Lusitano

Ready the pitch fork.... I actually agree, the f holes are stunning http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/Violins/Stradivari3598/3598StradviolinsoundholesLG.jpg

Car accident and carpel tunnel * fancy excuse for the rust I have technique wise because of lack of practice* It will heal "perfectly", my flexibility will need some work though but nothing horrid.

I've asked Santa for one of the new Veritas "premium" redesigned block planes... Actually, I've asked for a whole set XD Anyone tried them? They're absolutely gorgeous (Tool nerd alert!).

I'm working on alot of "stuff" I don't particularly enjoy working on... Playing related stuff - Piazzolla without a hint of classical technique is a seriously rude experience if one is not used to "dirty" and "raw" tango shooting out of a violin 5 cms from the ear... Technical stuff - coping with the after math of a broken wrist, not fun! Non playing stuff - New bow commission underway, Working on new moulds made following Mr Francois Denis's methods, shopping for more wood

Well now problem solved, normally such analysis is a lot harder and more expensive to get when considering scientific rigor...! I still (I will be burned at the stake if any botanists get wind of this) consider dendro as straight forward and reliable as cryptozoological analysis and find that (not insulting anyone!) the individuals who state they are proficient enough to do such analysis have little to no backing to assure the buyer their results are in fact rigorous. Unfortunately (again not attacking anyone!!!) it's hard to tell professionals from said professionals... I for once agree with Mr Saunders on this issue, why on earth would such analysis be warranted?! It's an eBay violin and I believe a reputable evaluation by other means would suffice!

I would have choosen a different array of words lol

The answers are lacking and no where near absolute. It's a start but at least light has been shed. As Mr Hargrave often says "Give 10 violin makers a butterscotch recipe and see 10 different butterscotchs be made", the goal is not to get a clear cut imperial recipe but rather knowledge which can allow luthiers and the general community to benefit from said recipe.

That is my main issue with his review, he says he is reviewing the book with scientific rigor yet he follows none of the norms or guidelines, had he said he was giving an opinion things would have been different but apparently he doesn't like giving opinions, he likes eureka filled affirmations . Finally someone agrees! There are numerous "problems" and questions as well as aspects of composition and application methods in need of illumination, I am referring to 2 specific trains of thought coupled with evidence, both are specific yet contradictory to one another. Between them I choose to believe in the most recent analysis.

I have 2 options, to believe in the book's contents or to believe the oposing theory presented by Mr. Nagyvary. Seeing as the most recente research was conducted with an array of sample Mr N did not have access to and is much more recent... I am inclined to believe in what the spectrographic evidence tells me. Is it perfect? No, as I said before the lack of sample quantity and quality is evident but it's a lot firmer than what Mr N presented. Am I wrong in taking into account his past "revelations" and contradictions?! One does not boast anything but what was found, another claimed to have solved the mystery of stradivarius varnish genius and included acoustical properties into the fold which did not hold water...

Great post ! The issue I have with Mr Nagyvary is that he states he wrote his review with standards equivalent to those used in scientific publications while injecting his own theories and making reference to possible issues without actually having information to back up his claims. There was no counter experiment to verify his counter theories, some of which are in direct oposition to what has been reported as of late and is included in the book he is referencing...

No problem whatsoever and thank you, I do hope you did not take my initial comment as patronizing as that was not my intention. I just really do not like people not being told the full story, it's extremely easy to fall pray to the "I have discovered the secret" sort of conversations, it's the plague contaminating everything violin related and I find it does a disservice to readers who really are interested and open minded.

Would you like specifics? I would ask Mr Joe Robson and Mr Hargrave what the researchers told them as I was not part of the team who did said research Good that you decided not to bother with the first point!

When reviewing in a fashion that is suitable for a scientific journal one does not reference multiple times the "price" of said research... My response - When FTIR results are not sufficiently clear when dealing with resins (or paint for that matter), microscopic analysis ensues, if you require less subjective means of ruling out errors, further instrumental analysis may be performed, example - elemental analysis by SEM/EDX.

