• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tostra

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. GeorgeH - thanks, I agree I've decided to not buy the cello. And I'm really glad I have, as the seller started getting angry and a bit uncomfortable when I started mentioning that it maybe wasn't as good as he suggested. Never a good sign when a seller cares too much too quickly...
  2. Thank you for your replies! I did not intend to sound arrogant. I'm not a complete beginner, I have restored several instruments and done a good job at it, so my plan was not to "butcher" it. I do my repairs properly. I do not expect to be able to restore this one perfectly, but I would definitely get it in playing condition. And the main purpose was not to sell it, but to play it. The seller saays there is a Testore label in it, but he doesn't claim that it is a Testore. He's aware that labels don't say much, so I guess it's just in the title for attention. I see the point in just working at my job for half a year though... Having slept on it I don't think the cello looks as amazing as it did yesterday
  3. Bill, it really depends. Sometimes I build a lot, sometimes I play a lot. I'm only a hobbyist in both areas, so I can move around a bit depending on which projects I have going on. Right now I do a lot of both as I'm building a guitar while playing concerts, but usually it's more one than the other. I think I would focus on the restoration first and then play a lot when it is done... It's a hard question to answer clearly, as I don't structure it that much.
  4. I have considered that. I will go to my luthier tomorrow and see if he has something at that price... But if not, this is still really interesting. I think it looks great, and I restored another cello from a worse state, so I think I'll be able to mke it playable at least.
  5. I have been offered this very damaged cello for 2200 euros. It's way above what I can afford to just go out and buy (I'm a student), so I'm very much in doubt whether I should take the offer or not. Can someone help me? I'm not sure if this will end out as a good cello or not. I need to say that I'm not a professional luthier, and I do not want to make a profit from this. I want to put half a year or so into restoring it and play it for myself, as I have no way of affording a cello good enough for me to start learning again. My current cello is good, but it doesn't have more to offer me than what I'm getting out of it now. I'm feeling a bit stuck. I need an opinion on these questions: 1 - If I successfully restore the cello, do you think it will be a very good instrument? What price range would you expect it to end up in, purely soundwise? 2 - If I restore the cello and don't like the sound or the feel of it, will I be able to sell it to someone else or is it impossible to sell very damaged instruments? 3 - Do you think it's so damaged that it can't be restored to a playable state? I hope someone has the time to look at the photos and the experience to guide me. -Tobias
  6. I did the light thing. It has one spot that I didn't see before in the back, but that's it. And the tunnels don't extend from the holes, it's just a small spot where the wood has been attacked.
  7. Hi. I've recently restored an1800s German violin which I quite like. It's not an amazing instrument, but probably worth 2500-3000$. However, it has some worm damage. I haven't had it opened as there was no need to, so I can't say exactly how bad it is. The only thing I can see is some signs at the treble shoulder, one hole inside the instrument in the back, pretty close to the sound post and one hole in the back purfling in one corner. I know it's inactive, as I've had it for a year and nothing has changed. I will try to shine a bridght light on/through it and see if I can seee any more signs, but it really doesn't look or feel bad. My question is: Will I be able to sell the instrument with that damage? If so, how much would I have to reduce the price of it due to the damage? The rest of the violin is in great condition. I've heard mixed opinions on whether or not worm damage will reduce the cost at all, so I thought this is the place to go to find out :-) I can take pictures tomorrow if it' relevant. -Tobias
  8. I think I found a really good position. It's got a clean, complex tone that projects relatively well, and it respinds better than it did. I messes up a bit, so I'm not entirely sure what I did, but I think I loosened it slightly and moved it around half a millimeter away from the post. I'll play with after lenght and gut material when I can.
  9. I don't think I can get the afterlength much longer with this tailpiece, actually. I'll try when th other one arrives and play with the sound post till then :-)
