Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jezzupe

  1. How long has it been strung up? I suggest balsa wood shoes, in your case slightly taller soles than "normal" {my normal}
  2. It's more of a dual symmetrical dimensional gradient
  3. It's very bad out there, anything that has any brand recognition is subject to it. VanDoren reeds for sax/clarinet had to develop a serial number system in order to thwart it, I would not be surprised if in time the extra pain in the butt process of having to serialize everything becomes the norm.
  4. I just knew someone would
  5. Now that is a subject I like to discuss
  6. Here, I'll start us off with our first disagreement, Well I don't think there will be any contradictions or disagreements at all
  7. Personally I think these are worth salvaging and think that if you don't want to that someone else probably does. The thing that gives me a small clue that regardless of who made it or what it cost, that some of that wear on the fingerboard is "telling us something" that is its a player. Someone at some point used to play it quite a bit it seems which is a potential indicator that it sounded {could sound} good...probably as a "country fiddle" based on all that first position wear
  8. Yep I think it's the better choice , good luck
  9. It seems to be better for plucked instruments but not good to have too much for bowed
  10. Ole Bull Already did that....in 1879, I made my own version, it was ok https://patents.google.com/patent/US217330?oq=Ole+Bull+chin+rest
  11. "Rubber sheets are perfectly elastic" Well according to my Uncle Chuck that's just not the case, they just ain't that perfect, account my cousins and all
  12. I don't know when it was, maybe 10 years ago I had brought up "photo degradation of wood" as the primary reason I thought we get the "Strad effect" in some finer violins, Someone was trying to tell me that the "Swiss Cheese effect" was not something that happened, I then posted some pic showing basically just that, So we know that wood does go through internal structural changes and that I agree that to me, it is the only logical "answer" On top of that I would throw in the laws of statistics being the only other real science that matters, that being the more you build the more likely you are to get better ones and some worse, and out of them all a few real winners. I would also say that thermal processing is the closest to photo degradation that we can get right now. We should all remeber that once the violin body has been set in motion that all "numbers" become "quantum dynamic" and so to measure a plate, or even the body in static states doesn't really tell you much about any energy transference and dispersion except in that one state , all the parameters change by the millisecond as the instrument is actually played, thus changing all parameters in real time. If I tap the plate static I will get "this reading" if I were able to twist the plate without interrupting vibrations and tap it then I would get another reading, when the fibers twist and flap there are microscopic fluctuations in the physical properties at local levels through out the entire instrument, I see no way to get any real valid information because of this fact, it's too quantum
  13. Fwiw, I would not consider this repair a repair where I would expect or want reversibility, unless of course it fails. Problem is with these repairs that it's somewhat not up to you if they work or not, all it takes is a moment of frustration with someone fighting the tuning peg to re-blow out the hole, bushed or not, I would suggest hide, not for reversibility as much as if it ever comes back you will be able to try again easy, with CA, thats generally not the case....And that lightning fast set time is generally a good thing, until it's not, CA is a one shot deal and if for any reason there is a little wobble of something not going right with the mating , you're kinda screwed. If you have not used CA much , I would suggest breaking several piece of small wood to do some practice mating , including some where the piece is still hanging on, split, not cracked in half. this helps give you an idea of what it takes to work it in and your open time, which is pretty nil. The other factor is clean up and protecting the varnish
  14. Only when it's shaped like a whoopie cushion
  15. I always wondered if they had a "long version" where they tried to go through the entire alphabet
  16. Yes well speaking of lack of discipline, I think I'm going to have another apple fripper, it's all talk, Giraffe talk, gargle,garble,gasping gaffe gaffe gaffe grammatical gesticulations! it's only talk
  17. It's all talk, just elephant talk
  18. Fwiw, I do "tap" but it is usually looking for any "stand out" areas that are "messing" with my pitch gradient that is determined by the material properties and dimensions, not me
  19. When I had this conversation with him and brought up "V" there was a certain "one side of the mouth grin/chuckle" and a "Ya I used to be into that stuff but I don't do it anymore"...that was 05-06?
