And Then There Were Two

they’re pretty straightforward, but they definitely take practice. and I think an aspect of slab building (and hand building in general) is that it’s not going to be perfect. I had to learn to accept that and to love it for what it is

I use two tools to get my slab-built mugs nice and round:

1. a turntable/banding wheel. spinning it as I’m refining the shape helps keep it round, just like wheel-thrown pottery

and

2. The Cone

The Cone can be any cylinder that’s narrower at the bottom at wider at the top, and the right size to fit in your mug. just press it in and shape the rim to it, don’t leave it in the mug as the clay shrinks

but here’s the whole slab-building process!

under the cut

This one was an early attempt and came out hilariously large. I have since decided to make my mugs about four inches tall and four inches around at the top (smaller at the bottom), which makes each hexagonal side two inches wide and a bit over four tall (due to the curve). That shrinks down to about 3.5, which is what most of the mugs in our cupboard measure at.

I did, yeah. It goes a little like this. This is on 0.5 cm grid paper if anyone wishes to try and replicate it. The floating, curved bottom is A Lot but, to me, worth it - very satisfying to use a spoon with. You could also just stick a flat bottom on it. For Big Mug, simply. Make big. It's not actually much taller, but it is a *lot* wider (2.5 inches on a side instead of 2, if we trust the firing ticket.)

I roll my slabs about the same thickness as OP, except for the bottom (which I do a hair thicker). I use a similar angled wire cutter tool, just the 30° side instead of the 45°. You can do it manually with a rib or needle tool, but I highly recommend not doing that. The angle wire tool is really satisfying and a good thing to have if you're interested in slab building at all. A protractor and a ruler come in clutch for this, but aren't necessarily required.

Finished examples (ignore the messy glazing, please):

I pull my handles, but you can use pretty much any method. You do want to think about whether you want it on a side, or a corner - it affects the way you drink out of it. I also added a foot ring that I haven't included in the diagram - up to you if you wanna do that, and how.

they’re pretty straightforward, but they definitely take practice. and I think an aspect of slab building (and hand building in general) is that it’s not going to be perfect. I had to learn to accept that and to love it for what it is

I use two tools to get my slab-built mugs nice and round:

1. a turntable/banding wheel. spinning it as I’m refining the shape helps keep it round, just like wheel-thrown pottery

and

2. The Cone

The Cone can be any cylinder that’s narrower at the bottom at wider at the top, and the right size to fit in your mug. just press it in and shape the rim to it, don’t leave it in the mug as the clay shrinks

but here’s the whole slab-building process!

under the cut

This one was an early attempt and came out hilariously large. I have since decided to make my mugs about four inches tall and four inches around at the top (smaller at the bottom), which makes each hexagonal side two inches wide and a bit over four tall (due to the curve). That shrinks down to about 3.5, which is what most of the mugs in our cupboard measure at.

Softer surfaces, such as many matte glazes and certain clays, can also leech minerals when they come into contact with strong acids (tomato sauce) or bases (dish soap). Which is fine if it's like. Calcium. Less fine if it's something like lead. (Almost no one uses lead anymore, but some of the pretty colors we decorate with are still not good things to eat.)

Swim shorts fabric tends to be a woven nylon or polyester "tech" material, and depending on the weight *should* hang away from the body, even when wet. This is also generally the most abrasion-resistant option, and dries more quickly than tricot.

Power mesh is popular for additional support, compression, and for any parts of the bathing suit you wish to be transparent (ideal for decorative elements like skirts, for example.) It's very lightweight, but doesn't provide any sun protection.

Finally, neoprene adds structure and insulation. It's fairly compressive, which does make it a pain to get on and off, but it's ideal for cooler water temps. It's also positively buoyant, especially in higher thicknesses.

Remember that bathing suits for swimming should provide minimal drag and maximal freedom of movement. This is particularly important in wilder bodies of water, as they occasionally try to drown swimmers.

There are a lot more "modest" options available commercially now than there were even ten years ago. Hijabi women in particular have popularized a number of different cute, practical, tunic and legging styles, and the rash guard and board shorts look is making a comeback too (although it's still shorter and tighter than what they design for boys and men, naturally.)

Shopping for bathing suits remains a chore, to be sure. I have yet to find one that has more than two of the following:

1. Covers a reasonable amount of skin

2. Stays where it's supposed to

3. Can *reasonably* be expected to be put on/taken off by *one person,* even when wet.

4. Looks cute

i can't figure out what this prouvé dress image comes from--for all I know it IS some AI retouching thing--but it could 100% be uncredited work from an academic digital reconstruction project.

as a dress historian and someone who does, to certain extents, reproduce historic dress, i have NEVER seen a digital reconstruction project (as of 2026) that I think actually advances knowledge or supports public understanding. the technology simply isn't there--and it's paired with a lack of serious sewing/textiles knowledge, specifically of the historical variety, in its technicians (ex. for Clo3D).

This has become more common in recent years with digital projects meant to resuscitate unwearable historic clothing and show it in movement, etc. Common arguments in support:

We can't get that fabric anymore to make a physical reconstruction

Digital work is much faster than physical, especially mockup/pattern/fit tests

Virtual products can be disseminated to a global audience

Ex. Empress Shōken's evening ensemble;

and the Refashioning the Renaissance doublet project that the School of Historical Dress--who are excellent when it comes to physical reconstructions--advised on:

Etc.

So! You know what can also be disseminated digitally to a global audience? Photographs and videos of physical reconstructions! (Ex. the entire BBC A Stitch in Time series.)

You know what does not behave or look like actual fabric? Digital fabric! Ever.

You know something really crucial to many items of historic clothing that separates it from modern clothing? It is often meant to shape the body--meaning that 'draping' or 'fitting' it digitally to a natural-body-shaped avatar (or, as I have seen, one with a modern bra/shapewear silhouette) is pointless.

Check out the difference between the physical and digital reconstructions of the RtR project:

There are worse and more recent examples to point to as well, but I'm not feeling mean enough to drag them out right now.

In addition to physical reconstruction, you know what a really good and more reliable method of showing, say, the hidden guts of a garment is? Illustration. Really good, loving line drawings of the type that Janet Arnold and Nancy Bradfield specialized in.

Patterns of Fashion 2 (1972) / Costume in Detail (1968)

I'm not saying that physical reconstruction and traditional illustration methods are perfect. But in my relatively well-informed opinion, digital reconstruction is nowhere near the point where it is actually useful in any capacity and I would appreciate if people stopped acting like it is.

The technology and its attending parts (pre-loaded fabrics, textures, avatar bodies, etc) are designed for modern clothing, and imo they aren't even very good at representing that realistically. They absolutely cannot be ported over and used for historic clothing. This has been discussed in the field; the last conference I went to had a whole panel on the topic. But people keep trying anyway, and they continue to argue for the method's utility.

If you actually care about furthering knowledge and public understanding, put the digital tools down and funnel that money towards physical reconstruction and actual, experiential understanding of material, fit, and result. Having to rely on a worse-quality linen IRL does not actually screw up the overall effect to a serious degree, even though it might change the making experience as well as wear patterns and strength of the ensemble. Using modern linens still provides useful information to researchers ("If this fabric doesn't do the right thing, what would the historical version have needed to look/act like in order to accomplish that?") and certainly gives a better and more realistic visual experience for audiences.

Basalt Pebble Carved as a Mouflon, Indus Valley, 3rd millennium BC.

Turtles for May! Groundbreaking.

Patreon sticker and print club are these Painted Turtle and Snapping Turtle respectively 🐢 join anytime this month for fun mail and behind the scenes of my artwork!

Flexible feather armor