Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PhilipKT

  1. So they mean nothing except as identification marks for particular frogs and sticks, and have nothing to do with any kind of dating? Ive owned a couple of Hill bows, Never saw those markings, so I’m happy for this information. Thank you
  2. Would the letters stamped on the stick and frog identify a particular month or week?
  3. Jeffrey, you are kind. Thank you. This is kind of exactly the answer I was seeking. I’m rather surprised it took three pages to get it. As an aside, my grandparents came home from WWII in 1946 and built a magnificent house in oak cliff Texas. The wood in that house is 100% California redwood. The family, much to my grief, is now selling that house as a “tear down”but in no way will that house be “torn down.” Rather, it will be carefully disassembled, and every speck of that California Redwood will be repurposed. Every door in that house is 1.5 inch thick solid redwood, on sturdy bronze hinges… it breaks my heart. But to your point, there is no wood like old wood.
  4. Yes the question was originally for the purpose of creating an original condenser for a Haydn Concerto, which was written about 1790, so I guess that’s after your window, ha ha. We figured something out, it was kind of fun working it out, but I don’t think the result was anything special
  5. If you recall in another comment I responded to that. If there is no structural difference between one chunk of Ebony and another, and then that is an answer to my question, but at least one reply indicates that that is not the case. So some of the answers I got to my question contradict each other. And Jacob And I both gave examples where wood is definitely Divided into categories of quality. The frog in the original photograph has definitely survived 100 years or so, so that means it is certainly adequate, but that doesn’t mean it is anything more. I am fond of you, Herr Gesicht, And I have absolutely no desire to be contentious. We can leave it here.
  6. I appreciate your comment, but I haven’t gotten an answer. Now your Second paragraph is an answer, and if you had mentioned that in your first comment That would’ve been sufficient. However it is obvious from reading the comments that no one answered the question. I’m not being obstinate in the slightest nor am I Unwilling to except a clear answer, I’m kind of insulted that you suggest that I am.
  7. That’s irrelevant to this discussion, but to answer your question, I don’t know who said it was.
  8. It’s not really a philosophical question and my examples illustrate that. It certainly CAN be philosophical, but it’s clear from the question that I was asking something specific. My friend was happy to get ebony from Paul Siefried because it was excellent quality. Paul Childs said my Gillet was superior wood, even though he thought my other Gillet was a better bow. “Good” and “better” and “best” mean something. Sometimes they can be used subjective,y, but as often they are objective. Thats what I was asking.
  9. It’s amazing how people have responded to a simple question. I posted a photograph of an Ebony frog and asked if it was good quality Ebony. You responded that it didn’t matter because the great Bowmakers made great bows with imperfect material. i Never questioned That and it was irrelevant to my question. Several people suggested that the question was subjective: that if I liked one piece it was good and if I didn’t like one piece it was bad. What mattered was what I preferred aesthetically. I gave two examples, and Jacob, God bless him, also gave one, of wood being judged more or less desirable, by the experts who prepare it, the makers who seek it, and the evaluators who judge it. I fail to see why there is any confusion in my question and why there were so many irrelevant replies. If there is no structural difference between one chunk of Ebony and another, and then that is an answer to my question, but at least one reply indicates that that is not the case. Anyway, it was a reasonable question and the replies have been interesting.
  10. No, I didn’t read any of the Zen books… David probably has, given that he lived on a motorcycle for a time. do you recommend them to a mechanically ungifted musician?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Your last sentence is incredibly clever
  15. 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?
  16. 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…
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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,
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  • Create New...