  20. Hard to disagree with that logic, but I will say that there is a certain amount of "proof" in cumulative wasted time , so in this case the end result is not the subjective "how do you think it sounds" as much as the "I spent x amount of years" mapping and tapping, charting and farting about and even though I kept all my "science" the same they all sound different, blah, I wasted xamount of time" you may not be able to prove the quality of the results but I do think you could add up hours spent and declare it a basic waste of time, definitively, but as you say, people will believe what they want to believe
  21. I guess the thing I find funny is that it all most seems as if there is a "committee" or "organization" of watchers and it goes something like this..."Number 42, we seem to have someone interested in potentially making a violin, make sure in all their search results stuff about "tap tones" comes up, yayayaya, give them the "Vordichik treatment", nonono of course everything about what they look up should be positive about "tap tones" , you know, that way we can send them down the wrong river for about a year or two so they can waste a lot of time on some stupid theory that doesn't work" Now of course that sounds crazy but it does seem to explain why virtually every new maker seems to start with this "thing they heard about called tap tones" Why I can remember sitting in Tom Croens shop asking him, "so what do you think about this tap tone stuff?" So we all know that "theory" is "bonkers" but someone please tell why with ALL the info about making violins out there that for some reason over and over again we have people starting out getting exposed to this "idea" right out of the gate and every so often we then have these conversations. Why do search results about making constantly bring in this beat dead horse of an idea? Particularly to "new" makers? that to me is the real question. Why if tap tones and "plate tuning" have basically been debunked{not saying you shouldn't "handle" your wood} is it that search results always come up with it and make it seem like its something you should be doing>?" Is it simulation? starts to feel like it after awhile.
  22. `Certain sandpapers can use "stearates" as anti clogging coating and this can also effect adhesion. I would highly suggest doing repeated test's over numerous "ground/first coat/sealer" applications to ensure you have completely taken the "loss of surface tension" out of the equation. I would also look at my environment tools,applicators and containers. Also just because the varnish is "sitting well" does not mean you "have it" assuming you can get it to sit well..ie not fisheye, re-solvent, loose surface tension...you still have adhesion and wear characteristics that need to be sorted out, let alone optics. So after you have made several say 8x8 test sample boards with something that is sitting well I would start "playing destroy" with it, seeing how it reacts to several forms of torture, such as "abrasion" use fine sand paper to see it's wear characteristics, light whisks of a scraper, a stiff brush, tap it with the tip of the corner of a flathead screwdriver, to see if it's "chippy" or fractures , do direct sunlight test's to check for thermal plasticity, refrigerate to see if going cold then re-warming does anything and well just anything else you can think of. If you do this enough you find combinations of products that will work well, or better than others...A varnish that is "looking good" may work on "this" ground, but not "that" one, again I would caution using oil based conifer straight over protein, it certainly can be done, but they have to have tested compatibility. Your "protein/gelatin/glue" coat looks rather thick, and as we see it really wiped off on the back, so I would really want to get that squared away. Again we are all just "doing the best we can" with our work and I like to think that some of the "draw" to instrument making is the "romantic notion" that something you have created may be loved well after you are gone and that it could be perhaps your "legacy" and well, I suppose no one wants to think of some guy saying 200 years from now, "ya. he made good instruments, but, that varnish, if he had only used something different." Most places scrap wood can be had for free with some scrounging if you don't already have a pile, and it's much better to really get this figured out before putting "it" your system of layers, on a bunch of instruments, before you know what "it's going to do" ...good luck
  23. Not enough info or pics....More pics and SPECIFICS about products, application, tools devices used to apply, any in between abrasions, if so what, any tacking, if so what...for proper diagnosis one must be specific...Things I can say...1. that looks horrible 2. based on the over all look of "complete contamination" my guess is that you have 2 dissimilar products that are not compatible which is why it is so bad where as foreign contamination, such as wax, sterates or silicone as mentioned by the others is generally localized in "spots" {unless you used a tack that spread a containment} ... another potential is that your varnish "barley" sticks{compatibility} to the protein, you then applied the next coat, which resolvented the first layer , thus melting it , end result your brush just lifted it off and smeared it...Personally, I wouldn't even mess around, I'd just wipe it off, get it as close to zero as I could, then "figure it out" on test scrap before I attempted it again on the work Using oil straight over protein can be very dicey and one must do long term compatibility and characteristic tests to ensure a lasting system, many will "cheat" or "buy insurance" with a wafer thin wax free shellac coat to act as a dissimilar base "barrier" "compatibility coat" as all finishes stick to WFS and WFS sticks to all finishes, it is the "easiest" way to "insure" these types of things don't happen
  24. He just wanted the wood working challenge of having to do edge work on and around a knot
  • Create New...