  10. Isn't it supposed to be 1/6 of the string lenght?
  11. Now those are really good questions, Jerry. I cut the post myself and it was cut just about a week ago. I actually haven't measured the afterlength till now because the tailpiece isn't the one I'm going to keep on it, but the string length is 69,2cm and the afterlength is 10,5cm right now. When I fit the post, I fitted it quite loose. Not so that it would fall, but it was just wedged in. After I have fitted everything i have moved it around a lot, but I'm pretty sure I have tightened it a bit, and I have moved it to just about 5mm behind the bridge I think. I watched a few videso by Edgar Russ where he says that the optimal starting position is the thickness of the top behind the bridge. So my top is 4,2mm where the post goes, so I should put it 4,2mm behind the bridge. The thing is, he's the only one saying this. It seems that everyone puts it much further back. The thing is, it sounds really good around 4-5mm behind the bridge, but maybe it's just too close to the bridge to move freely. I just haven't tried moving it out of that position yet, but I'll try moving it south one of the next days when I have the time. I've heard that the posts shrink, so maybe I'll also try to tighten it a bit more. One thing I really need a tip for before I start moving it again: How do you move it west/against the bass side? Every time i've done it without the strings, the post has fallen, both on the cello and violins I've set up. I'm not eager to find out what will happen if it falls with the strings on. I've usually done it by just pushing it with the sound post setter, but I feel like that's not a good way. Edgar Russ suggested pushing it with a ruler..? Don't get me wrong though. This cello sounds great as it is. Not nasal, just perfect in my ears except it's maybe a bit thin on A and D. The response is not bad at all, and it's only a problem because of my playing style. I like to change a lot and sometimes have very hard starts, bow softly near the bridge, play very loud etc., and that's just not natural right now.
  12. I finally finished my project this week and now have a surprisingly amazing cello! I spent an evening adjusting the sound post and think I found a good place for it in the end. The wolf tone at F is possible to work around to some extend, the sound is free and very ressonant and everything is really good. However, I do want to change something. I fiddled a bit with it and got it be relatively easy to play as well, but I feel like it can still perform better. It is a little bit slow to react and doesn't respond very well when I bow closer to the bridge. It sort of breaks or crackles or don't really grip the string but akate on top a bit. It's hard to explain, but I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. It's not bad anymore, but I would like it to be more reactive. It's not happy to play things with fast attack or really loudly (although it does play very loud in itself). I've been searching the internet so much that I've confused myself, so I would really like someone to tell me what moving the soundpost in each direction is supposed to do. This is my first time doing anything with a cello except play it, so I'm a bit lost. As far as I've understood, this is the case: Moving the sound post to the treble side makes for a bigger sound that needs more energy to come out. It also makes the sound brighter Moving the sound post to the bass side makes the sound smaller and darker and more controlled. Moving closer to the bridge makes the sound more dense and projecting. Moving further away from the bridge makes the sound more ressonant and loose, but may be less projecting. Now if this is true, I should probably move the post to the treble or bass side. I'm just not sure if the slow response/skating is due to the post not being far enough to the treble side and therefore not handling the pressure of the bow very well or if it's too far towards the treble side and needs too much energy to produce the sound. What I'm experiencing is not very serious. It could simply be because it needs to be played for a few months to settle, but it's aa bit annoying. My main issue here is that it doesn't handle loud staccato playing well and that I feel a bit unable to control the dynamics properly. It plays wonderfully far from the bridge at moderate pressure, but with a heavy bow it complains. Also, if I go closer than approxomately 2 cm to the bridge, it doesn't produce much pleasant sound. I'm used to moving quite a lot on my old cello, and having this much narrower bow interface annoys me. A bit of extra info in case it matters: I'm using Larsen A and D and Spirocore G and C. The bridge might be just a little thick below the heart compared to the bridge on my old cello, but it follows the "standards" I found (10,5mm at the feet, around 8mm at the top of the legs narrowing to 2,5mm at the top arch). The bows I'm using gives slightly nicer response on my other cello. That was a lot of text. I hope I have explained myself well enough and that someone out there knows just what I have to do :-) Best regards, Tobias
  13. Now that sounds like an idea ;-) And the clamping thing sounds like a great idea. I'm definitely going to do that every time from now on :-)
  14. Haha, that is my fault indeed ;-) So how would you glue that? Have it clamped and then add glue with a knife? I was planning on adding glue with a brush to the whole surface at once with a brush and clamp it all at once with some additional locating clamps sideways at nut and heel, but your way sounds more efficient at making sure it's not slipping. I just don't seee how you'd get enough glue all over? And btw, I'm not going home, because I'm doing it all at home. I'm an amateur doing this for fun in my spare time (In college, so it's a slow process with little spare time). My goal was originally to one day fix up a cello to play that would be better than my own, so let's see if I'm actually close to that goal now after some years :-)
  15. baroquecello the projection is good now, but may be a couple of mm low when I get the board planed down. I might actually plane it a bit thicker near the bridge if this is the case. And I might plane the surface flat. If for no other reason to get rid of the glue. It's very stuck on there...