Jeff White

I guess what I'm confused about is that the lack of "acuteness" of the rib end. Can't imagine that those rib ends where clamped together.

I ended up buying it and the top has to come off as the soundpost crack is opening up. Yuck, nightmare inside. I can see now that BF and Jacob were right....I think. What construction is this? Not Bob, not inside mold. Outside? Common for this area at that time? Note that 3 of the corner blocks have "additions" to them. Looks to have been an outside mold (process of elimination?) with little CB's in them that someone down the road thought they need to be more substantial for marketability?

It doesn't look like the Gliers I am looking at now (inventory), but you weren't assuming it was by his hand anyway. Doesn't look French commercial to me, looks more Markneukirchen, though it doesn't check all the boxes for that.....

Dang, missed again!!! I think the owner will consign it and resulting in the top coming off and I'll show the inside then.

They look "non original", however, they are proportioned like Mitt. This might be on Consignment and will need a SP patch (old one poorly done and crack open) and at that time I will get some better views. Just trying to figure a price range for the customer to see if all the work is worth it.

I'm thinking this is a Mittenwald, early 19th C. Isn't that some "crazy" chicken breast"??!! What do you guys think? LOB is 352 (thought that might be significant)

Agreed

Martin, However, I'm thinking this is #18 and he was self taught.I've read different views. Some, like Brinser, that stated good workmanship, others, stating "lacking a professionalism" in workmanship. I'm thinking(possibly) that being a sculptor, he developed to a fairly good lever as time went on that the differings have to do with what part of his lifespan. If one is trained in a shop, then even #1 would go out the door at least to the standards of the master (taking in acct their #1st?). Hence, a certain standard. In a self taught, there would be a failry steep evolution (or not in some cases), making it hard to ID. This seems to happen a decent amount with American makers that are self taught. Not sure if this thinking is relevant, or not. Definately "humpty" though.

Wondered if anyone has this guy listed in their collection of books, or folders. He is listed in the Blot books, but no pictures. I have some info (web, Jalovec etc), but, need some solid pics to compare. Only thing I found was on David Kerr's sight, but the violin he shows is nothing like this one. LOB 357mm. If it helps with ID, the belly is coming off (SP patch, arch correction, rib work etc) Anyone got anything? Anyone familiar with this maker? Anyone you can refer me to? jeff

Agreed, no way I'd do a graft for this. In that area, you could hide a well matched bushing in there with retouch. that varnish (a lot of american others too)is opaque(ish) and you could hide a lot under it. MAN, that pegbox is wide!!!!(if the nut area IS 24mm). That violin looks totally legit to me (do I get some cred since this is my town.....). I'm surprised by the $. That price range is usually for better known American makers and some lesser IF they are from the Boston area (late 19C). But, if Ifshin priced it that high, well, maybe. Maybe Jays' was super nice, I wouldn't price it in that range, personally. Cool violin though. I like those. Problem is, they are hard to sell.

No doubt it's a questionable situation. Quite often, I have customers that don't really care. They love the bow (see Conor's post) and want it repaired. It's our duty to inform of value (IHMO), but often, I find what matters to them is what's in their heart for the instrument. Also, my main reason for this is to learn a working quick solution so that when I'm faced with this from a customer, I'm ready. This is a stock bow. I'm thinking with the right setup, this really isn't that much time...we will see. Also, not being a fine french bow, the devalue is obviously much less. I'll post pics of the rest, it seems like a nice bow throughout, stock.

So, what do you all think about using this milling attachment to my MicroMark lathe? It's made for that lathe. Looks like I could build a little wood box to fill with something (bondo, dental compound, instamorph)to hold the bow head securely and tighten the box inside the attachment. Just disappointed it doesn't pivot the angle that faces the chuck. Jerry, what speed is best for the mill bit? And, does any type of ball end mill bit work for wood?

He mentioned that before my "unsecure mockup". I was thinking it wouldn't be that much force if I went crazy light on the passes, but I haven't every milled wood (just spline sawing) and don't have a clue. Thanks for the caution, I get the feeling Jerry will squash my mock-up.

By that, you mean, put a round one in to fill the bottom and then do it again, milling out 1/2 of that, well, with a round bottom much more. Jerry, note that I added to my earlier post and put a pic of the mock up.

5.6mm, so I would need at least an 11.2 bit, right? That's wider than the head. I don't think I want to get that invasive (read.....chicken) as I have a micromark small lathe and I'm not sure about setting it up right for a feather edge on the sides of the head. I was thinking more of a series of passes making a straight sides working into a radius at the bottom. Harder to fit as I couldn't use a lathe spun rod..... This is a mock-up. Sub correct bow and ball end mill bit. I’m thinking I would get too much chatter with this setup. Probably need a milling attachment.