here on the board

As I have said we have far to few manufactures here

I would say I was "brought up" from about 1976 or so with the Coe numbering system in that any coe numbered the same ie 90 is OK together

Since being on the internet boards it has become clear to me that this is by far only a beggining and not the full story and in fact in some cases is not true ( when mixing manufactures )

But it is a starting point which I still use

This coe system is so endemic that I think U got a real problem re educating the massses

The only thing that I think may work, is sticking with the coe which everyone thinks they understand but add a letter to that

So for instance U 90A Uruoboss would be compatable with Be 90A

But U 90B would not be compatable

Brian

[Lani McGregor]

There are several matters being discussed simultaneously in this thread. In order to respond with an 'official Uroboros' point of view to them, I have discussed them with Eric Lovell, President and Owner of Uroboros Glass, and we have agreed on the following.

Gee, Bill, I’m not sure whether BE has an “official” point of view. But I sure get an earful when/if I say something the rest of the crew doesn’t agree with.

1. Naming of groups of glasses is done for marketing and convenience purposes.

See, this bothers me. I just don’t think that technical specifications should work in the service of marketing. I also don’t see it as “convenient” when a glass characteristic is used to imply something that it can’t always deliver, i.e., compatibility between glasses.

In a world with glass formulas that range in expansion point from near 0 to well over 120, it is convenient to use an expansion point number as a simple reference point for discussion and grouping purposes. These 'handles' of course do not express all the relevant properties of the glasses in each group, much as the term 'auto' does not precisely define all the known properties of a BMW or Chevy.

And just as I wouldn’t use the uselessly generic term “auto” if I wanted to find a spare part for mine, I also think that we as manufacturers can be more helpful to the users of our products if we are more accurate in defining their properties and capabilities.

Compatibility is not established by the Coefficient of Expansion number, nor by any product group name. It is best established for the purposes of the kiln working market by fusion testing and calibrated polarimetric stress measurements of each component product within a group to a known historical standard.

Exactly. And I think that we the manufacturers can be most helpful to the users if we clearly explain what that testing is, what the test standard is, and how much deviation we allow from it. Bullseye published its testing system in 1983. We’ve been adhering to it for almost 25 years. It’s not a test to match the COE. Nor, by your own statement, is yours. Nor is anyone else’s.

Recently, in order to try to clear up some of this confusion, I posted an explanation of our test and our range of mismatch as 6 degrees angle of retardation.

Interestingly, Gaffer’s John Croucher claims a similar range for their glass, saying “With the polarimeter we look for +/- 3 degrees.”

Would you contribute to this discussion with a statement of UB’s range?

Such tests do take into account the relevant physical properties simultaneously. Should there be a different 'handle' for '90' glasses? Maybe so. Group 90? Oregon FX? Anyone have any other suggestions?

Bill, you’ve made the valid point that the key to compatibility is testing against a “historic standard,” not matching a COE.

Eric Lovell has also stated publicly in the past that UB’s “90” glasses were designed to match and tested against the Bullseye standard 1101 T-glass when they were developed.

If that glass (1101F) is the “historic standard” – what is the problem with calling it that? Why must it be distorted into a “COE 90” when it’s not?

Is the problem that it’s uncomfortable to have a manufacturer’s “brand” be a standard?

Is a COE number like “96” more comfortable – even if a trademark search of that particular system leads you to a corporation in Woodinville, WA (Spectrum Glass Co)?

3. Regarding Lani's proposal to use a common standard for Fusible Bullseye and Uroboros '90' products, we at Uroboros definitely support the concept, since that has been our goal since 1989. We would like to discuss this and related matters in person with Bullseye folks as soon as practical.

Bill, we thrive on discussion. Personally, I like mine in public and just want to say again how thrilled I am that you’ve joined the discussion here at Warm Glass.

4. The catalog error by a distributor is just that. Thanks for pointing itout. They have been alerted so they can make the correction.

