Ron1

Hi Jeffrey- I concede- I've probably not shipped more than 10 instruments in my lifetime! Another factor to be weighed would be a 'risk factor' that takes into consideration the value of the instrument to be shipped (the boxes might even be sold including "pre-paid damage insurance" up to a certain dollar amount). Because of the possible crush protection limitations you mention, I would think the Amati Box may be a favorable choice when shipping instruments valued below a 'certain' price point. Beyond that, hard suspension shipping cases, airline seats, couriers, etc. Ron

I totally agree with Televet- The appearance of the Amati Box is what caused me to abandon my quest to develop 'the perfect violin shipping box'. It is a simple, light-weight, and effective solution to the instrument shipping problem. It protects the instrument by totally suspending it between two layers of clear membrane. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why, especially dealers and professionals, continue to ship using cumbersome and un-professional packing when this cleaner, lighter, cheaper, faster, re-usable, professional method is available. For the life of me, I also cannot fathom why Amati does not aggressively market this product, as I've suggested. Auction houses could leave these shipping containers with their label affixed, with potential sellers when they are out appraising/soliciting for up-coming sales. Tons of auction offerings must be lost because private owners just don't want to deal with trying to pack and ship. This would make it so simple- no wadded-up newspapers, no bubble-wrap, no noodles, no packing peanuts, no tape. And, the box can be re-used to ship the instrument to the next owner. Also, because the potential seller has the auction house's shipping container, he/she will feel a certain amount of obligation, and will be much less likely to back-out of the deal. Can someone 'splain this to me? my 2 cents

Bruce- You've made me take off my 'Reindahl blinders' and really take a hard look. I can see some slight differences from his work in the new soundholes, and it does make more sense that someone else likely did that later work. It makes sense too, that if he had done the later work, he would have known and used the same finish materials and procedures. I did want to believe Knute had done the later work, but it is more important to me to get it right. It's why I asked the question here. Thanks so much for sharing your expertise.

Part of my queston is why are the patches are so extensive, extending so far below the f-holes? If it had been repaired because of severe damage to the instrument, it seems the center area between the f-holes would also have been damaged/repaired. The cello was made by Knute Reindahl in 1915, and because the repair wood matches so perfectly, I think it is probable that he also did that work. Also, the varnish/finish treatment, even in the patched areas, are almost certainly his work. Did mice chew on cello f-holes too? I thought maybe they were large enough that they wouldn't have to widen them.

I first thought I was seeing some sort of artistic varnish/coloring in the finish on this cello. In looking closer, there are rather large patches around & especially below the f-holes. It appears the patches were made using the same wood as the original, as the grain lines are exceptionally close- sometimes very difficult to distinguish. I don't know if the darker color of the patched areas was perhaps intentional, to take the eye away from "seeing" the patches, to additionally camoflage them, or if the varnish on the patched areas has darkened more than the original surrounding areas with age. What can the 'trained eyes' of the experts here say about this?

O.K., here's the pic of the "double 5-ply/3-ply" purfling.

And then, there's the double 3-ply/5-ply purfling.. or is it 8-ply? I want to show a pic, but I don't see the attachment 'paper clip'?? What am I missing?

Lets not omit 4-ply purfling, which a number of makers used- comprised of 2 blacks on the outsides, and 2 whites together between them. This was done to achieve a wider white center (I assume it's easier to make all the strips the same thickness, plus, they are easier bent when they are not so thick).

Why didn't Strad consider making a scroll something like that? Too intent on copying the others and their 'perfect' scrolls? I'll bet he would think something's wrong with it.

Nathan- perhaps "largely" would have been a better word selection than "simply". Or, better yet, "usually". :-)

Aren't continuous linings simply a product of the instrument having been made on an outside mold? (So that makers/schools that used outside molds would be those who also used continuous linings)?

I'm thinking that by "baroque setup" they're talking only about the neck/corpus relationship.

Again, regarding the rounded cutout at the top of the pegbox, Martin qualified his observation with ".. completely rounded top.." (my bold italics). I looked again, and am not certain whether or not the curve is "completely rounded", ie: circular. If so, I stand corrected. What I have seen, are turn-of-the-century (1899/1900) examples of more flatly arched, or sometimes double-arched hand carving at the top of the pegbox cavity.

I agree with Conor regarding the rounded top of the pegbox- this is a hand-carved feature seen in many instruments made prior to a time when powered routers would have been used.

See, this is what he meant by devolvement

The label shown says "Klingenthal"

I noted violin #1 having 4 fine tuners, violin #2 not set-up, and that both were photographed at the same time. Is there significance in these observations?

ctanzio- here's full-length front & back pics

Thanks for the clarification, guys. Makes sense to me now. (I thought I'd get a couple of opinions on eyes vs. ears :-))

Thanks Bert & Rue. I think I've got it now! I'm not alone in my thinking that the protuberances at the sides of the scroll, when viewed from the front or back, should properly be referred to as "ears"; and when viewed from the side, as "eyes". Knute Reindahl (1857-1936) constantly experimented/changed the design of his scrolls. Ear extensions are a feature he used from time-to-time, and are seen on many of his instrument scrolls. Attached are photos of two of his violins on which he added such extensions. The first three pics are of a scroll (1902) that lost one of it's ear extensions, and the subsequent repair; the last two are of the most exaggerated extensions I've seen on his instruments (1920). Being a non-maker, I've got to ask, why can't a wider block of wood be used in the first place? Does everyone buy 'standard' pre-cut blanks, or what?

Bert- The problem is, there is no attachment symbol here on the 'reply' area. I used to click on a 'paper clip' symbol, & then I could attach photos??

I tried to attach photos to a post, but there is no 'paper clip'. Am I not doing something correctly?

Ski- listen: "Fi~Fie~Fo~Fum". Methinks the beanstalk is much too high, and the Giants are much too big. They ain't lettin' go of that goose.

I recall the previous thread. Then, as now, too many posters mistakenly talk about repairing and making, and that violin expertise can only be acquired by hands-on experience with vast quantities of instruments, etc., etc. The point is completely missed. I think the OP is talking about acquiring knowledge, not ability. Instrument-making workshops and schools do touch on this type of knowledge, but their real emphasis is on building the instruments. I disagree that the market (potential students) for a credited course is too small- in addition to the many who are just plain interested, I think many, many professional makers and dealers would avail themselves of such a course, in order to increase their knowledge and thus augment their business abilities ($).

This back & forth banter will just promote jalousie amongst y'all.