Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

baroquecello

Members
  • Posts

    942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by baroquecello

  1. How much does the collector want for these cellos? The pictures are blurry, so there is nothing definitive about what I'm writing here. To me, all they look relatively new. The fingerboards look strikingly similar at the bridge end and unused and of the same type of almost-but-just-not-black ebony (or ebony-like wood), the nuts look similar, the finishing of the protruding end of the pegs (which all look brand new and of a cheaper type) looks similar and not very stylish, none of them seem to have any wear... I wouldn't be surprised if they all came from Romania and were made within the last 25 years or so. I would not attach any value to the labels. If the price is appropriate, I don't see why one wouldn't buy these (provided there is no damage through badly set sound posts or so), but if you want something that is professional (without better pictures and without having played them, so with some reserve) I would say you should be looking elsewhere.
  2. Yes, Dominant. Possibly the a string was replaced with a Jargar as the blue looks a bit too bright, but that may also just be the quality of the picture. The ball will answer that question: if it is rather big and has a hole, it is also a dominant, if it is smaller without a hole, it is a jargar string.
  3. Well, if it is like that, I'd also think there shouldn't be much effect on the sound. However, if I look at the contact points of the neck of the Engleder, I see that the chalk is gone only at the fingerboard/top end of the heel, indicating that the neck sort of sits on that side, without contact over the whole neck heel surface. I would expect that to have some sort of effect on vibrations, but maybe I'm wrong. The whole idea behind it, I think, is that the neck remains adjustable without any other modification but a turn of the screw. In that case whole neck heel contact cannot be present.
  4. The Schweizer cello is a very beautiful instrument! I just can't stop wondering if that neck mechanism doesn't (negatively) influence the sound and playability. does it?
  5. I'm just thinking out loud. Someone mentioned expecting to be using laminated fingerboards. Baroque fingerboards are a wedge shaped core of spruce or similar, that already has the curved surface, onto which a flat piece of ebony veneer is clamped. That is of course a labour intensive way of making a fingerboard. But shouldn't it be possible to simply glue a flat piece of ebony onto a flat piece of hardwood (maple or so), and then use that as a fingerboard in the same way une uses a modern ebony fingerboard, until in time, the ebony is planed off and the fingerboard needs replacement? One could use a much thinner strip of ebony thus reducing the amount of ebony wasted. The whole fingerboard should be similar in weight to a full ebony board. And I think it should actually have advantages regarding the strength/stiffness compared to a full ebony board, shouldn't it? So my question is actually: why is noone doing that? edit note: I'm thinking of cellos and basses especially. There are big chunks of ebony discarded when the fingerboard needs replacement, because the fingerboard needs replacement only in order to prevent the neck deforming. I feel that is such a waste.
  6. Such holes are there for helping with the wire wrapping. The end of the wire is led into the hole and secured with a smal wooden dowel, after which one can proceed wrapping the bow. I've never seen it on both ends, only on the tip end side, but I'm pretty sure that here both were drilled by the maker for this purpose. Edit note: I see now how far away the plugged tip end hole is from the frog, and I guess that sort of excludes my explanation, because it is too far away. The one under the thumb leather could be what I described.
  7. Strange, it appears in my post from here. I'll try posting the picture with a different method....
  8. So, the cello is being restored. I'm not posting any pics of the process or the name of the lutier doing the work without prior consent, however, I think I can post a picture of the neck construction. The nec had an overstand of about 5 MM or so, and of those 5MM, 2,5MM were due to a shim under the fingerboard. As the button had broken off and left quite a mess, it will be doubled and the neck will receive a neck block, and a "shoe" to fit as much of the original neck into the new top block, and result in an acceptable neck overstand. I asked the lutier to also document the old construction well. I find this picture very interesting. I couln't believe how thin the strip between the "neck block" and the neck is! In combination with the glueing to the ribs (the glueing surface to the ribs is so large, it seems to me that it has some resemblance to the practise of glueing a neck onto the ribs, and extra securing it with a nail, like the cremonese did), it seems to hve been enough nonetheless, as the construction didn't break, just the button did. A question for the experts: is such an incredibly thin strip, connecting the neck with the block normal? I had always imagined it at least three times as wide. How exactly did they produce this construction; what was the order of doing things? Was the neck glued onto the back first, and the ribs inserted after that, or inverse? Or was the rib cage and neck completed first and then transferred onto the unfinished back as a whole?
  9. @FiddleDoug isn't Xylene a rather dangerous substance?
  10. I take care of a music schools rental programme, and do what Brad does. I've never had any bow maker complain when the time came to replace the wire. But it only works if the wire is just slightly loose, usually at the tip end.
