Guido

In my simple world, there are bows which are worth the cost of a professional re-hair; and there are bows which are not. The bows which are not worth the cost of a re-hair but are playable (or re-haired by myself), I tend to give away with the odd trade fiddle I sell. Here is a bow that I would tend to give away; just double checking. Nickel mounted, fully lined. Straight, fairly strong. Two things make me wonder: the absence of any roman numerals and the presence of pins incl in the adjuster. Any opinions?

I like it! The alignment pins on the back look nice. Is a small part cut away by the purfling? Also, the lower rib looks like a one-piece rib w/o joint at the endpin? I don't think you'll have any luck with an ID though. As Jocob Saunders said, with modern instruments we have a global amalgamation of styles. Almost anything could be from almost anywhere. Your best bet at assessing the instument is to visit a good luthier (who will do your brigde and maybe sound post) and have him give you an opinion, at least on quality and value if not on origin.

He is MORE.

Thanks Blank face.Good observation on the neck overstand. Looking in through the end pin hole, the linings don't seem to give anything away. Upper and lower look similar or identical and consistent with the age/ appearance of the instrument in gerneal. The planing down must have occured early in its life. I don't know if it would be feasible to take out the upper linings before the planing and then re-use them? I'll take a picture through the end pin hole later. It's certainly not playable. The peg box is broken right through with two half-unglued cheeks holding the pieces together. It seems to be a recent failure though, clean, and shouldn't give to much trouble.

Check the "Reference Thread Links", there are plenty of "identification games" comparing outline and arching of the big names. It's worth taking the time to read through if you are interested.

Thank you, Jacob. I have read your thread (and the one about the Frank that was run over by a car) just before I got mine. In fact, that is why I recognised what I was looking at when the opportunity came up. Not long after I joined this forum a few months ago you recommended I read the plunge thread. I read all of it and then read it again. The idea of an old Austrian instrument was growing on me and while I was keeping an eye out I read as much as I could find, mostly following references and liks from the plunge thread. Voila, happy ending. I may not be ready for the work. So far, I have only worked on trade violins. My crack repairs are getting better but I will want to practice a bit more before I will approach the Frank. On the upside, I don't see any work that I wouldn't readily attempt on a trade fiddle.

I may have found something here. After having read what I could find from Jacob Saunders on Meinrad Frank, I think this one here ticks quite a few of the boxes. I'm aware that matching certain aspects of a violin can be quite misleading and I lack the experience to assess the overall impression of the instrument. In particular since I have never seen a Meinrad Frank in the flesh. Some of the supporting observations for a Meinrad Frank violin are: - LOB 36.4 (with a tape measure) - Rib height 28mm. However, the end pin was relocated (see photo). If the original end pin location was in the centre of the rib, then the original rib height was 38mm and may have been planed down. - The top is of rather wide grain. Some of the more general observations: - one piece lower rib - scroll fluted all the way - weight 318g as pictured. - neck appears to be extended at the root (see picture) and is let into an upper block (now). There appears to be an outside nail or screw hole which is filled. The neck is quite narrow with 22mm at the nut. The arching is full and then some. I think the back arching is beautiful and the top arching is growing on me. Currently, I'd still call it grotesque, though. In pictures I have seen of Meinrad Frank the arching does not appear to be quite as pronounced even though that might be a little hard to tell on some of the pictures I have seen. My arching is so high and steep that you'd want to look a the shape of the f-holes form the side rather than from the front :-) Here are the pictures.

It has a two piece back. Here are the other pics I have got. Unfortunately they are quite small and I can't really see much. I'll be able to have a closer inspection next weekend. I just thought I share the rib joint as a bit of an oddity, in particular since the fiddle otherwise looks reasonably well made (from a distance). So I was wondering if it may be the result of a later rib shortening, rather than the original build. But I suppose, that's just as odd. Maybe it was even an artistic form of protest, after the Lower Rib Joint Central Positioning Act of 1895 came into force.

Thanks, that should help in establishing the age of the instrument. Was there a grace period for non-central rib joints?

I have not seen a lower rib joint off centre like this before. Is this likely a one-piece rib that was shortened, or has it always been a two piece lower rib that was built rather strange like that? I don't have the violin at the moment, which would make things easier. So, for now it's just a lower rib joint curiosity for discussion.

All other things equal, the flat simply increases the distance between the string and the board. It's like planning away from the fingerboard right under the string.

Some older violas have a flat part of the fingerboard under the c-string like a cello. Does anyone know when that was a popular thing to do? And why it was done but isn't done anymore these days?

That doesn't look too bad at all. I'd also think bullseye shellac will be your friend. It'll also help with the back. 1 Just clean the violin with a damp cloth and some patience. Don't use and wax/polish or cleaning agents yet. 2 Try your luck with bullseye shellac. It'll make the back pretty again, too. A couple of coats for the front. 3 Have him do his artwork onto the shellac ground, seal with another coat of shellac, but test first if the shellac doesn't solve and smear his work. 4 Make sure there is a soundpost standing straight when you look trough the treble side f-hole. If not, do not string up the instrument! Seek help. 5 A cheap bridge blank may only be $1 but fitting it to the violin is necessary and will cost about $100. Try to make use of the bridge you have. The feet look ok from a distance. Height and arching is hard to tell. 6 A Wittner tailpiece is a good idea. It'll double your investment in the violin ;-) but you also save the fine tuners and the strings will thank you. Don't buy the $3 Wittner copies. They usually don't work at all. 7 You can buy Chinese King Lyon synthetic core strings for $15 a set (they are not too bad despite what people say) or get some reputable steel stings at about the same price (maybe a little more). But don't buy the $1 a set Chinese steel strings. 8 Your pegs look as if they could be ok. You can work with soap and chalk if they don't turn smoothly. Be very careful with the soap - only use tiny amounts and wait a week before you use more if they are still sticky. It's better to have them too sticky than to have them slip and not hold. Most of the daily tuning will happen on the fine tuners anyway. P.S. Looks like violin from Markneukirchen ca 1920.

