|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 99
No 75. DUCAL PALACE BALCONY to FRONT.
I have yet seen of ridge tracery: its section marked at A
is exquisitely cut - as sharp as marble can be - and
as even as the whirl of a ball: but the hollow of the cusp
is very rudely cut, and rough, as of no consequence. Note
the head of the foliation is not part of a circle but deep
horseshoe - elliptical downwards or rather a stilted
circle: the top of it touches - sometimes even sweeps a
little into - the base of the ridge. The symitar shaped
cusp is very beautiful. Fig 1 section through small rose
with the ridges at side of it; showing the mere incisions
Fi[g]g 2 No 74. is inaccurate in the red section, which may which form it: This ball rose is only on the outside of
serve to show how much my eye deceives me in drawing the balcony - inside, the space is left flat as at B.
mouldings - always too large, unless adjusted. fitting the Fig 2 section of bar between two 4 foils, but vid account
paper to the marble I found fig 2 C: the true section of No 100.
between two 4 foils inside and fig 2 D outside C2 in C’s Fig 3 profile of vertical rose, across: the real size
the joint towards the white marble (as at M2 4 in the - a b accurately measured, width of cusp, falling on it
large, drawn by the eye) and the joint at dc or e f or hl a c - b d - of the ridge, as seen below - c2 d2 which is a
or i m in fig 3 of No 100 and it is the edge of the other section of the tracery bar falling on it. The two strong
4 foil at x in the same figure. lines M M are the joints where the red marble of the
D fig 2 No 74 is the correspondent outside section and foliation is set between the white of its cornices.
in my calculations made fig 3 No L00 I should have said, No 75. Tracery of the 4 foil of No 74 traced actually on
escess b on a in D: which however, is,(I doubt not) the stone: the line being the sharp top of the ridge.
the same. Vid also p 115 and No 101.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]