We pointed this error out to the distributor many months ago. As of today, it’s still here:

http://www.crloo.com/Products/Sheet_Gla ... ed_90.html

5. We still recommend readers request Artista information directly fromSchott. They are the marketers of the Artista product group and as suchshould be the source of such information. As we stated previously, we are aware of Schott's practices to establish the compatibility of the products within the Artista group, and they are fully cognizant of, and utilize,
interface compatibility testing against known standards for these products. Of course they do not buy Uroboros 90 or Sys 96 products to re-label as Artista.The fact that end users occasionally mix Artista with other brands (such asBullseye, or GNA, or Spectrum, or Uroboros, of any COE) without the use of fusion testing is unfortunate but is likely out of their control.

Gee, Bill, I don’t understand what the problem is here in either verifying or denying that you make glass for the Artista line. Visitors to the UB factory have been told that you do by employees, so it’s clearly not a big secret. What’s the reluctance to answer this question here at Warm Glass, now that I’ve asked it three times?

Respectfully,

Lani

[Annemarie Elstner]

Bill, I just saw this thread. As a European (Norwegian), it's interesting to me because most people here believe that Uroboros makes the reds, yellow and orange glass for the Desag/Artista line. It’s a common knowledge and has never been a secret here. So, I don't understand why you won't answer this question? I have asked some of the dealers in Scandinavia and they say "Of course, everyone in Europe knows that UB makes those glasses for Artista. The UB label isn't on them, but the glass looks identical and the crating is the same…."

Since I use Artista, I am also interested to know if this glass you make for them (reds, yellow and orange) is 90 or 93 COE?

[Rick Wilton]

Well maybe they have an agreement to not disclose that they are the manufacturer, if they are in fact the manufacturer. He basically has two choices either lie and say he's not or tell the truth and be in violation of a non disclosure agreement. If they are the manufacturer than they're in a bad spot lie or break a possible agreement. Sometimes it not what someone says but what they won't say when repeatedly asked.

Rick

[Annemarie Elstner]

Well maybe they have an agreement to not disclose that they are the manufacturer, if they are in fact the manufacturer. He basically has two choices either lie and say he's not or tell the truth and be in violation of a non disclosure agreement. If they are the manufacturer than they're in a bad spot lie or break a possible agreement. Sometimes it not what someone says but what they won't say when repeatedly asked.

Rick

Rick, but if we all know, and I read up above that even their employees at their factory are telling people, how can their be an agreement not to tell?

Mostly I want to know if this glass is 90 or 93. Since they make it, they must know. Since I use it, it is important for me to know. Why should there be secrets from the customer?

[Barbara Muth]

Annemarie, the issue isn't so much the COE as it is compatibility. Has the glass been tested to be compatible? to what standard?

If Artista is selling another manufacturer's glass with their own, then I'd want to know if and how they test compatibility. Otherwise I would have to run tests of all the glass I use in my studio. Or, being as lazy as I am, I would probably switch to a different manufacturer.

[Bert Weiss]

Strip test it against Artista clear.

[Annemarie Elstner]

Barbara and Bert!
You are both completely right, and it’s good advice, and I do test etc. If Uro is making this glass I don't think they test compatibility, but I might be wrong.

….but I still want to know if Uro produces reds, orange and yellow for the Artista line. These colours are the only one in the Artista product line which is marked “rolledâ€

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

Bill, I just saw this thread. As a European (Norwegian), it's interesting to me because most people here believe that Uroboros makes the reds, yellow and orange glass for the Desag/Artista line. It’s a common knowledge and has never been a secret here. So, I don't understand why you won't answer this question? I have asked some of the dealers in Scandinavia and they say "Of course, everyone in Europe knows that UB makes those glasses for Artista. The UB label isn't on them, but the glass looks identical and the crating is the same…."

Since I use Artista, I am also interested to know if this glass you make for them (reds, yellow and orange) is 90 or 93 COE?

