|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
A GLOSSARY of MILLED BANDS
|
|
| How to Post Photos |
REGISTER (click here)
|
|
 SMP Silver Salon Forums
 American Silver before sterling
 Smiths by State
|
 SSFFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Smiths by State |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-05-2010 04:28 PM
  
With summer weather setting in, I have been fiddling with my project. I thought it might be useful to break down the included silversmiths by state and city. It turned out to be more of a chore than I thought, but here is a rough draft: I would appreciate comments and/or suggestions. If it looks like it would be of interest, I could follow up with the same for jewelers, watchmakers, pewtersmiths, etc. IP: Logged |
|
dragonflywink Posts: 993 |
posted 06-05-2010 05:15 PM
Cool! But believe your Arizona smith should be Arkansas..... ~Cheryl IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-05-2010 06:22 PM
Elizabeth Preston (PA) is out of line (spacing is off). Other than that, it looks pretty much error free - no mean accomplishment, to be sure. I would suggest that it would be easier to use if either the first and last columns were swapped, or the smiths be alphabetized within each state, depending on which is more useful. If the main thrust is to be geographical, the first option would seem more appropriate. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-05-2010).] IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-05-2010 08:03 PM
Thanks, Cheryl -- at least in Arkansas you don't need no stinking papers. Swartwer -- I wanted to stay with the geographical, so how's this? new layout Or would it be better to break each state (or several small states) out as a separate page, then a table of makers by city? IP: Logged |
|
chase33 Posts: 362 |
posted 06-05-2010 08:59 PM
Very nice work! The only minor (very minor) point is under South Carolina it should be Beaufort instead of Beauford. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-05-2010 09:04 PM
Excellent catch and now corrected IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-05-2010 09:26 PM
quote: This works for me, but I don't think it necessary to repeat the same town name line after line - once should be sufficient. You could even use the cities/towns as headings, which would give you more column space. A separate page for each would be more trouble than it is worth - I think the long table is best - easier to navigate and more economical of band width. Good job. [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-05-2010).] IP: Logged |
|
doc Posts: 728 |
posted 06-05-2010 10:47 PM
LOL, when I first saw wev's post, I thought he had developed a list of makers named Smith; I got excited because I have several spoons with Smith as a maker that I cannot identify! IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-05-2010 11:16 PM
Separate pages, now that I look at it, would be a pain. Here is the table with the dup's removed. The old was congested, but this may be a bit confusing: single cities IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-06-2010 12:12 PM
I did up a new layout which I think reads easier: Comments? IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-06-2010 12:44 PM
I don't see much (if any) difference. They both look good. Much better than the first draft. There are a few cities at the top of their state lists that are out of order, preceded by --; am I missing something? IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-06-2010 12:54 PM
Those are smiths who are known to have worked in a county, but not a specific city. Did you refresh your browser? The layouts are pretty different. [This message has been edited by wev (edited 06-06-2010).] IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-06-2010 02:24 PM
Maybe it is a Mac thing, but they are line by line identical, side by side on two monitors and again with a different browsers (first Safari and then Opera), mix and match, separate loade for each window. If they are different, it is not enough for me to notice. Both have a date of 10 June, same as the original draft. IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-06-2010 02:30 PM
Unless there is something different under the squiggle, the two links look identical.  [This message has been edited by swarter (edited 06-06-2010).] IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-06-2010 02:32 PM
Well duh; I'm dimmer than usual this morning -- I overwrote the previous file with the new one, so the two links here both bring up the same page. Sorry. Here's the first And the new improved second [This message has been edited by wev (edited 06-06-2010).] IP: Logged |
|
swarter Moderator Posts: 2920 |
posted 06-06-2010 02:46 PM
The second is much better - you had me going for a while there. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-10-2010 07:04 PM
I finished adding in partnership dates, which bring us up to 4,305 entries. There are about 200 more makers that will need manual sorting and coding, but that will have wait for my eyes to refocus. IP: Logged |
|
wev Moderator Posts: 4121 |
posted 06-11-2010 08:45 PM
I have now done up the 1,030 jewelers: Since I am using quite broad occupation designations, there will be a good deal of duplication with the Silversmith list. IP: Logged |
All times are ET | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
|
1. Public Silver Forums (open Free membership) - anyone with a valid e-mail address may register. Once you have received your Silver Salon Forum password, and then if you abide by the Silver Salon Forum Guidelines, you may start a thread or post a reply in the New Members' Forum. New Members who show a continued willingness to participate, to completely read and abide by the Guidelines will be allowed to post to the Member Public Forums. 2. Private Silver Salon Forums (invitational or $ donation membership) - The Private Silver Salon Forums require registration and special authorization to view, search, start a thread or to post a reply. Special authorization can be obtained in one of several ways: by Invitation; Annual $ Donation; or via Special Limited Membership. For more details click here (under development). 3. Administrative/Special Private Forums (special membership required) - These forums are reserved for special subjects or administrative discussion. These forums are not open to the public and require special authorization to view or post. |
|
copyright © 1993 - 2022
SM Publications
All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices |