Dear Reader,
I share here what I like and what works for me. If you've been following me, you know that I can change my mind from time to time, and feel free to comment that I'm completely wrong, you may be right. I'm not running a business. I'm not paid and have never received any compensation or facilitation for any review/brand/site here mentioned. In case one day we'll ever meet, I'll be the one offering you a cup of Italian coffee, too.
====================
:)
:(
:))
:((
=))
=D>
:D
:P
:-O
:-?
:-SS
:-f
d(
:-*
b-(
h-(
g-)
5-p
y-)
c-)
s-)
d-)
w-)
:-h
:X
:) picots are connected at the en-between clusters. Fun game :) center rings look smaller on the left one too.
ReplyDeleteMain difference - the 4 small outermost rings in adjacent arms are not joined in 2nd motif. This gives the 2nd one a less 'rounded', more defined 4-armed and Squarish finish ! Objective achieved ? Is this the new quad_24?
ReplyDeleteBut I think I like the 1st one better -- it is more compact, the inner chains are a beautiful curvature, and on the whole, it is more 'mysterious' ;-)
The outer shape of 2nd version is more defined, though.
Hmmmm, so I guess it all depends on one's perspective :-)
I like the second, darker photo! Seems you have too much chain or something in the brighter one linking the four rings in the quadrants. The second motif looks neater, better defined elements. IMHO!
ReplyDeleteI'm with Fox the second one seems nicer, neater.
ReplyDeleteMore space between the 'arms' on the second one. I like it better, less crowded.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, there are 2 flaws in the second one, other than the arms not connected, but after your nice comments I'll rescue it!
ReplyDelete