Dennis J

I have just planed the ends Mat and there is quite a mismatch there. I knew that when I planed them but it is a bit more than I thought. This is the second attempt at joining them, and as I said the gap along the top surface is much smaller than my first attempt. I could see the rounding the first time looking at the ends and only the half on the left in the photo was rounded and that is the half with the annual ring orientation almost vertical. I can say that the two sides were planed perfectly flat so that is why I can only think that glue moisture caused the problem. I have a shooting board that I use mainly for planing plate edges and the running surface for the plane is dead flat hardwood. I usually use a number 4 Veritas bevel-up plane and check each edge for flatness before trying the light test. So I don't think it is a planing issue. I've tried different approaches before and I have no problem with what I'm doing now. I've just been skeptical of the wood swelling business, but I suppose it is possible under the right circumstances. I would say that having a good, well adjusted plane is essential and getting a perfect joint doesn't happen automatically. Different bits of wood can plane differently so you have to concentrate on the basics. I'm not too concerned about it. As I said the next plate I glued is perfectly ok.

I appreciate your interest so I'll answer each question in the order they have been asked. I only do rubbed joints without clamps. I glued straight after planing with both. The first, problematic one, I had planed the previous day and couldn't see any gap using the light test but could the next day (both ends touching, gap in the middle) so I made a few passes with my number 4 bevel-up and checked again to make sure it was ok. Both plate halves on the first one checked out with the straight edge and the light test. You can see in the photo the gap extends all the way along the edge fairly evenly. There is definitely no twist there. I also used a shooting board. Keep in mind that the photo shows the second glue up, the first one had a larger gap also showing only on the one side. The first time I glued it I looked at the ends after it dried and I could actually see a very slight curvature across the width on one of the halves. I assume the same thing happened on the second glueing but it wasn't so obvious. So, as far as I can see, only one side caused the problem. And that seems strange because both halves came from the same quarter-sawn wedge. As you can see in the second photo I had no problem with that one. I did use fresh glue for that one and made sure I had a fairly strong mix.

I recently joined a spruce top and the result surprised me a bit because I haven't seen it before. I've been able to join plates so well that no glue line is visible but that didn't happen this time. And I think it was probably caused by wood swelling. The first time I glued the two halves a distinct gap appeared on the top surface. I let it dry overnight and had another look. It closed up a bit but was still clearly visible so I put it through the bandsaw and tried again. I used the same mixture of hide glue but heated it for an hour or so to dry it a bit and tried again. The result was the same but not as bad. As far as I could see only one half swelled across its width. I don't think the glue was particularly thin so I think it might have had more to do with the wood than anything else. So it probably corroborates what some have mentioned in the past on this topic. What seems to have happened is that the swelling caused one plate to roll to the side as the glue cured because the flat side had no glueline visible. And I doubt that clamping would have fixed the problem. The first photo shows the one with the gap. While it is not much it is very distinct. And the other shows a top I've just glued where no glueline is visible at all. The glue to water ratio by weight would have been between 1 to 2 and 1 to 3.

The OP's varnish looks very glossy and might have been revarnished. Also the maple and spruce look typically European or Italian to me. And both instruments look well made. I suppose there are some Chinese makers capable of producing convincing copies. However, what is there about them that leads you to believe they are Chinese in origin?

This is not the first time that a violin labelled Bisiach has come up for discussion on this forum. And, from memory, it resembles the ones pictured here. The feature that stands out to me is the long narrow corners, at least on one of them. I'm no expert but it doesn't look like a Chinese knock-off to me.

There's is something about that pink. What struck me about that model's complexion was not just the coffee colour but the faint blush behind it. I think it all means something at some level whether we notice it or not. Maybe you've created a masterpiece.

I was going through some of my artwork recently and came across this pastel sketch of a young African woman I did. At the time I was struck by the lovely coffee colour of her skin contrasting against her pink top. I don't know where she went but she was an inspiring model. So I think art, whether it is representative or abstract, has to mean something at a primal level to the viewer or artist. It shouldn't require any other interpretation.

I had a look at some of his work and I didn't realise how weird it was. It got me laughing especially the human faces in some of them. I can't imagine what it's about. But, there you are another noteworthy artist of the early twentieth century.

I'm only saying that I don't need to refer to some philosophic treatise on aesthetics to inform myself about art. I used the word artifice because it came to mind and I thought I was being clever because it also can mean cunning and trickery which seems to be common in the world of art.

The art world is more about artifice than art. And good art is not what is dictated by higher authorities or philosophies. It is about what is worth admiring and appreciating. Some people get something out of it and many don't.

Exactly what I thought but I didn't want to labour the point. It takes a "genius" like Marc Chagall to paint like that.

Nobody did drip paintings like Jackson Pollock, there was method in his madness. But some of them are falling apart because he painted them on fibreboard.

If it was done by a child it is art. If it was done by an adult it is fake. I think Picasso actually said at one time that he tried to paint like a child.

People attending art exhibitions often look bewildered because it doesn't make sense to them. And they are right, much of it does not make sense. It is just a scam perpetuated by dealers and buyers. Picasso was a joker who knew he could sell anything to wealthy Americans no matter how ugly it was. Great art is fairly rare.

It is good for ratings. I am yet to hear why joining violin plates using perfectly flat edges is in any way deficient or anything other than efficient. The end result is the only test necessary.