Guido

Thanks, I'll ask my dentist when I'm back home tonight. If she would only get the kids to bed a bit earlier... Regarding the cello in question, it's not mine so I won't post it here. It's from the 1920s and apart from the sound post crack in very good condition. The crack is right on target, and extends about 2 cm in front and maybe 4 cm behind the bridge foot. It's old, black, but fairly closed. Apart form properly cleaning it I don't expect any complications. What's the relevance of the cello or crack for the use of the dental thermo-plastic vs. the partial plaster cast?

I followed the design in the IPCI books, which was also discussed here in some detail a few years ago. See if you can find it before I type it up again :-) With hindsight, the results aren't exactly revolutionary.

Thanks for spelling it out. Clicked for me. I had my head locked in thinking about wrapping the barrier film around the violin, rather than around the plaster. Makes no difference for a full cast, but is obviously the key ingredient for the partial cast. I guess one of these countour gauges is very useful to get the shape of the top onto the lower edges of the dam boards.

After many sound post patches in both violin tops and backs I’m now looking at a cello top. for the violin I made a vacuum box that hooks up to the shop vac and my plaster casting is pretty honed in. never really thought about how to do the same thing for a cello. I assume a local counter form of wood and chalk fitted to the relevant area of the top would be the way to go? Can anyone share tips/ tricks/ experience installing a sound post patch to a cello top?

Thank you @Michael Appleman It's always great to hear and learn things that I don't see every day on this forum. Is there any good reference one could read up on French construction methods? For instance how does the building-on-the-back-with-ribs-in-a-channel compare to the building-on-the-back-with-bocks-glued-on-first both in time and location? And when/ where/ how were these methods replaced? I guess Mirecourt would have moved to an outside mould to speed up production at some point?

Doesn't mean the violin is the same year as the catalogue. The label may have been in use for a decade or three. I would venture a guess your violin is a little younger. And yes, it's for playing. This is a basic student quality instrument made for beating up any siblings making unconsidered remarks on playing progress. They were mass produced, but often play very well. You can try and dress the pegs with soap and chalk. Maybe find instructions online, or ask again.

At the risk of creating a confusing thread here is the Breton. The corner block shape is similarly asymmetric, but maybe a little less pronounced. The lower block is also very small, and the f-holes are undercut in an identical manner. The blocks are spruce, whereas the op is willow.

In a nutshell, I'd be curious about four things: 1. Any more info on the use of this building method in terms of time/place/makers. I think @Michael Appleman mentioned Aldric/ Pique/ Bassot and predecessors plus some Mirecourt and the odd isolated maker (without giving any more names apart from the aforementioned). That was about five years ago. Maybe we have new members or the plot has thickened for someone willing to share info on this "school" or building tradition in France. 2. I have seen these undercut f-holes on one other violin, a Breton (possibly by the man himself); but not at any of the many other Mirecourt violins I have around between 1760 and 1850. So, what's up with these undercut f-holes? Who did that? Does it go hand in hand with this corner block shape or is it some other tradition mixed/ crossed in? 3. Same with the tiny bottom block. Don't know if the top block is original but it is really small, too. Maybe I didn't always pay attention, but this is certainly the smallest lower block I have ever seen. Is there anything to it? Come to think of it, the second smallest block I have ever seen was in above mentioned Breton, but it was of a very different shape closer to a half circle. 4. Any specific ideas who made the op violin are welcome. P.S.: French numbers are just plain crazy. You have to be on your toes if the only way to say "ninety two" is as "four times twenty plus twelve"

P.S. Blocks seem to be willow

On my bench at the moment is an example of previously discussed French cornerblockogoly, originally presented by our head cornerblockologist some years ago. I attach a photo of the lower treble block to illustrate the shape with the much longer end running into the c-bout. It seems a (small-ish) sub-school of French making that may be useful for ID purposes if better understood or traced in linages. The example on my bench is not identified, but maybe someone can help with that? Of note, is also the ridiculously small lower block; and the undercut f-holes in particular in the eyes, giving a crisp impression form the outside.

You get some money on ebay as is, best to start $1 w/o reserve. Should be able to raise $200-$300 towards a good use with the youth symphony.

Check the small print on the crest. Could be Apparut. As for the violin better pictures are needed.

Style and preferences aside. The first bridge looks like they tried very hard; the second bridge looks like they didn’t try hard enough. As they are I’d prefer the first one. If they were mine, I’d prefer the second one and take the knife to it.

The bows are rather basic unfortunately. The one branded Germany is probably worth rehairing, but that’s about it.

I’d think it’s German and will be difficult to match to a name.

P.S. don’t overlook the bows. Photos?

Looks good! Probably authentic and worth north of 10k. Don’t get it repaired on the cheap… Do some local research where to take it. You want the good luthier/ restorer even if it’s more expensive. And yes, the crack repairs require top removal.

I’d say getting the violin into playing condition along the lines above would cost more than $500. Making a new fingerboard alone will chew up most of that amount. However prices vary by location and standard of work. Overall it might be worthwhile for the violin if it ends up a good player, but rather borderline if not. Would be a much better prospect if the fingerboard would still be around. It hasn’t been off for long judging by the nut still in place.

Of course. If the one or three relevant experts in the world certify it as a Strad it is a Strad. If not, it is not. Simples. Must be groundhog day.

Looks like the marketing department was copying the marketing department of Juzek.

This is so bizarre. Isn't it rather outrageous criminal fraud to con unassuming victims into buying a violin as Strad when it's clearly established that it isn't one? Seems this thought hasn't occurred to anyone while at court. Should have locked them up there and then, no? Instead, the con artists manage to elicit much of the discussion flowing on from the (implicit) assumption that the violin is actually a Strad. That is, the whole case for damages is necessarily based on the fact that the violin is a Strad - else there wouldn't be any damage to start with. In engaging in this discussion of damages at any level (for instance, discussing if the envisaged price range with a potential customer is specific enough to quantify damages...), one has obviously already accepted that the violin is a Strad. I'm surprised the court took this view against the opinion of the peak of global expertise in the field.

You mean heigher or fuller? Generally the arching gives stability, c.p. a more focused/ brighter sound. But you could have thinner plates with it giving the opposite. With may things, set-up, f-holes, arching etc. I tend to think in terms of how supported the string load is, or how free to move the top plate and in particular the island area is.

You often find beginner cellos set up with the post far east and/or south. This gives s broader, warmer, less focused sound that appeals to the majority of beginners. A weak d string can be a consequence of this approach. My first reaction would have been to move the post closer to the bridge. But as you describe it you may need s new, longer, post as well, that sits within the bridge foot. Before you move the post forward, you can check your bridge position and maybe there is some wiggle room to move the bridge towards the post instead of the post towards the bridge. It’s easier but is only useful within narrow parameters or if your bridge doesn’t sit in the right place to start with.

Or string up as a viola :-)

Yes, more support from the sound post, also a little longer and further west on the same notion.