Joel Pautz

Members
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joel Pautz

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This covers most of what I know about Bergonzi's models. It seems like he adopted Strad's 353ish mm body length, but used a longer neck so as to keep the Strad long form stop length? The turns drop down dramatically causing the scroll eyes to seemingly extend further out. Viewed from the back the 2nd turn off the scroll should be only slightly visible / peeking out just beyond the width of the back of the pegbox. His pegbox outlines very between being a bit bulkier below the A peg, or at other time slimmer / sleeker. His upper and bottom block pins don't get bisected by the purfling like Strad's - they are further inside and off the center line. I highly recommend adding this book to your library - it's an excellent resource and well worth the extremely reasonable price: https://tarisio.com/bookshop/cremona-1730-1750-nellolimpo-della-liuteria/ If I was single out unrefined aspects of Carlo Bergonzi's work, I'd go with his purfling, not his scrolls.
  2. This is the first I hear of a Stradivarius dated 1664 (https://www.nipponviolin.com/en/instrument/violin/). Dilworth writes in Tarisio's Carteggio The Young Stradivari Part 2 "Charles Beare says in the Ashmolean catalog that a twin to the ‘Serdet’ exists, lacking the label and its original top. It may be that this was the other ‘Alumnus’ labeled violin of 1665 mentioned by Count Cozio". Although other instruments dated circa 1666 are mentioned in the article, this is the only reference to an instrument predating 1666. I'm away from all of my books at the moment, but I don't recall any of them attributing a pre 1666 date to a Stradivarius. If unable to comment upon pre 1666 stradivari instruments, feel free to just turn this into a general thread about early stradivarius instruments. Thanks, Joel
  3. One of my flaws in character is I find it hard to ignore a train wreck . . . Measurements are useless when you have no idea what you are measuring. Your scale is measuring the strength of earth's gravitational pull upon your violin. Tensioning the strings in and of itself does not increase the instruments mass, or change earth's gravitational pull, therefore the instruments weight remains the same. In order to test your hypothesis that a scale is an appropriate tool to detect any downward movement of the soundpost or back resulting from string tension, I suggest you simply flip your violin face down and place it on your scale while it is under no string tension, and again while under string tension. If your understanding of physics holds up, the scale should be able to detect your suggestion that there is upward (but flipped over to downward) movement of the upper and lower blocks. When your scale inevitably continues to simply measure the weight of your instrument, despite any tension it is subjected to, you may take a stab at another hypothesis, or you might try to learn some physics. http://minim.ac.uk/index.php/explore/?instrument=31669 This viol has a flat back with the exception of the large distorted area directly under the soundpost. If string tension does not apply pressure to the back of the instrument, I'm curious as to why this distorted area is under the soundpost and not somewhere else?
  4. Lol, good for you for listening to your dentist. Should you ever need to do a rehair when your wife isn't around, when I travel I simply clamp the thread spool to the table top - the spool no longer turns, and I have plenty of tension to pull my knots tight (more than enough to snap the thread as well). At my rehair bench I have a fixture anchored to my bench leg, a threaded bolt passes through the spool, and the spool is clamped with a washer followed by a wingnut. Again, the spool is fixed, and the fixture allows me to unwind uninhibited on one side.
  5. Pick a method and break it down into steps. Study each step and figure out how it prepares for the next step / contributes to the end result. If you try to make a bow rehair orderly at the end of the process, it's way too late - it needs to start neat, and each step should either prevent it from getting disorganized again, and/ or make it even neater than the previous step. When you know what each step has to accomplish it's a lot easier to prevent accumulating errors from step to step. Familiarity with the entire process allows you to 'flow' through the steps - a lot of errors can happen when transitioning from step to step. Finally, don't be afraid to adapt the method to your own needs, and add steps here or there to keep things orderly during the process. While the idea is basically the same, I seriously doubt any two bow rehairers perform the same nuanced actions at the same exact step with the same flow. My instructor adapted his method from the way he was taught, and I've done the same. This will happen naturally if you are determined to learn from your mistakes by identifying the error and trying out solutions.
  6. "L'Archet Revolutionnaire" has been an invaluable resource for me regarding this period of bow making. There are two volumes, and both were very affordably priced when I bought them from the Tarisio bookshop some time ago. I remembered doubting the scale of the photographs, but before I posted here I double checked photos in the books vs measurements I have of the very same bows. First 3 matched up fine, the 4th was scaled smaller than life size according to the measurements I have, and I stopped there. Putting out these catalogs after an exhibition is a huge effort, and my point is that it doesn't hurt to double check before you just presume they were able to catch all of the errors. As for the opening posts bow, better photos would be helpful if possible. To me it seems to be on the heavier end and for that reason (of the two choices) I'm leaning towards it being a viola bow. That being said, weights really were all over the place (I've seen an early F.X. Tourte cello bow weigh in at 50 grams with hair. On the other hand, later on Dodd was making cello bows that roughly match this length vs weight.) Can't say much about the frog without a better picture. I wouldn't be surprised if it was replaced at the same time that the button was though. Frog heights for the different types of bows varied widely, and cutaway heels usually correspond with the taller frogs used for each type of bow.
