Includes the construction of completed objects primarily from metal, with or without decoration. Does NOT include armor and weaponry. If piece includes non-metal work, entrant must note whether or not he did it himself. NOTE: Mercury-gilding, as done in period, is extremely dangerous. Use of such techniques will disqualify an entry. Mercury-gilding done with modern safeguards, and noted as such in the documentation, shall not be penalized in scoring.

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points) Must have at least a 3X5 card. More is acceptable. Give one point for each of the following that is present:

• Identification/Description of the entry.
• Approximate date and place/nationality in history that the entry is modeled upon.
• Lists use(s) of the entry.
• Cites at least one reference, either illustrative (pictures) or descriptive, relating to either A) period use of such item OR B) period method of constructing such item OR C) both A & B.

• 0:Blatantly modern in any regard: in function (e.g., expandable wristwatch band), in motifs or in materials (e.g. stainless steel, aluminum).
• 1:Generally period in design and materials, with some obviously modern elements present (e.g., techniques) OR obvious mixture of elements from different cultures or periods (e.g., Celtic brooch with Florentine motifs).
• 2:Overall period style, materials and execution, with minor inconsistencies.
• 3:Period design and execution with no inconsistencies; period materials; period techniques or reasonable equivalents.
• 4:Special effort to achieve a completely period product by use of period materials, design, tools, techniques (hand-polishing, stamping with hand-made tools, etc.).

• Difficulty of material preparation techniques attempted (e.g., rolling, drawing, hammering, tempering, annealing, etc.).
• Difficulty and variety of direct manipulation technique attempted (easier: twisting, sawing, filing, bending; harder: riveting, cold and hot forming, soldering, planishing, forge-welding; 2-metal techniques such as lamination, pattern-welding, inlay).
• Difficulty and variety of indirect manipulation techniques attempted (e.g., moldmaking, casting, toolmaking).
• Difficulty and variety of embellishment attempted (e.g., stamping, etching, chasing, polishing, granulation, filigree, repousse, niello, etc.).
• Difficulty of design (intricate assembly required, use of non-metal elements, etc.).
• Scope of endeavor (size of work relative to amount of detail).

• Mastery of period style and practice.
• Form/design: aesthetics, decorative motifs, pattern construction, etc.
• Function/durability: Does piece do what it should? Will it hold up in use?
• Forming techniques (casting, dishing, raising, twisting, etc.).
• Finishing techniques (planishing, filling, polishing, etc.).

• Assembly techniques (soldering, hinging, riveting, etc.).
• Decorative techniques (piercing, etching, filigree, multi-metal, etc.).
• Non-metal techniques (enameling, stone-cutting and setting, etc.).

• 1:Project is NOT logical to context of period.
• 2:Project fits the context of period, but an adequate understanding of the item being created is missing.
• 3:Project is a logical combination of a few copied elements.
• 4:Project has evidence of original work that is logical to period context, in design or execution.
• 5:Project has creative interpolation in combination of elements; special consideration such as personalization to an event, individual, idea OR is an exact reproduction of a period item.
• 6:Project is a combination of elements and materials that is logical to a single period context; might have been done by a creative period artist.

NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed.

DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points) Must have at least 1 page; 2-3 pages preferable. More is acceptable. Give one point for each of the following that is present:

• 0:Identification/Description of the entry plus the approximate date and place/nationality in history that the entry is modeled upon.
• 1:Statement or listing of materials used in entry's construction and use(s) of the entry.
• 2:Describes method(s) used to create entry (may include reasons for why a certain process or material was used).
• 3:Cites at least two references, either illustrative (pictures) or descriptive, relating to either A) period use of such item OR B) period method of constructing such item OR C) both A & B.

0. 0:Blatantly modern in any regard: in function (e.g., expandable wristwatch band), in motifs, or in materials (e.g., stainless steel, aluminum).
1. 1:Generally period in design and materials, with some obviously modern elements present (e.g., techniques) OR obvious mixture of elements from different cultures or periods (e.g., Celtic brooch with Florentine motifs).
2. 2:Overall period style, materials and execution, with minor inconsistencies.
3. 3:Period design and execution with no inconsistencies; period materials; period techniques or reasonable equivalents.
4. 4:Special effort to achieve a completely period product by use of period materials, design, tools, techniques (hand-polishing, stamping with hand-made tools, etc.). COMPLEXITY (1-5 points) Rank the ambition of the entry, NOT the workmanship, on a scale of 1-5, based on the following:
   • Difficulty of material preparation techniques attempted (e.g., rolling, drawing, hammering, tempering, annealing, etc.).
   • Difficulty and variety of direct manipulation technique attempted (easier: twisting, sawing, filing, bending; harder: riveting, cold and hot forming, soldering, planishing, forge-welding; 2-metal techniques such as lamination, pattern-welding, inlay).
   • Difficulty and variety of indirect manipulation techniques attempted (e.g., moldmaking, casting, toolmaking).
   • Difficulty and variety of embellishment attempted (e.g., stamping, etching, chasing, polishing, granulation, filigree, repousse, niello, etc.)
   • Difficulty of design (intricate assembly required, use of non-metal elements, etc.).
   • Scope of endeavor (size of work relative to amount of detail).
   WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points) Rank the success of the entry, on a scale of 1-5, based on the following:
   