You may find that you learn something about a particular component only when you finish the violin. By then you will have made the same mistake 10 times.

I thought so, too. But I suppose it does happen, in particular with instruments that wouldn't clearly be working tools of professionals. The previous owner of this viola was a violin player and he didn't use it much at all. He may have had it for a life-time. As an aside, I also have a violin from 1930 which was someone's new fiddle just before he died. The family kept it in storage ever since for several generations. Almost 100yrs old and really just as new. P.S.: The viola actually has one rather well repaired crack running down from the left f-hole to about the centre of the chin rest. I only noticed the cleats when I looked around inside with a mirror.

According to www.luthiers-mirecourt.com "in urbe Cremonae" is the brand of George Felix Remy. They have him as late 19th century but every other reference I find is early 19th century. All auction results I find have instruments between 1820 and 1840. That's good enough for me. Many thanks, Martin, again. You are an invaluable asset to this community.

I have got this small (385mm) Remy viola, with the triangular iron brand "in urbe Cremonae Remy". This may be similar: http://www.martinswanviolins.com/sales/small-mirecourt-viola/ , ca 1840. Does anyone know from when to when this particular iron brand was used? Or otherwise have a guess at the age of my viola? Also ca 1840? Just out of interest, there seems to be another Remy iron brand reading "à la ville de Cremone". Would anyone be able to put the two on a timeline?

I did contact the maker about any potential reasoning before starting this thread, but did not receive an answer. And it's not as easy as stopping by to say hello. We are on different continents (and there are other continents in between). Ok, when I said I don't have very much experience, that is certainly a relative term. I have done quite a few common repairs, just never dealt with a neck adjustment. I will try a gentle (i.e. thin shim) "New Yorker" and see how far I get with that. If I feel like I want more, I'll plane the fingerboard - it is reasonably thick. Just one question, again. I think Jerry mentioned it before: the relationship between projection/ bridge height vs. arching of the top plate. Would a higher arch call for a lower projection? And if so, are there any standard numbers for arching + bridge height (or arching + projection)?

That looks easy enough but I wonder if the New York neck reset is considered a bit dodgy? I imagine this requires the neck not being fitted very well in the tapered block mortise to start with? I might still try it but has anyone got a reference the 'proper' procedure? BTW, I have measured my projection as 23mm. So I should probably want to add about 4mm to that, or maybe as little as 3mm as my arching looks quite healthy. Also, 3mm added height to the bridge would be in line with my previous consideration regarding string angles. Is there a standard reference for the total height of arching plus bridge? And from where is it measured - with or w/o table thickness?

I has always been so low. The violin is essentially new (2013) and there are no previous repairs; string height is 4mm at E and 5.5 at G. I don't want to put a name out there because of the neck angle situation, but other than that, yes, it should be properly constructed. I don't expect any stupid glue. The sound question is probably of some relevance in terms of the power. If the instrument's performance is acceptable one might wonder if it is worth the effort to correct a neck angle. Surprisingly, the instrument doesn't seem to lack power. But still, a proper neck angle is likely to make it even better... I see it looks like it in the pics for some reason, but I have taken a straight edge to it and the fingerboard is fine, including a tiny bit of scoop. No previous repair, overhang looks funny in the original pics I agree. Here is another pic that should clear it up. No excessive overhand after all. And here are some angles that I have tried to measure in another picture I took: I think it becomes obvious from this that the nut is way too high and that it a clear case for neck pull back? I think 158' over the bridge seems to be the standard. With a 2-3mm higher bridge (make it 32-33) I'd aim for 77' + 81'. Even though I have done some of the more common repairs, I'm quite inexperienced by any standard. And I have not done a neck pull back before. Can someone point me to instructions or a guide or a previous thread to neck pull-backs?

It might read "Franz Erbl", in which case you'd want to read this: http://www.violininformation.webs.com/tradeinstruments.htm

I have got this modern violin. It is only a few years old, but has a very flat neck angle. As pictured, the bridge at the centre line of the violin is only 30mm high. What would you do? Try to 'correct' it? Put some gut strings and a baroque style bridge and tail piece on? Leave as is?

...try the full repertoire of mirrors and squinting first , before you have three beers (i.e. 3 litres of beer). At least the writing looks neat and clean - someone will be able to read it.

Would be good to see the corner blocks in plan view given that you have the top off.

It's hard to tell from the photos but to my eye both neck angles look ok-ish. Changing neck angle is a bigger effort than what might be warranted. What you may want to measure and compare is the string clearance above the fingerboard at the end of the fingerboard. There is a bit of a range to what people prefer or may chose to better suit a certain style of playing or genre. I generally like about 3.5mm at the e-string and about 5mm at the g-string. That's probably on the low side of things and adding 0.5mm on both sides would probably be closer to the middle of the road. You can also draw up a 42mm radius circle on a piece of paper (or print with a computer if you can print to scale (but make sure and measure your print)), cut it out, cut it in half, slide it up the bridge underneath the strings and see if they follow that arch. As Conor said, neck angles have increase over the centuries. Most old violins have been adjusted to modern standards though at some point. Sounds a bit odd that your teacher would play on a very low neck angle unless it is a dedicated baroque set-up/ instrument.