Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi,

I am currently looking to build a copy of "Il Cannone" by Guarnerius. I've been looking over my plans, and have noticed the dimensions aren't very symetrical. I really don't like the idea of ending up with a crooked violin if I don't have to, and yet I don't want to sacrifice sound quality. Any advice?

Posted

The easiest thing to do is work to the mean. Trace the outline, fold it over itself and transfer the line between the lines. Take the average of other dimensions. Choose the best corners and graft those on. This sidesteps the need to make judgments about what the original condition or intention was.

To the degree that the above doesn't feel right, engage your judgment about wear and tear and other factors. :)

As to sound quality, if you are sure that the sound quality of the original is significantly due to its asymmetries then you are in a pickle. :)

Posted

A slight side track. I never thought about this before. The Cannone looks symmetric in the photos. But my Strad poster of the Kochanski indeed shows distinct asymmetries in that violin's outline as well as the graduations. Does that say something about the basic Guarneri construction? Was the basic mold for these instrument asymmetric or were they made without a mold?

Posted
A slight side track. I never thought about this before. The Cannone looks symmetric in the photos. But my Strad poster of the Kochanski indeed shows distinct asymmetries in that violin's outline as well as the graduations. Does that say something about the basic Guarneri construction? Was the basic mold for these instrument asymmetric or were they made without a mold?

The instruments were certainly made on a mould because when a well preserved example is apart they usually have all the traces one would expect to see for this method of construction. The two instruments that you mention are from the very last years of Guarneri's activity. These instruments in general tend to show more irregularities or imperfections than his earlier instruments.

I agree with Andres that if you do not care to duplicate the irregularities in the original then you need to derive a median outline and soundhole placement etc. ...

Bruce

Posted

For what it's worth, just a thought:

The method of folding the trace over itself and transfering the line between the two lines, seems sensible, but I don't think it will be the best method for getting close to the mold that was used. As it was an inside mold the outline can hardly have ended inside the outline of the mold. But there could have been air between the mold and the ribs. (This is if they did not take out the mold before gluing the ribs to it. And I don't believe they did.)

It looks to me as when GdG made the ribs for the Cannone he ended up with quite a lot of air between the treble side rib and the mold close to the upper corner.

So if I should try to recreate the mold, I would follow the bass side outline at the middle bouts. (But to cite dear Manfio: I may be wrong!! And I never saw the Cannone except in books. Getting close to cannons? Not me.)

Posted
It looks to me as when GdG made the ribs for the Cannone he ended up with quite a lot of air between the treble side rib and the mold close to the upper corner.

Are we assuming that the mould was symmetrical? :)

Posted
Are we assuming that the mould was symmetrical? :)

I did.

Looking through the Biddulp book it seems to me that the irregularity of the Cannon at the middle bouts is not showing up on other instruments. At least not in that degree. Some of the other fiddles looks somewhat similiar, and some seems to be mirrored. (He might have turned the mold over.)

But I took a closer look at the trace of the King Joseph (1737), and that one is remarkably symmetric.

Of course he might have used different molds.

Posted

"As to sound quality, if you are sure that the sound quality of the original is significantly due to its asymmetries then you are in a pickle." - Oh my goodness, so true!!!

"A slight side track. I never thought about this before. The Cannone looks symmetric in the photos. But my Strad poster of the Kochanski indeed shows distinct asymmetries in that violin's outline as well as the graduations. Does that say something about the basic Guarneri construction? Was the basic mold for these instrument asymmetric or were they made without a mold?" - It's called almost 300 years of time. Remember, these things are made of wood!!

Posted

However, just to let you know, once upon a time I worried myself over such things as well. Actually, I still do, but my perspective has changed considerably and I no longer find myself asking questions like those above, but rather "how" and "why" questions such as, "Why has the instrument distorted in such a manner, how much is due to intervening restoration work, etc. and how much is due to the natural tendencies of the wood used (due to having slab cut back, etc.)."

So the moral of the story is, look deeper than you currently are, don't make assumptions based upon what is readily apparent (as I used to do all the time), no look deeper and there will find something of value!

Posted
However, just to let you know, once upon a time I worried myself over such things as well. Actually, I still do, but my perspective has changed considerably and I no longer find myself asking questions like those above, but rather "how" and "why" questions such as, "Why has the instrument distorted in such a manner, how much is due to intervening restoration work, etc. and how much is due to the natural tendencies of the wood used (due to having slab cut back, etc.)."

So the moral of the story is, look deeper than you currently are, don't make assumptions based upon what is readily apparent (as I used to do all the time), no look deeper and there will find something of value!

