Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

m.makepeace

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About m.makepeace

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @JPherson thanks! Heading to the post office w/ batch #1 now. @Nick Allen interesting! I'm learning that everybody has their own unique way of doing things so there's probably no such thing as a one-size-fits-all template for any part of violin making. I'm trying to make these based on best practices (in this case makingtheviolin.com which appears to be based on C&J) and then trying to give as accurate a description as I can so folks can decide for themselves whether it'll work or not.
  2. As mentioned in my last thread - I also ordered a laser cut neck shaping template for violin. When it first came the laser cutter had scaled it to the wrong dimension so it was a little too small. The corrected version just came in and is available for purchase here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/255015597370 This template is laser cut from 1.6mm thick aluminum. The outline is taken directly from the neck shaping template depicted here: http://www.makingtheviolin.com/Shaping the neck As seen in the third image, it's an almost exact match for the neck shaping template given in the C&J
  3. Thanks for the kind words @Jim Bress! I'm glad you like the template! I found the same thing when I held it up to my most recent fiddle The viola template should be straightforward given the dimensions you posted - I'll try to put one together! The C+J violin neck shaping template is the one that I have on order - somehow the laser cutting outfit got the size wrong the first go round but hopefully I should be getting the correct version in the next week or so. If you are able to mail me a copy of the Strobel cello shaping template I can try to put that together too. Betwee
  4. Thanks @NickIsWorking - I've got a couple all packaged up that will be dropped off at the post office first thing monday morning. Sounds like there is some interest in a cello version we just need to be sure the shape is something all are happy with - I'm open to any and all suggestions for how to change the radius/profile of those top and bottom curves
  5. Thanks @Brad H! Interesting, thanks @Jeffrey Holmes - that nuance is what has me hesitant to design / order a cello template since I don't think I have adequate knowledge. I'm still happy to put an order together if we come up with a template that enough folks are interested in, though.
  6. The place I ordered from does give some discount for ordering multiple patterns at once in addition to ordering multiple copies of a single pattern. They handle the arranging on sheets themself and just give me a quote though, so I'm not sure exactly how it all works.
  7. I'm probably going to wait and see how the interest pans out on the ones I've designed so far before adding more to the list. I'd be happy to place an order for version 2 of that cello scoop template if there are 5 folks interested - I count two so far.
  8. Yup the dimensions are for the overall template so the additional length is for the convex part sticking out
  9. @Jim Bress@JPherson here is one design for a cello template. This is just over an inch wide so the top and bottom aren't usable arches like on my violin template - this obviates the romberg vs non-romberg discussion. The 1mm/0.8mm markings are aligned exactly with the deepest part of the scoop at 295mm from the nut end of the template. This would be about $25+shipping (each) if we find 5 takers, and closer to $20 if there are 10 folks interested. Here is the second option, which has the 64mm wide, radius 62mm curves at either end. This is a bit more - around $30+shipping if w
  10. Thanks @Jim Bress! I'm ashamed to admit that I had no idea about the Romberg bevel until @duane88 just mentioned it - I had assumed cello boards were shaped like big violin boards. I wonder if it might make sense to make the template skinnier and just include the two scoop profiles without the radii on the top/bottom? That way it would save material and avoid the issue of differing ways to shape the cross section.
  11. Thanks - I've already packaged up the ones that have sold so far and will be bringing them to the post office first thing in the morning
  12. @JPherson@Jim Bress I would definitely be up for designing / coordinating a buy for cello templates. I think I might try to do more of a preorder for that as I have a feeling it will end up being more expensive (more material) and I'd rather not outlay for a bunch that won't sell. So to start I'll design the template and get some quotes for different amounts depending on how many folks want one. Do either of you have the correct dimensions for a cello? What I need is the length of the fingerboard, the width of the bridge at it's widest, the radius of the bridge/fingerboard curvature, the
  13. Before starting my next violin I've decided to do some toolmaking - I'll be posting a few designs over the next several weeks. I've always had some trouble ensuring that when I plane a fingerboard the scoop is evenly distributed from end-to-end. So I designed this template and had it laser cut. One side projects 0.75mm over 270mm and the other projects 0.5mm over 270mm, which are the numbers given by Michael Darnton in his setup chapter. The top and bottom have a 42mm radius outside and inside curve for marking bridges and planing the fingerboard, respectively. Having this laser cut
  14. Thanks for all of the help @Davide Sora!
  15. Thank you @Davide Sora! It's interesting that both of those issues you point out are with the volute/turns - that was the part of the drawing I was more confident in since it comes pretty much directly from the measurements on the poster. I definitely noticed what you pointed out in #2 regarding the unevenness of the spiral as it enters the volute from the throat. I think that comes down to the philosophical question that has been discussed on this board many times - is it better to copy an instrument flaw-for-flaw or is it better to copy the intent of the maker? I think in my case since
×
×
  • Create New...