Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

PhilipKT

Members
  • Posts

    6470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About PhilipKT

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Professional cellist, forever attempting to learn more about the tools we use.
    2005 David Caron called “Heavenly Voice.”

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

PhilipKT's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (5/5)

  1. You’re making a distinction between personal preference and quality. Structurally, I do not know whether one kind of Ebony is better than any other, which is one reason I asked. Aesthetically, I don’t know whether a particular appearance is considered to be more attractive than another, although I prefer an unbroken black, But that’s just me. And, based on the examples I see for sale that’s not just me, but most. I did not think to clarify the question because I thought the specific question would be obvious. The frog that I shared was made for my stick by a bow maker who bought a bunch of ebony from the late Paul Martin Siefried. My friend was delighted to get this Ebony because he said it was very high-quality, and he has made four or five frogs for sticks of mine, they have all been plain frogs and they have all been beautiful. He was happy to get that Ebony because it met certain parameters, and he told me that he has so little left that he’s going to save it for his own bows. I just assumed when I asked the question that those parameters were pretty universal. Of course a good maker can make a good Product with less than best quality material, that was irrelevant to my question. But again that brings up the question of why the term “best quality”exists at all, if not because some material is not.
  2. I’m certainly not going to disagree with those sentiments, I would much rather see them get donated to a conservatory, but they’re not mine so I guess that’s that.
  3. That’s exactly the reason for my question, wasn’t that obvious? I showed a picture of an Ebony frog and asked if it was good quality wood.
  4. Your last sentence is incredibly clever
  5. Thank you for your kind reply. Up above I shared two photographs of Ebony frogs. Given what we have already discussed about photos and such, and ignoring which frog is more attractive, is it possible to tell whether the Ebony of one frog is better quality wood than the Ebony of the other frog?
  6. I am sad that my German is rusty enough that I couldn’t translate that except for the first line. A man sees the light of the world. How often have we seen the light of the world and ignored it…
  7. I don’t think it’s bold at all. Why do we say that this piece of wood is more beautiful than that one? Unless we have an agreed standard? And, for instance, if being dense is good, a piece that is more dense than the other one is better than the other one? Paul Childs wrote papers for one of my bows and he specifically mentioned that it was “a superior piece of wood.” Now why would he say that if there wasn’t something for it to be superior to? Martins point was that the quality of the wood didn’t necessarily have any bearing on the quality of the finished product, And I never questioned that. I was only asking for some guidance on recognizing good quality ebony.
  8. The reason I asked is because there must be some objective standards which define a piece of wood as good or not good. @Blank facementioned that for photo purposes you can make a piece of Ebony look good with some black shoe polish, which may be true but is deceptive, and doesn’t really address the question. The particular piece of Ebony on the OP bow didn’t look like very good quality Ebony to me, so I asked whether it was or not.
  9. It’s Lot 418 if you care to check, I thought it might be German because it looks exactly like an MK factory bow owned by one of my students. But that was just a guess on my part, And it’s irrelevant to my question,
  10. Doesn’t it? And they were able to have a successful result anyway? It seems to me that a piece of wood is either good or not, and a great maker would rather have a good piece of wood, But even if he doesn’t he can still make a great bow. So it seems logical that wood is good or bad, but a good maker can make a good bow even out of a lesser stick. But that wouldn’t change whether the word itself was best quality or not
  11. I think it’s just a MK German factory Bow, And as I said I have no interest in it, but I am unsure about whether I understand you correctly. Are you saying that when the bow was made they have different standards of quality than they do now? I am unclear as to whether time has any difference on initial quality, So I apologize for not understanding your comment.
  12. Martin I have the absolute greatest respect for your opinion, so I am entirely happy to except as gospel anything you say. Having said that, to my eyes, the Ebony in the first photograph is grainy, has streaks of brown, appears to be, I guess porous is the word, Because it doesn’t appear very dense. The Ebony in this photograph looks very uniformly black, doesn’t have any visible grain or pores, and is rather glossy. I understand that the photographs themselves may be different, but even allowing for that, this appears to be a much better looking piece of wood. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that in terms of quality there is no difference?
  13. This is a frog on a bow that is being offered in the latest T2 auction, I’m posting here instead of the auction scroll because I’m not interested in the bow, but in learning about Ebony. This wood seems to have noticeable grain and doesn’t seem to be the uniform jet black that I have always associated with good quality ebony. It’s possible it could be just dirty or older not terribly well cared for, but I’m wondering if this is a good piece of Ebony, and why or why not?
×
×
  • Create New...