baroquecello

Maybe related: Here in germany I regularly see on cellos that are slightly older strings with a dark blue winding at both ends, and apparently a white synthetic core, that have a ball that looks exactly like the ones Thomastik uses. They are not bad strings and I'd like to know what they are.

What is the length of the vibrating string (mensur)? If it is full scale, 69,5 CM, then I think that is the first problem. I don't know what is recommmended by Larsen for the e string, but baroque 5 string cellos are usually shorter, more like 3/4 size or smaller. I think that is where you e string breakage comes from: too high tension. Now in converting the the cello, you likely made a new peg setup, and I'm betting the c string moved closer to the chin. The angle the c string makes is now more acute. Even if that is all well-executed, the string goes over the nut, and the nut groove for the c string is now curved with a smaller diametre/higher angle than it was before. I've had Larsen Aurora c strings break twice, because the string was too long for the cello, and I had started winding the metal wound part onto the peg. Apparently, that part of the string is not flexible enough to withstand being bent. My bet is that either you also ended up winding the metal wound part onto the peg, and it broke there, or that the string was weakened because of it being pulled over a nut with a curve with a small diametre. Solution: a different string brand.

I picked the cello up about two weeks after it was restrung, as the lutier doing the work was 500 km from my hometown. We did a bit of sound post fiddling around, and that was that. It sounded great from the start and didn't need any extra changing of sound posts since. It has its occasional season related post position change but nothing like a new Cello needs.

When I had a cello extensively restored (New top block, bass bar, sound post Patch in the back) it didn't take long for the instrument to settle. I'd guess it depends on many factors.

Maybe it is strong enough not to warp, but doesn't mahogany split easily? I'd be affraid of friction pegs causing it to split. Guitars usually have mechanical pegs.

I really love the colour on the last photo, judging by that, it is a very nice instrument! I don't see your problem with the corners, but then I'm "only" a player. However, I'm a bit confused: is this the same instrument as the scroll from september 29th? That scroll is so much darker and more intensely red in colour, are you taking away from the colour in the antiquing process?

Strictly C and G strings: Spirocore can be somewhat brash, especially on the g string, and takes a long time to break in. Versum sounds a bit more/too reedy in my opinion. Magnacore sounds more complex and rich, are slightly (but only slightly) harder to get going. Very nice strings, which I currently use as c and g strings in a heavy version for 66 CM string length. For faster response you can try magnacore arioso, which are like they are called, very good cantabile strings with a lighter tension that regular Magnacores. If it fits the cello, they are wonderful. Reg. Rondo , the set, they are powerful and easy to play strings, and well balanced. For some cellos the lower strings are a bit too much. They lack a bit of complexity for my taste. But they are very good strings also, and depending on the cello might be the best choice.

I'm a pro cellist with a slight Obsession with setup, but also a dislike of spending too much or throwing away things. If you don't like bright a strings, Thomastik (rondo, versum, dominant pro, spirocore) is not the best choice for you if you want to stick with a whole set, as their upper two strings are always on the bright side. That said, if you did not abuse your strings, I'd be surprised if the g and c versum strings you currently use are already dead, as such thick wirecore strings usually can last very long. If I were you, I'd clean the strings thoroughly with some not too much!) alcohol on a tissue (first clean the rosin off with a cork, then use one tissue to clean of the rest of the rosin off, then take the tension off the string carefully, then use a fresh tissue for the whole string. Do not use much alcohol and work quickly as you do not want it to penetrate the string but only clean the surface (and be careful not to drip any alcohol on the varnishof the instrument). After that, give the bridge and upper nut some fresh graphite and string the strings exactly as they were on before) and get a new a and probably also d string. If you like darker sounding strings, Jargar a and d strings are a good place to start, likely the "forte" version is going to fit better, at least most professionals use that. Generally, I change a strings (every 6 to 10 months) twice as often as d strings, and g and c strings every 4 years or so (although usually I get to a point of wanting to try something new sooner than that). Do not replace the lower two before having tried them with replaced a and d strings. Because of bad overtones, a single worn out string will make the other strings sound bad, and likely you'll be surprised how good the old other strings will sound once the bad ones have been replaced. Report back on what cleaning and replacing the a string does for you, and if you then still want to replace the rest of the set!

I bought an older 3/4 cello because of its rustic appearance. It sounded rather muted, and the bridge looked quite unfinished with a low arch, small kidneys and heart, and left rather thick. I thought I'd weight it, and it was 17 grams. Then I thought I'd weigh 5 old 4/4 cello bridges I have here, by at least 3 different makers and wildly different styles, and all of them were 14 grams. Now I'm wondering if weight is a deciding factor on the way a bridge works, and if 14 grams is sort of an ideal weight for cello bridges. I enlarged the holes of the 3/4 bridge and opened up the arch a bit, and also thinned the top so that it is 3 rather than 4 mm thick. It all looks much better now, but still a bit massive. The coincidence is I've hit exactly 14 grams, and it sounds much better now. I'm wondering, because this is a 3/4 bridge, if made proportionally, shouldn't it be lighter in weight than a 4/4 for optimal performance, or is lighter (ergo smaller everywhere) not the way to go? It would reduce the acoustic filtering that a bridge does, I'd guess. Any experiences here? I could still take quite some wood off here and there without it looking weird...

This is my understanding if the matter, but I'm just an amateur in violin history. The mortised neck seems to have evolved in the second half of the 18th century. Before that, the other main way of attaching the neck was glueing the neck onto the ribs, which were glued onto a top block, through which a nail or multiple nails were driven. This was the prevalent method in Cremona, for instance. The main reason for the development of the mortised neck is that it can more easily be repaired than the through neck or the nailed neck (without opening the violin). The violin on the picture was likely repaired and no longer has its original neck.

No matter how sceptical you are, I'm quite sure there is a core of truth in this. Years ago, I had an infection in my elbow. Ever since I get slight pains when using a particular snakewood baroque bow for a long time. This does not happen with other bows, baroque or modern. I have a student, 80 years old, who had an infection in her shoulder. She can now play almost without pain when using an Arcus bow. No other bows, light or heavy, allow her to play for prolonged times.

As a cellist, I never liked codabow. They felt unresponsive to me and I don't like the tone. I much prefer Carbondix bows, although they improvewith a proper rehair. I find wooden bows are still the best, but only at a much higher price point.

a couple of pictures didn't upload, I just noticed.

Would you take a guess regarding its age? Second half of the 18th century?

A friend of mine has changed career from violist to teacher, and wishes to sell her baroque viola. She knows not much about it. She was told it is "old" "german" and had "never been opened". I see what I think is a Mittenwald notch and generally a good state and a nice workmanship. I also see on the top wood a kind of reflexion of the wood under the varnish, that I have been told is caused by using sand paper, and which I've seen mainly on 20th century instruments, so maybe the instrument has been refinished? The pictures are what they are, I'll send my friend a link to the "how to photograph a violin for identification purposes" thread. But in the mean time: What are your opinions?