Bill I am in the UK I have been using desag since 1980s thats some 27 years now, as I have large stocks of this glass I have yet to use Artista, although I have it direct from Schot that Artista is sold as a compatable within the range

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"Artista 94*10-7K1

"Artista is a closer specified version of Magira. ( Magira = GNA in USA ) This closer specification guarantees the fuseability of the Artista colours with each other
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I will have to buy some more glass soon I would be very intersted if you can confirm what appears to be common knowledge that you make reds, yellow and orange in the USA then ship them back to Europe

I have emailed Schott UK and hope they will join in the discussion and shed some light on this

Fuzed glass made by my wife and myself made fron Desag has been sold throughout the word since the 1980s and I belive we were an early pioneer in using this glass. Currently the largest peice we have made from Desag is about 15 Kilo's, value of £6,000.00 + so I can assure you I realy do want to know where my materials are comming from
Here is a link to the peice
http://www.blanthorn.com/pebbles/portfo ... e_w278.htm

Thanks

[jim simmons]

[quote="Brian and Jenny Blanthornhttp://www.blanthorn.com/pebbl ... e_w278.htm

Thanks[/quote]

Wonderful work, Brian.
I always admired your Pebbles and wondered how they were made.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Jim

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

[quote="Brian and Jenny Blanthornhttp://www.blanthorn.com/pebbl ... e_w278.htm

Thanks

Wonderful work, Brian.
I always admired your Pebbles and wondered how they were made.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Jim[/quote]

Thanks well I havent told all but just a flavour 4 my Global Fans

Anyway back 2 Uroboros ...............................

This is official from UK Schott office

I got a phone call today Jack Cutler - Schott UK

I asked him directly that we as global fuzers were a little concerned about the compatability n where Artista was manufactured

Anyway here is the uneditted offical line

I would add the following

That the name Desag has been dropped now called only SCHOTT AG

Also that Miagra (was GNA in U.S.A.) - now ceased manufacture due to confusions with Artista

E mail

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hi Brian. Further to your recent mail and our telecon I am pleased to
confirm the following:
1) The rolled glasses in the Artista range are specially manufactured by
Uroboros and supplied to SCHOTT AG in Germany who then distribute them
under the name of SCHOTT Artista Glass. These are not part of the standard
Uroboros range and are produced and checked for fusing compatibility with
the other glasses in the Artista range which are made on the drawn glass
process by SCHOTT itself.
2) Manufacture of SCHOTT's Magira range ceased several years ago.
3) Samples and literature will be sent to you immediately.

Please use this information to update the bulletin board as you think
necessary.
Kind Regards
Jack Cutler
Sales & Marketing Manager

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.schott.com/uk


I also asked Jack

Please confirm colours made by Uroboros in USA

Also please say what the Coe range of Artista and Artista ( Uroboros ) is I
know its not really the full story of compatibility but I also know you
quote it

Brian

[Lani McGregor]

1) The rolled glasses in the Artista range are specially manufactured by Uroboros and supplied to SCHOTT AG in Germany who then distribute them under the name of SCHOTT Artista Glass. These are not part of the standard Uroboros range and are produced and checked for fusing compatibility with the other glasses in the Artista range which are made on the drawn glass process by SCHOTT itself.... -Jack Cutler, Sales & Marketing Manager

Brian, thanks for finally getting an answer to this mystery.

The mystery that remains, of course, is

A) HOW are these glasses "checked for fusing compatibility", and

B) WHO does the testing, Uro or Artista?

Knowing what an incredible job it is to manage compatibility testing within a SINGLE factory, I am always amazed that anyone can do it successfully between MULTIPLE factories. (Which is, obviously, why I've been obsessing about this point on my own blog lately)

-Lani

[Annemarie Elstner]

Brian!

You are my hero! Finally a straight answer.

[Annemarie Elstner]

1) The rolled glasses in the Artista range are specially manufactured by Uroboros and supplied to SCHOTT AG in Germany who then distribute them under the name of SCHOTT Artista Glass. These are not part of the standard Uroboros range and are produced and checked for fusing compatibility with the other glasses in the Artista range which are made on the drawn glass process by SCHOTT itself.... -Jack Cutler, Sales & Marketing Manager

Brian, thanks for finally getting an answer to this mystery.

The mystery that remains, of course, is

A) HOW are these glasses "checked for fusing compatibility", and

B) WHO does the testing, Uro or Artista?

Knowing what an incredible job it is to manage compatibility testing within a SINGLE factory, I am always amazed that anyone can do it successfully between MULTIPLE factories. (Which is, obviously, why I've been obsessing about this point on my own blog lately)

-Lani

I am very interested to the answers to these questions as well.

So, when it finally has been confirmed Uroboros is making these colors for the Artista line, maybe Mr. Ward would be so kind telling us, their customers, how this tests are done and by whom?