Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Jeff White

Members
  • Posts

    1707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Clara, Ca
  • Interests
    Motocross, guitar and violin restoration, flying, construction/renovation.

Recent Profile Visitors

11368 profile views

Jeff White's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (5/5)

  1. No, they didn't have the C bout liners like that, you are thinking something more like Mittenwald? That inside work looks very much like the inside work of Roth's I have opened. Slight bevels in the blocks and the like. Inside is clean, but I've opened many 100yr old violins that clean before. I'm betting it's a Roth. Has anyone written a good book on Id'ing and history for the Roth firm? Different stamps, labels, constructed grafts/crowns etc. I've always wanted to know where the bows came from, certainly not the shop itself.
  2. Nathan, I was thinking the same thing, and probably like you, I went back to see if I missed a post of Michaels'........I think what he meant, was what he suggested in the beginning of that same post, about "this being an extremely simple setup problem"...... right Michael???
  3. Agreed. Some sound really nice. When "done up", most sound pretty well within their price range. I typically don't find that it's worth doing a neck reset (value-wise), but can usually correct all the neck set issues (proj,tilt, thickness) with a "corrective" shim. I don't love these, but if well done (and not adding to a thick neck) they can make the end result a "value added" consideration. It's a compromise, for sure. In the last few years, I have probably done about 3 of these on Markie cello's and they came out really well. The "nakedness" of the neck here doesn't really make it more or less problematic as we don't really know the condition of the neck set, as far as measurements.
  4. A lot of these Markie cellos have the neck tilt going in a direction that makes it very hard to play on the A string. Probably the reason?? for what's left of a shim, or projection issues? Either way, just the fingerboard, and subsequent bridge....shim??..., strings, peg puts this up there. That's $2K right there, with other set up things.......
  5. Bear in mind, knowing what the stamp is, doesn't necessarily tell you much. Need a good side pic of the head. The pics shown don't really show anything impressive, FWIW
  6. If you can get it real cheap, like under $500, you might probably be ok. This is no treasure. You really aren't giving us much to see about the cello. Properly restored, it would sell in a violin shop (not necessarily private party price)for from $3K -$6K. It looks to be a basic Markneukirchen cello and I think that estimate of age might be older than it is. I would guess a little before (optimistic) or after the turn of the century (1900). I could be wrong as you have shown very limiting pics. Prepare for a bill at least of $2-3K, and that's not really seeing the whole cello...........
  7. I"m looking at the 4th of the original pics you posted. It looks like a cheap(and easy) way to get at this would be something akin to a neck pull back (NY neck reset...). Looks like the top of the neck root is forward, almost like someone removed some wood to allow the neck to go more forward and lower that angle (opposite of the pull back method). Hard to tell with fully check all out. If that top under the fingerboard is stable, then it almost looks like the last person who set the neck (graft or reset) did so using measurements typically for a lower style of arching, and then it sank a touch. When resetting a neck on an arching like this, you need to increase the overstand to a higher amount to get the right break angle (in theory)over the bridge, clear the high arch under the board and so as to keep your projection at around 27-27.5ish. If the neck is on the thin side, this could also be done by removing the shim that is there and adding another that is tapered a little, but also adding neck thickness to keep the projection from being too high. Not sure if I'm explaining myself very well, or not. I guess, in the end, if there is enough clearance under the board, you could just leave well enough alone and keep an eye on the measurements, taking into account humidity changes.
  8. Based on the pics, the overstand looks too high (as a result of the wedge and reinforced by you annoyance of the thickness), hence, I would have (and still recomend) a full neck reset. No reason to do anything else, other than having to pay for it.
  9. We are missing the pic that we need, one that shows the whole heel from the side. Looks like you might have issues in the block area too?? Can't really see.
  10. Just finished restoring this bow for stock, and can't quite figure out why this thumb projection is so thick. It is so unusual, I'm thinking it was done maybe for the end dealer/user to custom shape??? I know that might be p retty far out, but I can't figure this out. Other pics of Paulus cello bows don't look like this. Thoughts?
  11. That is what I thought might be a possibility, just never seen it.
  12. that would be too much wieght, it's a pretty large hole, and it would also put the balance in the wrong direction( it's a bit handle heavy now).
  13. FWIW, the hole slants in the same direction as the mortice does. Looks like they were trying to space it equadistant between the mortise and the inside curve of the frog.
  14. Nope, eyelet lines up as usual with the mortise.
  15. I've never seen this before. This is a L. Piernot cello bow, that, when I was done with all other work, then came to the final rehair, I discovered this hole. I've seen these holes in cheap Shonbach bows as a place to put the hair, but I'm sure that's not the case. Looks like it was to remove weight?? It is a tad tip light, but only by the amount that I've found other older french cello bows a tad head light. Couldn't be to add weight, I would imagine. FWIW, the bow's balance point (with sterling lapping just to the leather)is about 6.5" to the front of the frog, and overall weight will be around 78g. Can't imagine anyone would want to add a hole that big to fill with something. More than likely to remove a bit of weight???
×
×
  • Create New...