The idea I have of the use of an internal mold, having read the various contributions of Roger Hargrave and other eminent writers on the topic, is that the Cremonese used it primarily as a method of construction, with only secondary emphasis on its function - to a remarkably limited extent - of predetermining a specific outline accurately. On the other hand, the degree of emphasis placed on these two functions seems to be reversed these days - or at least, an undue amount of emphasis seems to be placed by some in attempting to use an internal mold as the paramount tool for determining the final outline. I think this is partly borne out by makers such as Vuillaume preferring an exterior mold for producing accurate copies, and by some others (William Luff comes to mind) building "on-the-back" without a mold at all to produce accurate copies.

Posted
Hi,

I am currently looking to build a copy of "Il Cannone" by Guarnerius. I've been looking over my plans, and have noticed the dimensions aren't very symetrical. I really don't like the idea of ending up with a crooked violin if I don't have to, and yet I don't want to sacrifice sound quality. Any advice?

.................

The Cannone back and front outlines are rather different in character and shape. Copies of this instrument work best if the character of the outline of the front is maintained as much as possible. Violin outlines for posters etc are generally taken from the back of instruments. Copies of the Cannone where the back is used as an outline for the front of the copy can look a bit odd to say the least. If you can it is best to take your outline, (symetricalised or not) from the front of the Cannone.

Posted
I think it is more reasonable to ascribe the asymmetries to the construction process than to wood movement. It's not like they were using particularly wonky wood.

Edit--Excellent point Jacob.

A bit of both, don't you think? Certainly distortion present in the arching is not quite as much an aspect of the making as it is the age, and I believe the sides may move as well, along with the front and back, due to many years of string pressure and tension, soundposts of varying fit, different bass bars, the hands of this or that luthier, the odd restoration, etc. Sam Z wrote quite a good article on just this topic, in fact, and the way in which movement over time affects the manner in which he approaches copies (in the article he speaks of the process in which he considers how the original moved, why it moved and how he thinks his copy may move, to bring his end result to the same as the original, and the results of which he does speak testifies to the accuracy of his thinking).

Posted

I should mention that in Sam's article he speaks of arching, as well as the outline, as being dynamic (subject to change) over time (the outline being particularly susceptible to such in the c-bouts, if I remember it right). I believe he also mentions twisting of the corpus, but I cannot recall offhand. Anyway, it is a really good article.

Posted

CTD--Ah I should have been more clear, I was thinking only of outline asymmetries. I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with Sam about the sorts of distortion that occur, I just can't buy the idea that those factors would create the degree of random outline asymmetry we see.

Posted

I am not familiar with the Cannon specificially, but in general, it is common to make the mold using the purfling as the reference, usually the back is referenced since it is a more stable in terms of movemnent and distrotion over time then the front. Since the purfling is made referenced off the ribs you maintain the unique outline of the instrument in the end. If you are concerned with irregularities, you can go with Andres idea and trace 1/2 of the purfling, and then fold it over. That way still have some of the character of the instrument built in, but it is semetrical. You could also experiment and do the same thing with the front, taking 1/2 of the instrument and folding over, and may capture more of the feel of the instrument that Melvin was talking about while still being more balanced. Again I have never studied this instrument closely so the ideas are more of a general nature, and the uniqueness that Melvin talked about my be lost with the folding over method.

-Peter

Posted
I am not familiar with the Cannon specificially, but in general, it is common to make the mold using the purfling as the reference, usually the back is referenced since it is a more stable in terms of movemnent and distrotion over time then the front. Since the purfling is made referenced off the ribs you maintain the unique outline of the instrument in the end. If you are concerned with irregularities, you can go with Andres idea and trace 1/2 of the purfling, and then fold it over. That way still have some of the character of the instrument built in, but it is semetrical. You could also experiment and do the same thing with the front, taking 1/2 of the instrument and folding over, and may capture more of the feel of the instrument that Melvin was talking about while still being more balanced. Again I have never studied this instrument closely so the ideas are more of a general nature, and the uniqueness that Melvin talked about my be lost with the folding over method.

-Peter

Some people are more easily recognized by their faces than backsides...so the useful point Melvin made was that, if one wanted to make a violin which is easily recognizable as a Cannone copy/model, one might perhaps want to consider the distorted/worn outline of the top to perhaps a greater degree than with another model when designing the mold. That is what I did when I made my last one, and even though the difference between the mold for that one and previous ones I made are almost imperceptable, the end-result resembled the Cannone much more closely than any of my previous attemtps.

