Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Richf

Members
  • Posts

    1779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

8280 profile views

Richf's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (5/5)

  1. Blankface, that is the first nickel-mounted Nurnberger bow I've ever seen. The stick looks to be of the same quality as their silver bows. Is it haired yet? Does it play well?
  2. Thanks, guys! Always good to have a reality check and not become complicit in spreading nonsense. Separately, I just checked donbarzino's rule against my own violin. The nut was way too low, suggesting the angle is too steep, so that rule must be wrong, too, since my violin has to be perfect.
  3. Any other opinions? The maker who shared this rule with me is an accomplished luthier. I noted the importance of a "normal" scroll and the overstand, but I would think that the rule should hold regardless of the top and back arching (assuming that the bridge would be lowered as the belly rose). Again, I can't imagine making a violin with this rule in mind, but it certainly seems useful as a first approximation for a buyer trying to get an idea about whether an old violin may benefit from a neck reset.
  4. Probably not of much use to someone making a violin, but can anyone comment on this rule of thumb that I've been told can quickly tell you if a neck angle is too steep or too shallow? Assuming a normal overstand and normal (ie, Strad model) scroll, if the line that is created where the bottom plate meets the ribs is visually extended to the scroll, that line should go through the eye of the scroll. In front of the eye means the angle is too steep. Behind the eye, too shallow. ???
  5. Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Jacob! Even with one eye, I defer to your assessment.
  6. My guess is old English, Nathaniel Cross. A focus on construction details, such as that observation from Blank Face, is surely the best way to understand an unattributed instrument like this. So that noone thinks I am becoming any kind of expert, I will confess that I naively researched the inventory number cited in the auction listing and found it in an old William Lewis catalog: Nathaniel Cross, London, 1740, $600. So, a Markneukirchen instrument misattributed as English? Online photos of other Cross cellos certainly look similar (to me).
  7. Excellent! Thanks, Jacob. If I sell my Volumes I and II and maybe a Henley, I might just be able to afford that. Strange that I couldn't find that copy with a google search.
  8. Hah! No, Jacob, I like all my violin books, especially the Jalovecs and the Lutgendorff. Now I need to get the Volume 3 -- very rare it would seem. Good question, Brad. I've always thought that Jalovec had more names, but you forced me to be a bit more objective. Attached are the first pages of the makers' list from Lut. Vol 2 (second photo) and Jal. Encyclopedia. From Aabenmund and Joseph Achner, it looks like Jalovec has about twice as many references, mainly some French and Italians that Lutgendorff excluded. Presumably Jalovec had access to Poidras and other sources published after Lutgendorff. Also, comparingi the Lut. Vol. 1 and the Jal. Encylopedia vioiin photos, it also seems that Jalovec has a different source for his pictures.
  9. Thanks, Jacob. I will keep an eye out for the Lutgendorff Volume III. That's the edition listed with Thomas Drescher, 1990, right? FWIW it's worth, all the various Jalovec editions are available in English. Maybe not "good" translations, but surely better translations of the original German than is available from the Google Translator. As far as plagiarizing, the "German/Austrian Makers," the"Violin Makers of Bohemia," and the 2-volume Encyclopedia all include the credit "Material from Lutgendorff's Die Geigen- und Lautenmacher von Mittel-alter bis zur Gegenwart is being used by permission of the publisher, Mr. Hans Schneider,of Tutzing bei Munchen." The "Italian Violin Makers" does not include that reference. From experience and without offering any opinion on the credibility of such, I believe all the volumes contain at least some information that was never original to Lutgendorff, like photos.
  10. I had never heard that a volume 3 exists. If you want a good translation, look for volumes 1 and 2 of Jalovec's encyclopedia.
  11. You mean like here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/115368941041 ?
  12. Uguntde, here are some interior photos of a violin labeled and signed Collin-Mezin: https://www.facebook.com/iriscarrrestorations/photos/pcb.146506683855824/146506560522503 . Are those blocks what you would call "square shaped"? I assume the wide linings there are what you call "high." Just curious about the terms. Also, I have seen your statement "Originals always have the signature" elsewhere, but I can find a couple older C-Ms offered by prestigious shops that sport labels by other makers. That suggests to me that some instruments left the shop without the C-M label and signature. I wonder how common that might be. ???
  13. Good distinction and certainly it was a spline, not a splice, that the original poster was asking about. Sorry for any confusion -- I was thinking splices. Just to be clear here is a "spliced" head repair, maybe on a Nurnberger, probably done many decades ago.
  14. In this discussion of splined bows, is the focus on splined heads or splined shafts. I would thin any loss of value would depend on where the break is, controlling for the quality and visibility of the repair. A spline under the wrapping might have relatively little negative impact compared with mid stick, no? A spline on the head might be worse yet? Or??
×
×
  • Create New...