Classical blocks and lining joins?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to agree.

To me, this has always seemed self-evident.

Dear Mr. Tucker,

Now that we're on a first name basis .....

Would you think about the area of the gluing surface of a lining against a rib relative to the back joint or the top joint of a violin. Wouldn't these certainly have vibrated to bits long ago if what you are saying is true? Especially in the thinnest areas where the joint is down to 2.2 or 2.3 millimeters and sometimes even less.

Do you bend your linings with an iron or do you bend them cold like the ribs?

Bruce

P.S. please call me Bruce

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is a quiz, I would guess Mittenwald, after it has been "restored" a couple of times in America :blink:

Hi Jacob,

No it's not a quiz. It's just my lame attempt at a joke and I apologise for using your name. No intention to offend. If, however, you consider "America" to be large continents in the western hemisphere between the north pole and the south pole then it's OK. The modesty of your assertion induces me to confirm that "the Americas" have no monopoly on "improvised resoration". It is everywhere and speaks all languages. ;)

Bruce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jacob,

No it's not a quiz. It's just my lame attempt at a joke and I apologise for using your name. No intention to offend. If, however, you consider "America" to be large continents in the western hemisphere between the north pole and the south pole then it's OK. The modesty of your assertion induces me to confirm that "the Americas" have no monopoly on "improvised resoration". It is everywhere and speaks all languages. ;)

Bruce

Yes Bruce, I fully agree with you, I was just provoking certain individuals, none of whom took the bait.

Was it Mittenwald or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Tucker,

Now that we're on a first name basis .....

Would you think about the area of the gluing surface of a lining against a rib relative to the back joint or the top joint of a violin. Wouldn't these certainly have vibrated to bits long ago if what you are saying is true? Especially in the thinnest areas where the joint is down to 2.2 or 2.3 millimeters and sometimes even less.

Do you bend your linings with an iron or do you bend them cold like the ribs?

Bruce

P.S. please call me Bruce

Very well.

Bruce,

First, my apologies if I have managed to strain proper civility or etiquette with regard to names...

In fact I have used all of the three methods, including using a commercial bending iron (the "traditional" method), cold bending (the "evil" modern method), and one piece linings (a less chosen but apparently still acceptable path) . With success.

And yes, I have stated my opinion, that the cc linings are routinely let into the corner blocks as an (to me) obvious precautionary measure, for them not to be able to loosen over time, due to their inclination to flex away from the blocks in question, while the upper and lower linings are more or less locked into place naturally - and that's most likely why they (the upper and lower linings ) aren't routinely mortised into the other side of the corner blocks, or into the end blocks...

I do not foresee any of the linings "vibrating to bits" in any case. Mortised, not mortised, whatever.

For me, this has always been a fairly simple conclusion to make, with regard to the thinking that may have resulted in what we see today with regard to what linings are (perhaps habitually) mortised, - and also why those that are not mortised, are not.

What I don’t easily see, is how having or stating such an idea, even if it is not widely agreed upon (or, more properly, why my agreeing with another poster who proposes such a theory) would cause even a small affront - to anyone.

Which, reading the thread through, it seems to have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you think about the area of the gluing surface of a lining against a rib relative to the back joint or the top joint of a violin. Wouldn't these certainly have vibrated to bits long ago if what you are saying is true? Especially in the thinnest areas where the joint is down to 2.2 or 2.3 millimeters and sometimes even less.

To me, this argument seems a bit non-sequitur.

While this fact, regarding the joining glue surface area of the plates along the center line, remains an inarguable fact in and of itself - it may well not have been the basis of reasoning, behind traditional lining methods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and vice-versa.

No question. That would seem to follow.

For whatever personal reasons of my own I may have - based on recent heated and divisive discussions here, I feel compelled to add this disclaimer;

I realize that I am obviously presenting an "opposing" point of view here.

Disagreement, politely offered, for me is the real meat of a public forum. Without which - I probably wouldn't bother saying what I do say.

These are my best conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

after it has been "restored" a couple of times in America :blink:

Yes Bruce, I fully agree with you, I was just provoking certain individuals, none of whom took the bait.

Sorry for missing that too, Jacob.

American (US) restoration has been superior since 1942, the year we invented duct tape. I realize that you people in the old world can acquire this too now, but you lack our experience with the finer points of using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No question. That would seem to follow.

For whatever personal reasons of my own I may have - based on recent heated and divisive discussions here, I feel compelled to add this disclaimer;

I realize that I am obviously presenting an "opposing" point of view here.

And I hope that people who are familiar with my posts and demeanor, realize that I don't pretend to know the absolute truth about most anything, if such a thing even exists - but that am always presenting only what I have observed, firsthand, and what conclusions I have come to based on what I have observed. And that I am not attempting to be coy or a smart ass about any of this.

There is no pressure for anyone to change their mind, or even to agree with what I'm saying here. What I hope for is an opposing argument based on the same qualifications (firsthand observations and conclusions - presented (if possible) unemotionally.

