Ron1

What would you guess his little collection would sell for in todays market?

Unfortunately I'm not a player, and have only heard it played once. The player said it had a very nice sound- much improved over the instrument she regularly plays.

Michael, do you remember my mentioning the Reindahl violin I have? When he made it in 1907, the top-wood was 200 years old. He obtained his spruce (not sure which species/sub-species) from very old buildings in Norway for his violins. His original sales certificate/guarantee states the age of the top-wood used in the instrument. Apparently he put some stock in using older wood!

Someone getting into airbrushing may want to consider a set-up like I use: I purchased an old co2 bottle, about 5" in dia. & 15" tall, & fitted it with a double regulator (like welders use) & attached the airbrush hose to the regulator. Works so much nicer than with a compressor. No noise, no pulsating, entirely portable, requires very little space. It costs around $5 or $6 to fill the bottle which, for the occasional user like me, or someone using it for spraying & touching up a few violins a year, once a year would probably suffice. Heavier users could consider a larger bottle.

It seems that a good, sharp, burnished "hook" on the scraper would give the best results- a clean cut, but not leaving a shiny surface. To get that, I would think the scraper material would have to be a little softer, more workable, and would require frequent sharpening/burnishing. A "shiny as glass" surface might indicate the wood fibers have been literally scraped and burnished-over rather than cut. Sort of like the taboo regarding sanding, which tears-up the wood fibers rather than producing a clean cut. Question: Do you mainly "pull" or "push" when scraping? Some of the statements in the posts sound like it is pulling, ie. "pulled some shavings", "wiping". Ron.

Thanks wmeng. How does one go about getting copies of Strad articles? Or past issues? Ron

Thanks for the reply jaf67, & for checking. Any thoughts on how a fairly decent maker goes apparently unnoticed while lots of less talented (my opinion) makers are "listed"? Ron

Thanks for checking Regis. Did you, by chance, check Henley's? I understand that is one of the most comprehensive sources. Also, there is a work by Azzolina on 18th & 19th century Italian makers that would probably be an excellent source. Unfortunately, I don't own these. Thanks again, Ron.

I assume from lack of response, this violin maker is either unknown or non-existant. Could someone please at least verify that the name is not included in at least some listings? Thanks, again. Ron

Does anyone have knowledge of, or find reference to an Italian maker: Signor Lacona? Label says "Rome 1864" Trying to determine if this is a known maker, or obscure, or non-existant. Thanks for any help. Ron.

Yes, it seems as though the neck may be pulled "up", because nothing is preventing the ribs at that point from twisting. It really takes a LOT of pressure to pull the back up where it needs to be- I guess the neck will be pulled back down when it is re-glued? Ron.

The other day when the strings of a previously assumed "sound" violin were being tightened and tuned after a long period of dis-use, the upper back was separated from the sides at the button/neck & for about 3 inches on each side. With the pressure now off the strings, the fingerboard is now resting on the top, and a lot of pressure seems to be required to push the back into place- also, it appears that the back is not sufficiently long that the button will cover the neck part- looks to be about 2 mm short. Does it sound like re-gluing the back is going to fix this, or do I have a larger problem? I intend to have whatever repairs are necessary done by a luthier, but wonder what I might be expecting. Any insights are appreciated. Thanks, Ron.

"I also think the biggest advantage of Sacconi's procedure is giving perfect perfling to the edge distance all around the violin. You can only achieve similar result with C&J's method if you get your plate size right (in respect to rib) at the first time. Any additional adjustment to the edge work after the plates are attached to the rib would be visible, because the edge to the purfling distance will be reduced." I recall reading that Strad, and perhaps most/all of the old Cremonese makers, cut their purfling channels after the plates were glued on.. is this true? If so, could it be because they may have needed to make adjustments to the edges first (rib to edge distance) because of distortion of the rib garland? Also, if this is true, how/when did they finish graduating the inside of the plates?

Not so fast- this could be that lost Strad that Jesse had listed. Remember? It had been made to appear as a cheap "factory fiddle" in order to smuggle it out of Europe-yet another clever disguise!

When Amati, Strad, et al were designing, the violin was in it's design infancy and still evolving; significant changes were common and acceptable then. But the degree of tolerance in design-change seems to lessen in proportion to the amount of time a product has been established and has become universally recognized. I think they had the ability to make a cigar-box (or at least a cigar-box with rounded corners) sound as good as they did their violin designs, and I suspect little improvement in sound production is to be gained now from minor changes in design. So, to me, the discussion really comes down to aesthetic changes. Here too, I think those old boys came close enough, that with their designs having been established for a few centuries, there's not likely to be much acceptance of anything more than very minor deviations now. I still feel, however, that makers should always strive to improve their instruments. Incorporating minor changes and adding personal touches to this end, is far better than merely copying.