  11. For that money, great quality can be had. There are some very good makers on this forum, but I doubt they'd start advertising themselves in this thread. Maybe look at the contemporary makers forum and see if you like something. If you are willing to travel to Europe, you could try my local favorites: Andrew Finnigan and Pia Klaembt. I know their cellos, which are fantastic, but at least one of their violins is good enough for Anne Sophie Mutter, so I guess they should be quite good.
  12. The corner block also looks very new, which suggests it was added at a later date.
  13. Often, early music festoivals have a fair attached to it, where makers present their stuff and you can try lots of things out. That would be ideal. I do not believe in going half the way, like using a baroque bow on a modern violin. Never satisfieing. The idea behind using baroque instruments is that you let the Instrument tell you, how it wants to be played, becaise that way, you might get closer to what the composers of olde were used to hearing. Because of this, CF baroque bows are not baroque bows. They don't teach you anything.
  14. They will not harm your violin. However, most steel strings (e strings excepted) are not so good for classical playing. They give a sound and bow response that most classical players do not much like. Fiddlers often play steel strings though. If you fiddle, then steel may be just the thing for you.
  15. I like it a lot! I'm only a player, so don't take this too seriously. The only criticism I have is I find that the "island" of varnish damage in the centre of the back looks a bit too pale and new to me in comparison to the rest. It almost looks like the neck.
  16. I'm only a cellist, not a lutier... I understand that you'd like a full size cello string length (69,5 CM) right? If you wish to add a long neck to a small body (the neck will need to be a lot longer than on a 4/4th cello!), you need to think of the fact that a longer neck is going to have a greater pulling force at the neck base. One of the problematic things about cello necks is that they'll have the tendency to deform due to the pull of the strings. There are people (also high profile cello makes) that insert carbon fibre rods or other carbon fibre supports into the neck, in order to prevent this from happening in a 4/4 cello. For sure, with an even longer neck, you would need that, or you would need to make a much thicker neck. Another option would be to simply use a 4/4 neck on an 1/8 body, but place a high bridge rather far down onto the body. You may just get enough bow clearance then. Not sure how that will sound. As a basis for a trench cello you could use a prakticello. If you'd add something similar to a sound board to it, it should sorta work.
  17. There has been a thread on this board about this in the past, that I know for sure.
  18. Jacob has a had an excellent thread on that, maybe he'll share the link, if you ask nicely. It covers your question in all respects. If you would like to use the violin, you should get that enormous saddle crack repaired before it turns into a sound post crack.
  19. Meaning you will not manage to find an individual makers name for this instrument. It is also not a valueable instrument, couple of hunderd dollars, provided the clumsy repair of the sadle crack on the top is solid. Likely it could serve an amateur well, and if it gets a good setup it may be totally servicable. To know this, one would have to hold it in ones hand.
  20. I'm just a cellist, not a maker, but, I've played on quite a few older instruments that have such slight offsets. If everything otherwise is well made and in good condiction, and there is enough bow clearance, the offset in itself is no reason to worry. Optically it can be handled the was you describe (you do not say if it is towards the treble of bass side), and can also be hidden by shaving off some of the fingerboard on the side which protrudes more. If you combine the methods (bridge slightly off centre, slightly tilted, fingerboard slightly shaved off), then all of them need to be done only moderately to make it practically disappear. As long as the bridge foot sits over the bass bar properly, and the sound post is adjusted accordingly, I'd not expect any negative playing characteristics. Anyway, if it is 2 MM, I'd just leave it.
  21. As I see it: - probably structurally ok - could be tonally ok, but could also be somewhat light/short etc. in which case a differnt bass bar MIGHT help the bass register. - How much more would it cost to reopen the cello and add a new bass bar, compared to adding a new bass bar right now (and then possibly finding out it doesn't sound as good as hoped for)? Either one option is a gamble: how much are you willing to gamble? - If you close it up and it turns out you don't like it to such an extent that the bass bar can't be blamed for all of it, you can just sell it. You can also sell it with a different bass bar in there (it could still sound just as mediocre), but (assuming no deformation of the top plate) I strongly suspect you will not be able to sell it for more than you could with the existing bass bar. Ergo a new bass bar will not increase the resale value of the cello. I'd go with trying as is first.
  22. If the top over the bass bar has not caved in, then, at least structurally, the bass bar does its job. I'd also prefer a bar a bit more along the lines of Evans pic, but in this case, If there is little top arch deformation, I'd take the chance and leave it as is, see what it does. edit @David A.T. was basically saying the same thing at the same time...
×
×
  • Create New...