Following some comments on WOW which echoed the majority view on here (thanks for the exception Lee
) I've had a think:
1) If it wasn't for the design requirement for 100% flatness I would probably have had a very slight slope on the inner bit giving the view of a very shallow bowl / dish emerging from the wood. I think that this would give more of a "reason" for the shape of the rim detail
2) Everyone who has held it (though friends and family) have loved it so either they're being too nice, have the same taste as me or I've take a rather poor picture of it.
3) I set out to throw the round nature of the rim detail (and the intrinsic shape of wood turning) against the random natural edge. This has succeeded but maybe it was all a bit too much - sort of conflict for the sake of it with no visual "reason" - see thought 1
4) The dimension of the rim was set by the competition however it was also basically the max size that could still be round which was sort of the point of 3 but I take Duncan's point about the white wood.
5) Duncan - your other point about the two transitions from the rim detail to the flat is an picture thing - it is picking up a finish difference which I think occurred when I had to sand off the lacquer finish and I think I managed to get a slightly more glossy finish on the rim than the flat bit In reality it is a smooth and tactile transition but the finish issue no doubt cost me points (and rightly so I guess with finish being one of the criteria).
If I get time at some point later in the year I'll have another go at a platter / bowl with no rim detail; maybe an overflowing shape...
Thanks for all the comments - it really helps as it makes me think about it and question what I decided (and either decide to do it differently next time or affirm my original decision)
Miles