  7. Borisravel, bienvenue a Maestronet :)! I want to caution you not to spend all of your money when you buy your violin - some should be saved for the adjustments it will almost certainly need! Sometimes the adjustments are minor - changing the string heights and string spacing at the nut and bridge for example. Sometimes more work is needed - its not uncommon for the bridge provided to be weak garbage, requiring a new one carved from scratch. Many of the members here have lots of experience working on these instruments, and I'm certain they all have a check list of tasks they know are needed before the instrument ever is seen by a customer. Buying over the internet eliminates the middle man, but since the middle man is responsible for the set-up, you will probably have to see him (or her) sooner or later anyway. It's impossible to tell how much work will be needed just from photos. Dealers who are familiar with the supplier would have an idea of what would be necessary though. In my experience, in the U.S. you should expect to pay somewhere between $200 and $600 (Depending on how much work is needed) to perform these tasks that are standard practice in specialized violin shops. Joel
  8. I've been meaning to sit down and make sense of the NMM's cello piccolo (508 mm body length)(http://collections.nmmusd.org/Cellos/Gagliano/3374/GaglianoPiccoloCello.html) in an effort to figure out the difference between a successfully scaled up (or down) in size cello. In other words, I can't help here, but perhaps you might feel like posting bout widths, rib heights, neck & stop lengths, and or a projection measurement? Can confirm it's interesting. Especially the outline, and the Archimedean spiral looking scroll turns.
  9. I was taught to use trammel points as well. Since I've started to broaden the scope of my work, I find it easiest (for Cremonese Inside Mold models) to start by simply connecting the two upper bout trenches using that model's mold template. I feel that this method provides a solid guide, custom to each instrument, with no extra work on my part.
  10. Good Catch! http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_763853
  11. That makes sense Ben - after all why would the Amati install them after the decorations were applied? They wouldn't. On a side tangent that the OP brings up, I've been thinking of late that Andrea's success and legacy in establishing a tradition of violin making had a great deal to do with who he knew as well as what he was doing. Charles IX's mother was a Medici after all, and they famously picked winners (loosely tied to Da Vinci, but also Brunelleschi, Donatello, Botticelli, Michelangelo, even Galileo later on). I'm sure when Amati was commissioned to supply instruments to a Medici heir, people paid attention - that kind of success can stifle innovation and lead to copying. If this link is actually credible, it could have implications towards shared artisonal knowledge that would be more appropriately discussed in that awesome violin / instrument geometry thread you were part of.
  12. I think I have earned the title 'king of the thread killers'. It takes great skill to share a pic of a Strad, a Del Gesu, and a Hargrave quote, and still manage to shut down a discussion !
  13. I know we're just throwing out ideas, but that's when I usually say something stupid that I regret posting. Glad you posted because it was starting to feel like one of those times. I've slept beautifully the last two nights which means I haven't come up with any new ideas on this point. Regarding the OP, I don't think we have enough info here to make a conclusive ruling on 3 peg violins as an early Amati variation.
  14. Regarding the OP - it shows up in Del Gesu's work, and to a lesser (and less extreme) extent in Strad's as well. Last year I modeled a violin after Del Gesu's 1741 'Vieuxtemps' (the one played by A.A.M.). It displays this characteristic, and in his analysis Roger writes of the F fluting "On neither side is it effectively blended into the arching, and a small raised delta is left about the lower circles." Pic 1 is the 1728 Strad 'Thunis' which has this characteristic Pic 2 is the 'Thunis', and shows just how mild it is Pic 3 is pic of the 1741 'Vieuxtemps' DG's bass lower eye Pic 4 shows my interpretation on my 'Vieuxtemps' model violin
  15. Perhaps Dimitri is referring to these mid-scroll bushings? Wish I owned a copy of that Amati DNA book . I found it more often on decorated instruments instruments, it seems to be absent from time to time as well (see the NMM 1574c violin). I spotted a version of it on the relatively early Brothers Amati violin 'King Henry IV' of 1595, but that's the last time it showed up in my photo collection. Since the bushing diameter seems relatively the same on both sides of the scroll, and its generally off the center-line placement (except for the Andrea Amati viola) I'm not sure that it's a peg hole. It does seem to pop up in the same general area, but it seems rather large for some sort of marking pin, and then there are scrolls that seem to completely lack it, so it probably wasn't fundamental to the Amati Construction Method. So my second (and last guess for the night) is perhaps a dowel passed all the way through and served as a bridge for the top peg? This might explain the non-center-line placement (again, excepting the AA viola). Good riddle to ponder when staring at the ceiling at night.