Disagreement, politely offered, for me is the real meat of a public forum. Without which - I probably wouldn't bother saying what I do say.

These are my best conclusions.

Hi CT,

Since I made the original post connecting stress and mortised linings, I feel obliged to help you out here.

I have followed Bruce's comments and don't feel there is a divisive issue here.

I think you and I are simply saying that a conscientious worker with any sense of engineering might want to inset the C linings regardless of whether they are using an inside mold Cremonese fashion or not. Whether loose linings are frequently seen or not is neither here nor there. One does it from a sense of pride and well being and there is no harm in that.

But there is a connection to Bruce's point about the center joins of tops and backs and the implication that these don't vibrate apart so why should linings come loose. Well, anyone who has been around old violins for a reasonable time is aware that these center joins DO fail. Many center joins on old, two part backs have too thick a glue line leading me to conclude that either the maker wasn't very good or the back has been apart and reglued.

It is certainly not uncommon to see back joints reinforced from the inside with strips of parchment or small wooden cleats. I'm fairly sure that in some violins (usually French) the cleats on the back joint were original to the violin.

So I don't think you need be unduly defensive about your remarks although I understand why you might feel 'attacked'.

Glenn

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, I have stated my opinion, that the cc linings are routinely let into the corner blocks as an (to me) obvious precautionary measure, for them not to be able to loosen over time, due to their inclination to flex away from the blocks in question, while the upper and lower linings are more or less locked into place naturally - and that's most likely why they (the upper and lower linings ) aren't routinely mortised into the other side of the corner blocks, or into the end blocks...

Hmmm. I like this notion. The idea that the c bouts were let in to stiffen the body never really rang true to me. I've seen alot of mortises that have not fit at all, or at least enough to stiffen anything, but would certainly aid in preventing the lining from springing away from the rib.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't think you need be unduly defensive about your remarks although I understand why you might feel 'attacked'.

Glenn

Perhaps I was a bit set up to be defensive, because I still don't "get" the apparent implications about using names "improperly"?

In any case, I am still curious why the effort to mortise the cc bout linings, and no effort to mortise the other linings...

To me it seems a "no brainer", as they say.

I have seen quite a few loose cc bout linings, where the upper and lower bouts liings are still secure. Who knows? perhaps its because I deal with so very many student level violins?

In any case, thanks for chiming in - I do know when to bow out of a discussion, though, so, I'll see you around...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes centre joints do fail regularly, front and back (particularly on the backs of Mirecourt violins with steep arching), and the Mirecourt cleats presumably started as a "preventive measure" and then became a point of style. Many 19th century makers cleated the inside of the table seam too (though not Mirecourt makers I don't think). I would imagine block mortises were the same kind of development.

Linings DO become unglued, though it's rarer .... perhaps because they are binding side grain to side grain over a much larger area than centre seams.

I've seen plenty of unglued linings, though I've generally attributed this to poor glue, not any design problem. Counter to intuition, they seem to come apart most often in the centre of the lower bouts, and sometimes where the lower bout linings meet the lower corner blocks. Yes there's some stress in the C bouts tending to make them "want' to spring, but I think failures of lining joints are probably more likely due to differential shrinkage of woods (maybe sometimes water ingress), so it's logical that we might see this in the middle of the piece ...

Can't imagine why anyone's getting their knickers in a twist over this - it's clearly a point of style, one might choose to adopt any one of a dozen strategies and be doing a conscientious job. Personally I love the Amati block with its slightly disturbing insistence on some mad idea of symmetry - I doubt you could have a relaxing pint with someone who did that kind of work!

And CT, I thought as ever you expressed yourself as a gentleman buddhist, certainly nothing could give offense, I suspect it's a forum thing, hard to read the tone sometimes ....I'd have a pint with you any time

Link to post
Share on other sites
[name=martin swan' timestamp='1327601199' post='531970]

I suspect it's a forum thing, hard to read the tone sometimes ....I'd have a pint with you any time

If you are ever traveling through the American Southwest, and, if you are ever dying of thirst on those endless burning, windblown plains - please stop by for an icy cold Guinness Extra Stout.

I promise, there will be one or two here with your name emblazoned...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im open minded for whatever the reason is?? But if you look at Bruce`s pic of the `battered Amati` block (post#10)in the c bout adjoining the back ,how can you tell whether the lining is exposed due to an original slip with the gauge or has the lining sprung outwards forcing the block off in that local area???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I heard.

Then again, what does Addie know?

(Sorry Addie - he forced it out of me)

I know that...

Guinness is Good for You,

That there's a world of difference between Peebles in winter and Phoenix is summer,

and that classical c-bout linings are easy enough to do, so why not? For the record, I use an Xacto saw to start the mortice, and clean and deepen with a 2mm chisel.

Does anyone have thoughts on garland stiffness, Cremonese perpendicular blocks (longer) VS diagonally set blocks?

Oh, and have a bratwürst with that Guinness. Actually, I recommend the bratwürst cooked in sauerkraut and beer. Sorry, OT. :)

P.S. Use dental floss when your glue sticks where you didn't want it to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.