Anthony Panke

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Anthony Panke

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Rusty iron pans from a car boot sale?
  2. If an electric hot plate is used, one can heat a round bottomed flask on an aluminium block with a suitable indent. Then, a condensor can be attached for consistent results, as less oil will evaporate. For this, I recommend using a little less oil. Also, the more closed nature helps prevent fires.
  3. As a normal maker would today. This means using hand tools (gouges, planes, scrapers, horsetail not sandpaper). Arching templates and contours, bending the plate in my hands by feel, checking thicknesses with a calliper. More or less what Sacconi describes in his book, or Johnson & Courtnall in the art of violin making. This also involves setting up in the white and making sound adjustments while playing. So mainly by feel.
  4. Hargrave’s recipe is not hard and works well. I recommend buying pre-cooked colophony (not burnt) and cooking it further. I used a stainless steel pan, would use iron if it gave extra colour.
  5. That teacher seems very expensive to little avail. So far, I have had the luck that my teachers/mentors have not charged me for time, though they have for supplies as is only sensible. - Do you have any offcuts from the neck? These can be used to rebuild the neck root seamlessly. Alternatively, if the sides of the joint end up a little loose, maple shavings can be wedged in during the gluing.
  6. Quite a few is statistically vague. I would reckon that approx.1.5% of the population can do basic household tasks such as regluing a damaged chair. Possibly 0.5% could plane a surface flat, fewer still to violin makers’ standards. Whilst I understand the importance of this skill, it is harder to plane the bottom of a neck root flat, as it is a small surface so prone to wobble due to the mass of the scroll around it. By all means, a useful skill, but I reckon with_joerg did a serviceable job on his plate-rib surfaces.
  7. That makes more sense now. Easily achievable with a good bandsaw and skilled “bandsawer”
  8. My thoughts: it’s impressive that you’ve made it this far, so don’t lose heart, setting the neck is hard , it will require some patience. Now onto technical matters. As many above have said, all the surfaces need to be absolutely flat. This can be checked by rubbing chalk onto a flat surface, granite or plate glass work especially well for this. To correct the flatness, a sharp plane with the blade set up just a little out from the sole will do fine. Clamp the neck firmly in a vice and then the surfaces can be planed securely. Perhaps a disc sander would work too, but it is worth the practice with a plane. To adjust the tilt, left-right or up-down, the back of the mortice should be adjusted (also dead flat), so if the scroll points right, (as in your case), then deepen the left side of the mortice. One stroke of a sharp chisel is enough, then flatten with a sanding stick. Check with a straight edge and a ruler, that at the position of the bridge, the fingerboard projects 27.5mm above the belly. This is very important. To check the symmetry, draw a center line in the mortice, on the edge of the belly just beyond the mortice, and on the neck root. This can show whether the center of the neck root meets the centre of the front of the belly and the centre of the button. (I just saw you have already done this) Using rubber bands, you can hold a bridge blank in place , centred, to check the alignment of the fingerboard. If this ends up just a little off, it is no great issue; if it ends up more off, then there are some tricks with the endpin hole to correct any dangerous structural issues. On my first violin, I had to remake every part besides the back before it worked. I strung it up, played one note, and the neck broke off. My lesson was to glue size the neck root many times (5 or so is best) before actually gluing. All the advice other people have written is good advice! good luck
  9. The book sounds interesting- will look into buying it. I think the thought about violin making makes up at least partially for the time I don’t spend making, which, considering I have summer holidays, is small. as I begin to get used to the idea in my head. As Jezzupe said, “as long as we’re not watching TV, we’ve won!” So, I hide away in my workshop, briefly resurfacing to answer these, and have lunch etc, before continuing producing silky thin shavings with my freshly sharpened blade... ... and when I go to sleep, my thoughts are fixed on what my mistakes were last time, and how to correct them.... along with some physics
  10. I’m trying not to come to objective conclusions about which results are best, hence why “good” parameters would be helpful. This is merely an attempt to gauge the usefulness of physics in violin making. You’ve met my point exactly! By all means say that this is a pointless exercise for others to try who already have established how useful physics is, if at all. To discourage me from even trying, not that anyone here has directly done so, would imply a possible fear of the . For me, it is partially a look into which methods might be helpful, and partially also an excuse to build two instruments which will have very similar features. It is likely that in the end, both physics and intuition will give the same ideal result, that which has been around for the past few centuries. So, however useful or not physics may be, I think I will learn a lot by building these two very similar instruments. I’m happy for the results to be inconclusive. I’m thinking of doing a similar blind test to the ones in Fritz’s papers comparing contemporary work with Strads. I will see if I can get a string orchestra on board, or at least as many players and listeners as possible. Double blind so that neither the player or the listeners know which is which. so far as bias is concerned, i am impartial either way and more interested in making 2 good instruments and seeing which one ends up better. Many thanks!
  11. Thanks for these many replies, perhaps my question was vague, so I will elaborate: making two instruments on the same model, so it can be considered quite normal copy work. the wood is pretty much as identical as possible, cut right next to each other from one log. After a certain rough point, I will try to use more scientific/objective/modern methods on one instrument to influence my making, whereas I will stick to “normal” methods for the other: callipers, scraping, planes, bending in the hands by feel. This is about seeing how well these methods compare, if the instruments are equally good or the “traditional” one better, then some of you are right, if the scientific one is better, perhaps these measurements have merit. I like the idea of the stiffness factor from Nigel Harris, and will try any recommendations that are feasible to do. meanwhile, discouraging me from trying scientific methods suggests a fear of progress outside of the mastery of an art by an individual. both ways are fine by me, and I thought this would be an interesting project to learn some scientific methods and see if they are any use. Again, recommendations on any methods are useful, so thank you for those that have done that.
  12. I got used to it surprisingly quickly and they are accurate and fun to use. However, a good pencil line is 0.5mm, and a bandsaw blade is more like 0.6-0.8. So a thick pencil line is no problem but not one made with a sharp pencil
  13. To start: the wood: I cut two backs out of this by sawing down the middle on a bandsaw, (first time using one!) then sawing again to bookmatch the plates. Jointed so the flame matches. (The right one is upside down) ...and flattened with a smoothing plane, whilst held in the vice, supported by wedges, which I cut from the excess wood. I decided to make the flames slope downwards.