Posted

So it seems there are at least 3 factors to consider with this question. 1) The irregularity of the outline of the plates due to wear and distortion. 2) the shape of the purfling which may relate to the irregularities of the plate outline or may be independant of the plate outline coutours . 3) the relationship between the purfling and the edge of the instrument at any point. And how you make your mold will probally in some way effect how these varriable interrelate to give you a particular look.

-Peter

Posted
So it seems there are at least 3 factors to consider with this question. 1) The irregularity of the outline of the plates due to wear and distortion. 2) the shape of the purfling which may relate to the irregularities of the plate outline or may be independant of the plate outline coutours . 3) the relationship between the purfling and the edge of the instrument at any point. And how you make your mold will probally in some way effect how these varriable interrelate to give you a particular look.

-Peter

I guess so. It's like a painter painting a generic human face ("poster-like"), as opposed to painting the face of a specific person.

Posted

For my Cannone model, I took the outline in the spots which obviously weren't worn, and then recreated, from purfling and my estimate of wear, the places which were worn. After I had a working form, I refined it over time by adding strips of tape here and there to build up spots I'd missed in the initial assessment, or were just too goofy for me to live with.

Posted
CTD--Ah I should have been more clear, I was thinking only of outline asymmetries. I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with Sam about the sorts of distortion that occur, I just can't buy the idea that those factors would create the degree of random outline asymmetry we see.

Yes, I would agree, there are most certainly variations in outline that have nothing whatsoever to do with movement after conception, and there is wearing of the edge to consider as well, in some cases extreme wear.

Posted

Thanks for all the great posts. Let me add a little more to my original question. I'm also concerned about the thickness of the ribs on this model. They vary from 1.3 to 2 mm, not counting the linings. Also, the f-holes on this instrument are different from one another. Were these differences a specific intention of Guarnerius, or was it due to restoration or some other factor? I'm mainly interested in reproducing that dark, rich sound of this model, not so much the appearance.

Posted

I think it's safe to guess that the rib thicknesses and f-hole positions are in their original condition. Outline and f-hole asymmetry seems to go both ways in Del Gesu's instruments so it probably wasn't intentional.

I haven't made one of these but the general drift of past comment here by makers on what makes them tick is that all the 'unusual' features are linked and interrelated. Go all the way, get the arching right, and you will probably end up with an instrument with a sound in the ballpark of what you have in mind, which may take unusually long to play in, and will have a long power curve.

Posted

Just as a suggestion when making a new model.

I like to make preliminary drawings or sketches of the body and scroll. This helps me avoid surprises, like Melvin mentioned, for example a strange f-hole placement in relation to the c-bouts if you have used the outline of the back rather than that of the front. This happened to me when I made a form from the back outline of the Earl of Plymouth Stradivari 1711. I can assure you that once you have gone to all the trouble to make an outline and a form only to discover that it has to be modified or pitched out you won't forget it.

The real advantage for me in making the drawings is that I start to move my hands and my eyes and to get a feel for each feature. Just try free hand sketches of the f-holes, corner shapes, purfling joints, head profiles or of other basic features you would like to see and keep at it until you get it right. It's great to have a clear mental image of where you want to go before you pick up the knife.

Often it is better to take breaks and tack the drawings to the wall in your workshop or some place you pass by regularly. What you like today might not be exactly the same tomorrow morning. Once you are reasonably satisfied, probably after numerous modifications and retrys, you can move on to making the form and patterns.

I like to think that if you can't draw it, you can't make it.

Good luck.

Bruce

Posted
Just as a suggestion when making a new model.

I like to make preliminary drawings or sketches of the body and scroll. This helps me avoid surprises, like Melvin mentioned, for example a strange f-hole placement in relation to the c-bouts if you have used the outline of the back rather than that of the front. This happened to me when I made a form from the back outline of the Earl of Plymouth Stradivari 1711. I can assure you that once you have gone to all the trouble to make an outline and a form only to discover that it has to be modified or pitched out you won't forget it.

The real advantage for me in making the drawings is that I start to move my hands and my eyes and to get a feel for each feature. Just try free hand sketches of the f-holes, corner shapes, purfling joints, head profiles or of other basic features you would like to see and keep at it until you get it right. It's great to have a clear mental image of where you want to go before you pick up the knife.

Often it is better to take breaks and tack the drawings to the wall in you workshop or some place you pass by regularly. What you like today might not be exactly the same tomorrow morning. Once you are reasonably satisfied, probably after numerous modifications and retrys, you can move on to making the form and patterns.

I like to think that if you can't draw it, you can't make it.

Good luck.

Bruce

That is some seriously good advice, which is borne out by the fact that, until relatively recently, I've made more forms than instruments.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...