I have no idea how apple did/does it but iPhone cameras seem to capture color about as close to reality when regarding violins as anything I've ever used...

Remember, do not drink and drive How have the eBay shopping sprees been working out for you? You've been awfully quiet as of late, trying to not give me a heart attack of are you not interested in more fares for your collection?

I have no personal agenda lol I continue to disagree with his "review" for all the reasons stated. Have you actually read his review or are you choosing not to reference his injection of theory into it? He discusses the results and chooses to defend his personal theory various times when he isn't happy with the results they presented.

The authors MAY not have agreed as is very normal when working in a team. For starters, there were problems with a few authentication issues as well as with the locations from which the sample where taken. Example, the sample taken from the rib (I may be mistaken) was close to what appeared to be a glue ghost and any reference to protein from said specific location could be interpreted as non intentional or relevant as it was apparently a mistake. The problem with Mr. Nagyvary's review is essentially that he is not reviewing anything or even following any sort of proper protocol or even using any viable data to back up his claims (claims which should not be even present in a review mind you!) . That's my main issue, he masks his intentions with colorful wording which tends to lead the reader into believing he is being rigorously scientific with his essay when in reality he not only injects personal theory into the fold but discredits the authors with fallacious remarks (the price of the book, the fact it is overly scientific, the fact the results are contaminated because of the french who removed all traces of plaster over night).... There you go... You are free to think as you like! I am after all nothing more than a patronizing wanker correct? Mr David, I do not mean to sound like a droid worshiper, or a technology freak with images of electron microscopes by my bed side but... The spectrometer used was very precise, as in it analyzes on a quantative (almost) molecular level with everything popping up including trace material and by products. Again the problem with said accuracy has less to do with the machine itself and more to do with tampering of samples and incomplete amounts tested. You would need an entire violin mapped and tested to fully understand every bit of varnish as well as possibly technique used, they're working with splinters and very small and varied types of splinters at most. As hard as it may seem (and I am not being patronizing), violin varnish unless it contains some unknown compound from outer space or was indeed produced by supernatural beings unknown to science is not a terribly difficult subject to work with. The issue lies with the amount of sample material and it's varied nature. Essentially you are looking at a corpse from a crime scene under investigation and you only allow the forensic team to study minute fragments of certain and very remote areas, the problem is not with the equipment but with the material. He seems to be looking for what he wants to see and not to be looking at the complete picture. I personally was taught to be wary of conclusions based on personal preference and to always analyze problems with both an open mind and a clear technique which should never have biased theories based on very little evidence mixed in. I have a serious problem with his mixing of acoustic properties of varnish being correlated all at once with optical characteristics, it's way too much stuff being interlinked for my taste as no one has scratched the surface enough for any sort of correlation to be optained! There you go folks.

I was not referring to Mr Nagyvary's article with the comment on plaster, I simply am trying to express the idea that there is more than one way to achieve said end result and that a variety of materials and techniques is very useful. Now regarding the accuracy of the tests used, the machines are flawless to the point of being far more capable of producing information viable on a level that is physically much more precise than any human could dream of obtaining unaided, human error and sample contamination is what normally causes discrepancies . Unfortunately for us to be absolutely sure and actually have the ability to run full scale tests the sample size and quantity would need to be much larger and varied (that is IF the instruments are in fact varnished with a similar system and material base across the entire spectrum a maker produced). Effectively you are very correct in stating that the research is lacking, however the produce of said investigation is as close to flawless as is possible. The machines do not lie.

I blame autocorrect lol

Now that is a good point when regarding flaws which Mr Navy does not reference. The porosity of end grain and the general homogeneity of the layer's constitution all over the violin should have been referenced as they MIGHT have better constituted backup references to eliminate doubt with the research. HOWEVER, even considering the difference in porosity and application technique, state of the art spectrographic analysis would have indicated trace materials and indicated gesso/plaster as remote and minute as they might have been. There was NO mineral ground layer or protein sealer observed in any samples analyzed. I am not saying there is only one road to Rome, Gesso used properly by many people does indeed present optical properties which help recreate the look of ceremonese instruments. I respect those who use plaster, I simply do not agree with the notion that strad MUST have used it and anyone who does not agree is either blasphemous or ridiculous... The proper evidence is clear, if people would simply be a bit more open in regards to the results...

