David Beard

Absolutely agree. But, their traditions evolved design recipes that reliably produce musically and acoustically very effective and functional instruments. Also, stringing and even pitches were much less standard. So part of what their traditions evolved is significant adjustability with just the post, bridge, and bar. The functionality they delivered then turned out to highly adaptable into the future. Later making that is more based on copying external shape, or about inventiveness, doesn't seem to have as consistently captured the functional relationships of features that the Cremona traditions instilled so well.

I'm inclined to agree. I think this applies nearly equally to today's making and to the great historical making. As playing technique and strings changed, the historical instruments required significant alterations to adapt at certain points. Also, internal setup has to adapt. What is very remarkable about the historical instruments is that they proved to be very adaptable. But I wouldn't point specifically to graduations. Rather the total build. A classical Cremona violin with basically original graduations does just fine with modern stringing if given appropriate neck, bridge, post, bar setup.

I don't believe there is a single homogenous Venice style, even during the height of the classical period. It always was diverse and international its way. As you mention, there were some Germanic influenced makers in the mix. Maybe they had some impact on the general community of makers there? A good number of classic Venice makers seems to have used methods very closely related to classical Cremona methods. Beare was the expert on Venice.

You aren't that stupid. You already know

That feels like a reasonable idea, but who knows. There is such a difference in varnish to wood thickness. Perhaps that relation doesn't matter so much. But the thickness of the varnish itself probably does. If it's thick enough to be its own separate thing, that's probably a much bigger impact than if it's thin enough to be completely entangled with the wood surface. But again, who knows with certainty.

Sad to hear.

The classical Cremona making shows 2:3 as a staring point for the neck to body stop ratio, a starting point that then gets adjusted by differences of 'a part' of that basic 2:3's units. So, for a large viola, the neck might be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 of the unit in the 2:3. It might sound complicated to a modern maker. But, if you're working everything by proportions worked out with dividers instead of a calculator, then adjusting by 'a part' of the basic unit when you desire an augmented or reduced result is truly the most direct and simplest possible way.

Horsetail is common and grows abundantly world wide. Find any place where the water is flowing mildly and the ground is mucky and boggy. Very many streams or rivers will have horsetail reed growing in many spots. I found a stream with such spots in my area with public access. I can refresh my supply any time I want. Almost certain any of us can find a source at the nearest natural water way in your area.

Uncut was the Cremona way.

With all respect, Don, violins ain't rockets. What might be physically slight difference that are difficult to pin point scientifically still might be significant to players. From personal and biased observation, I see several different things mascarading as 'play in'. *) In a relatively quick time, the player subtly adjusts to the instrument and draws tone more successfully, allowing the resonance and higher harmonics to be more open sounding and satisfying. *) In a less quick time, perhaps days or weeks, imbalances in a recently disrupted instrument can settle, again allowing the resonance and higher harmonics to be more open sounding and satisfying. *) In a relatively new instrument, things might not be full dry, nor completely settled. This also can settle with time and playing of a relatively longer stretch, again allowing the resonance and higher harmonics to be more open sounding and satisfying. *) Instruments have materials that including balsaams and resins in their make up the can move, change, and harden in various ways. It does sometimes seem as if instruments that have been set aside for long periods of time can aquire extra dampening that was not present when the instrument was active. And, it does seem that simply playing for period of days or weeks can sometimes chase such dampening away, again allowing the resonance and higher harmonics to be more open sounding and satisfying. I'd also like to suggest their is no reason to believe that pushing noise vibrations into the instrument with a mechanical device will have comparable results as actually driving real and dynamic playing through an instrument.

*) Obviously, if you don't understand how something works or is, then that thing simply can not be. *) Who among us knows any capable able player that doesn't tell of occasion having had experiences that seem like 'play in'. *) Do shoes not soften when worn? Do trails not clear by walking? Do cracks not grow with vibration? Do gullies and rivers not deepen with water flow? Does gravity not pull things down and compact cavities with time? *) Can you not entertain that the vibrations of playing might somehow clear the paths for the propagation, resonance, and radiation of sounds from a violin? Or that time might improve the balance and settling tensions or imbalances after an instrument is disturbed? Why must you conclude that 'play in' isn't real when we actually don't know.

What is that smell??

Is it all or nothing? Sizes are very thin. They are not a glazing nor a ground. I'm not voting for slathering protein on as a ground, or a glaze for some sort of optical effect. But, I'm all for sizing the work, in a very thin historical size way, at any or every stage were you might get the inclination. I also thing that a sizing just before applying a first ground material might moderate penetration. Since things that optically look good also tend to be penetrating to an excessive extent, such sizing can play a critical role.

The trend in recent years seems to be toward new methods that allow confirming materials in very localized ways, saying not just what was found but also precisely where it was found. This study isn't telling us exactly where, but it is saying it's looking at very small localized spots. I applaud all such efforts. Classical finishes are not at all homogenous. Because of this, 'finding' tells us more than 'not finding'. For some reason, a number of violin folk seem committed to denying any meaningful role for proteins in classical finishes. I don't understand why people are committed to such a bias?? Protein use, particularly sizing with simple glue, was a very common and normal process employed in a great range of historical arts. Woodwork also used glue sizing historically. I truly don't understand the inclination to deny this common thing in the case of old Cremona violin making.

In the of a more typical historical woodworking shop this would be the easy and natural likely path. IMO.