Davide Sora

This old video show how I make purfling joints. It rarely happens to me because I normally use a single piece (no joint), but sometimes it breaks or I have pieces left too short for the single piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7LYb8cG9hc

Sorry, i'm never sure what the correct english term is. What you show, however, is the Cremonese joint I was referring to.

The ancient Cremonese luthiers used 6 pieces always with butt joints more or less on the centerline, I prefer 4 pieces without joints when all goes well, otherwise I use the butt joint (because I'm born in Cremona) . I don't know where the scarf joint came from, in any case not from the ancient Cremonese, if that matters to you. Do as you please.

I believe that one system is as good as any another, if it gives satisfactory results for what you expect from the performance of your instruments, as it seems to emerge from the interesting topic you linked. Given the unusual shape of my bassbar, I take the measurements differently, i.e. at the highest point in the center of the central area (approximately at the bridge), at the two ends of the highest central area (approximately at the outer edges of the Fs), and at both ends. I do not take intermediate measures because it seems to me too complicated and in some way useless, precisely because it is not essential to exactly replicate these measures, which are also difficult to take accurately. I prefer to trust my eye, with the help of frequencies and common sense. Just out of curiosity, I tried to take the measurements of my last bassbar with the Carl Becker system you mention, this is the result, top plate thickness included and from top to bottom: 6.2 - 6.8 - 9.4 - 13.4 - 15.8 - 15.4 - 11.0 - 6.8 - 6.2 mm. Thickness of the bassbar, measured at the center: 5.8 mm at the base and 4.0 mm at the top (rounded). Length : 273 mm - Weight of the finished bassbar : 4.5 g I think these values represent the maximum I use, they can also decrease by up to 1mm in height and 1g in weight, and the extension of the highest central part can also decrease by 1cm per part in length. I keep the thicknesses almost standard. Just curious, how much your bassbar weight?

Leave them as it is and go on with the work, when you finish the outside of the ribs they will most probably disappear, they do not seem like very deep burns. Even if some traces remains, it will only be a tool mark like any other, to testify that the ribs have been bent by hand. Occasionally these burns are also visible on valuable antique instruments (Strad and others).

I basically agree with Andreas, apart for the ends of the bassbar, which I tend to make thinner than him, usually from 3,8 to 4mm. I don't like too stiff extremes, because I have the feeling that they can block too much the mobility of the upper and lower bouts, but it is extremely difficult to isolate these aspects from the general geometry to understand their effects on the sound. So I'd like to ask Andreas Preuss, why do you like them so tall? Is there a specific reason that leads you to do this? Regarding my "unusual" shape, I do it mainly to increase the mass in the most mobile part of the plate (between the f-holes) and to stiffen and heavier the lower part more because I believe it helps to prevent wolf tones.

Bow strokes, the position is too typical to be anything else. Tool marks from working, in that position and with that orientation, would not make sense.

The sawtooth steps on the f are definitely left by a knife. As for the scroll, if the marks you say are these, they may be smearing of the ink, which may have entered the marks left by a tool (file or knife) but more probably may be a simple absorption of the ink due to insufficient insulation of the wood before applying it. They can't be saw marks, because they are on the inside of the chamfer on the peg box wall, and I think no one is so sloppy as to do the chamfer with a saw. More than mistakes or tool marks, I would call it sloppy work

You're welcome! I've never had Herdim templates on hand, so I can't comment on them, but I confirm my sentence that you have reported Templates may be useful to check the results, but not to start the work, because they can easily become misleading. However I prefer to use the profilometer for this, which is basically a variable template that serves to check the shape of your curves against a reference one, and not the other way around.

Perhaps because there is no appropriate arching in an absolute sense

It is not the same thing, those reported by the OP (by Cremona Tools) should faithfully reproduce the posters of The Strad with all the asymmetries, the one reviewed by Kimon (by Grandi Liutai) is instead an interpretation of the Messiah made in the most traditional way, that is, taking one half of the back and using only this side to draw the full outline, to make the shape symmetrical. I think they did the same with the arching template too. So not the Messiah, but only an interpretation of it, which would be different if the opposite side were chosen to make the templates. Personally, I would stay away from these kits, for me the process of making the form and all templates is a fundamental aspect of violin making and allows you to learn a lot, not to be missed.

I heard in the description video that the models exactly reproduce the original poster files, so with all the asymmetries of the arching and the outline of the original instruments. While I think it's the only way not to give room for unavoidable interpretations to correct them, I suppose they're meant to make a copy, so not beginner stuff. The question is, how many serious copyists would be willing to buy them? I don't think many. However, it seems that they have taken things seriously, hoping that they have also taken into account any printing errors of the posters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAWmvzlkH8&t=372s

You're right, but it's still my favorite wall color, if only for its brightness. Then if you use lime white it is also historically correct, you may have the same reflections that influenced Stradivari.

I am a fan of white walls, they create a brighter environment (especially if the room is small) and do not alter the color of your varnish with their reflection.

Just to be a bit picky, do you consider the outside measure or the inside measure between the eyes of the fs? I ask because if they are cut according to the Cremonese method, that is with the eyes cut perpendicular to the surface of the arch, the narrowest measurement is the inside one, which depending on the transverse curvature of the arch can easily reach a difference of 1 mm. So, to determine the bridge size and the bassbar position, do you consider the narrowest inside distance, or the outside one?