I'm sorry but that makes no sense and I do not agree with a single thing you said. Regardless of the apparent "flaws" in the research, Mr Navy's interpretations and explanations are nothing but hot BS and he himself should remember that his credentials did take a pretty big beating a while ago... Humility is needed as well as a very serious 1 on 1 with him and his words to explain what exactly the scientific method is. 1- How on earth would a plaster filler be removed by restorers without critically altering every particle in from of said imaginary plaster layer? 2 - Since when has state of the art spectrographic evidence been non conclusive or improper evidence!? We're not talking about old school electro forensic trays filled with warm barbiturates and filter paper which required hand measuring all while trying to avoid passing out or contaminating the trays, we're talking about big ass machines which sieve and take "images" on an almost atomic level of complex components as well as trace materials in a sealed environment with nothing more than the use of either light or X rays. 3- Why on earth would the title "biochemist" be necessary for said research to be taken seriously, do they somehow have more fundamental knowledge that a plain chemist does not in regards to violin varnish? CHEMISTS ,as shocking as it may seem ,ALSO deal with ORGANIC components and are very very well suited for said job. 4- Excepted at face value? My dear, scientists are never taken seriously simply from "face value", our research is peer reviewed by entire faculties before it gets anywhere near ready for external viewing, during said peer review the only thing that is scrutinized is the contents of our work and ONLY if said work survives the firing squad can we release the pretty papers. Scientists who advanced their area of expertise and produce an array of illuminated works are celebrated but never free from peer review and major criticism, scientists with crack pot theories that boast incredible claims all while boasting their ego a la peacock and then fail to produce results or explanations worthy of their arrogance end up being seen as "wastes of time" when it comes to articles and reviews.

You are not having a blond moment, that was never taught in Biology classes of any sort lol When and exactly how did said "air" pop into the cell husks? What happened to the remnants of the organelles? Since when have cellulose husks been able to inflate like balloons? Again, where is the air coming from? Are we talking about Styrofoam?

Just for you BC

Lord almighty please do NOT read this thread before drifting off, Nightmares will be inevitable... LuSitano, that's with an S and not a C *** Condolences would be had if I was in fact married to BC I assure you, knowing myself I would make a point of reproducing "il dulce suono" during the honey moon, bloody splinters from what would be left of his "instrument" purchases would emanate from his head, torso, gonades I guarantee .... Speaking of gonads, there is ofc the huge "problem" between my legs which would pretty much make the term "wifey" pretty much senseless..

Boston and crack houses!? You mean New York I'm sure! I believe the number isn't exactly important or anywhere near illustrative as to when a maker can be truly seen as competent, I believe beyond wood working and practice in general (extremely important!) good taste and critical thinking is what eventually allows a maker to produce instruments that are in fact above and beyond the ordinary. Many many makers today (I will not speak about the past) although great with tools and capable of producing an instrument which is worthy of a stage lack a bit of "fire" in the belly to go above and beyond. What do I mean by this? They are "ok" with good and do not strive for "perfect", as in they do as is expected and with great skill but never go and try and understand the why's and how's behind what they do. Perfect can never be "achieved" but aiming for it and having that sort of care in your work as a necessity is what will allow you to flourish. When you reach a point where you fret about where and how gradual the corners of a belly flare on a particular stradivari instrument, when you agonise about not knowing why the cremone long arch is not symmetrical on spruce top plates, when you find yourself wanting to understand why your own instruments (built on as precise a mould as is possible without having the actual original mould in front of you) do not resemble the ones you based them on in form... This sort of self criticism and massively high standards and subsequent curiosity and drive is what will make a maker "good".