   • Mastery of period style and practice.
   • Form/design: aesthetics, decorative motifs, pattern construction, etc.
   • Function/durability: Does piece do what it should? Will it hold up in use?
   • Forming techniques (casting, dishing, raising, twisting, etc.).
   • Finishing techniques (planishing, filling, polishing, etc.).
   [Consider the following only if used]
   • Assembly techniques (soldering, hinging, riveting, etc.).
   • Decorative techniques (piercing, etching, filigree, multi-metal, etc.).
   • Non-metal techniques (enameling, stone-cutting and setting, etc.).
   CREATIVITY (1-4 points)
   
   • 1:Piece isn't logical in context of period, or while logical to period, there is a lack of understanding of function.
   • 2:Logical combination of a few copied elements.
   • 3:Evidence of original work logical to period context.
   • 4:Creative interpolation in combination of elements; much logical innovation.
   QUALITY (1-8 points) Evaluate the work as a whole

   NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed.

   
   

   ---

   METALWORK - ADVANCED

   DOCUMENTATION (0-4 points)

   • 0:No documentation or very inaccurate documentation.
   • 1:Minimum information (time, place, style).
   • 2:Same as #1 with visual reference (photocopies, pictures, postcards, etc.) to period examples, but little or no discussion of period practice OR same as #1 plus some discussion of period practice, but no visual references.
   • 3:#1 plus visual references and discussion of period practice; cites primary sources.
   • 4:Same as #3, but very complete examples and discussion, including rationale for all elements of entry. Explains original research or experiment. Explains any deviations or variations from period norm.
   AUTHENTICITY (0-4 points) Examples of obvious inauthenticity: Techniques -- photo-etching, arc welding, reticulation. Materials -- stainless steel, cobalt, aluminum, titanium.
   • 0:Blatantly modern in any regard: in function (e.g., expandable wristwatch band), in motifs, or in materials (e.g., stainless steel, aluminum).
   • 1:Generally period in design and materials, with some obviously modern elements present (e.g., techniques) OR obvious mixture of elements from different cultures or periods (e.g., Celtic brooch with Florentine motifs).
   • 2:Overall period style, materials and execution, with minor inconsistencies.
   • 3:Period design and execution with no inconsistencies; period materials; period techniques or reasonable equivalents.
   • 4:Special effort to achieve a completely period product by use of period materials, design, tools, techniques (hand-polishing, stamping with hand-made tools, etc.).
   COMPLEXITY (0-6 points) Rank the ambition of the entry, not the workmanship, on a scale of 0-6 based on the following:
   
   • Difficulty of material preparation techniques attempted (e.g., rolling, drawing, hammering, tempering, annealing, etc.).
   • Difficulty and variety of direct manipulation technique attempted (easier: twisting, sawing, filing, bending; harder: riveting, cold and hot forming, soldering, planishing, forge-welding; 2-metal techniques such as lamination, pattern-welding, inlay).
   • Difficulty and variety of indirect manipulation techniques attempted (e.g., moldmaking, casting, toolmaking).
   • Difficulty and variety of embellishment attempted (e.g., stamping, etching, chasing, polishing, granulation, filigree, repousse, niello, etc.).
   • Difficulty of design (e.g., intricate assembly required, use of non-metal elements, etc.).
   • Scope of endeavor (size of work relative to amount of detail).
   WORKMANSHIP (0-6 points) ) Rank the success of the entry on a scale of 0-6 based on the following:
   
   • Mastery of period style and practice.
   • Form/design: aesthetics, decorative motifs, pattern construction, etc.
   • Function/durability: Does piece do what it should? Will it hold up in use?
   • Forming techniques (casting, dishing, raising, twisting, etc.).
   • Finishing techniques (planishing, filling, polishing, etc.)
   [Consider the following, only if used]
   • Assembly techniques (soldering, hinging, riveting, etc.).
   • Decorative techniques (piercing, etching, filigree, multi-metal, etc.).
   • Non-metal techniques (enameling stone-cutting and setting, etc.).
   CREATIVITY (0-4 points)
   
   • 0:Piece isn't logical in context of period.
   • 1:Logical combination of a few copied elements.
   • 2:Evidence of original work logical to period context.
   • 3:Creative interpolation in combination of elements; much logical innovation.
   • 4:Original, innovative combination of period materials, techniques and designs, as might have been done by a creative period artist. Special consideration such as personalization to an event, individual or use.
   QUALITY (1-6 points) Evaluate the work as a whole.

   NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed.

   
   

   

   ---