Quote: I couldn't give a rat's butt if it's what Heifetz wanted. For these old violins that are considered important instruments, anyone should really be considered the temporary steward of the instrument, not the owner. When the owner passes on someone else will take stewardship. I'd rather see the violin be played actively than sit in a museum. Perhaps rather than ask ourselves whether this counts as what Heifetz would have wanted, why don't we ask ourselves what Guarneri would have wanted? I agree with the "temporary Steward" idea, but no more than when it is applied to the owner of a historically significant building. They are still the owner, and as such can sell or bequeath the owned property as they see fit. No one has a right to confiscate such property, or when it is given with stipulations, to use it in opposition to those stipulations. These instruments will not last forever, and I feel the goal should be to ensure they are cared for in order to maximize their playing life, while allowing their periodic playing by qualified violinists so they may be enjoyed by many, hopefully for another few centuries. I think Heifitz fulfilled his stewardship obligations by placing the instrument in the care of the museum, and with his further instructions regarding it's use. I think Guarneri would be in total agreement with him.

It seems everyone uses at least some power tools in their making process- band saw, drill press, dremel-type rotary with various cutting/sanding tools, etc.; yet some tools seem to be taboo, such as planer, jointer, surface sander, etc. Power tools can make for better accuracy/appearance of work, and for ease/speed of some operations- is this reason enough to warrant their use? Or should they only be used when followed by "hand work"? (This seems to make some sense except in the case of cutting purfling grooves). Why do some folks use certain power tools, but wouldn't dream of using certain others? Is there any rule of thumb?

I’d like to remind everyone that in text there is little or no room for “dry wit”, or any sort of presumptive humor which depends for its success on a context outside of the thread itself. The “culture clash” here is not between Australians and Americans (or whatever) but between off-net and on-net communication styles. Andres- Some, or most of the great humor of all time is in written form, yet you say there is little or no room for it in text! Rubbish! Humor is a very effective tool, even when used in serious discussions such as on this forum. Almost everyone who posts regularly here, including John Masters, uses some humor in their posts. I think it's use particularly applies to this thread, as it can be used to "take the edge" off a comment that might otherwise be interpreted as offensive. I certainly use humor, always have & always will. Granted, some may not "get it", but I think some of the recent examples illustrate the effectiveness of humor in text. Who wrote this rule of "netiquette" anyway?

I've never seen those brass/copper pegbox repairs before either, but I think in some instances they are the answer. They make sense to me- probably do a very adequate job, and importantly, are reversible, while preserving entirely the maker's original work. I think the metal repairs compliment the wood too, as opposed to frequent not-so-invisible results of more invasive repairs. What say the "purists"? Ron.

John- I wasn't making light of education with my Sagitta, MI comment- I have great respect for the sciences & those that utilize them. I just think it's foolish to have to repeat an excercise like that each time someone may want to make a gouge.

The great majority of gouge sweeps are arcs of circles, and those are the ones that have been discussed here. My "close enough" multipliers won't determine a form pattern for an ovoid or "V" shape gouge, but then, neither will the mathematical formulas put forth.

Alex- thanks for the enlightening & understandable description of sagitta, etc. I agree the simple way to determine the diameter of a form would be to construct a circle on paper using the desired "sweep" arc. As a matter of fact, that's what I did to arrive at my "close enough" multipliers. I thought it should be simple & useable. The problem with the mathematical formula approach is that all reference to "sweep" is lost, which is the common term used when luthiers refer to gouges. Who ever heard of using a 3mm sagitta gouge? I'm trying to be serious here- however I do appreciate that these "easy multipliers" can & should be verified & adjusted for accuracy mathematically. I would hope someone with more of an aptitude for working with math formulas would take the time to do this- it would be a useful tool which would eliminate a lot of re-figuring whenever anyone wanted to make a gouge.

O.K., one of you mathematical geniouses will have to make the calculations, but I really feel they should then be put forth in the manner I showed my "close enough" figures. Then us 'average Joes' will be able to use them. It's been over half a century since this kid passed algebra. Honestly, I thought Saggita was a small town in Michigan. And I bet most of the other readers of the tread did too.

John- the numbers aren't completely arbitrary, but neither are they entirely mathematically accurate. They should suffice though- I just figured my simplistic approach might be used more easily, even if not quite as accurately as a "real" formula.

Sex bolts are two-piece devices, one half being a threaded "male" screw; the other half being a threaded "female" sleeve. Used to join/hold pieces together when disassembly & reassembly is a consideration. No joke.