Titian mould

[violins88]

I have the Strad plans for the Titian. Now working to create the inside mould. The top and back measurements are not identical. Plus, one does not really know for sure the overhang all around, and the exact rib thickness, though I am using 1.0mm.

 

Is there a standard inside mold drawing that you use?  Help.

 

John

[Kevin Kelly]

John,

I don't have the poster handy, but isn't there a CT scan of the rib assembly on there?

[violins88]

John,

I don't have the poster handy, but isn't there a CT scan of the rib assembly on there?

Kevin,

 

Yes, but the line is fuzzy. I will take a look at that.

[Don Noon]

I don't get the concern about tiny details.

I'd just use the back outline drawing on the poster, figure in 2.5 mm overhang (3.0 in the C's) and 1 (or whatever) mm thickness for the ribs, and get on with it.  Then you have to decide what you want to do about the corner shapes, but that's later.

[Michael_Molnar]

I thought the Titian is a PG form like I adopted.

 

Anyone disagree?

[Jim Bress]

According to the article TWO VIOLIN FORMS: COMMENTARY AND ANALYSES by François Denis, the Titian was made with the P form.  

 

-Jim

[John Harte]

I thought the Titian is a PG form like I adopted.

 

Anyone disagree?

 

Mike, according to Francois Denis the Titian was built on the "P" Ms 44 pattern. 

 

John

[violins88]

To all who replied. Thanks.  Very useful informaiton.

[LinkMan]

http://strad3d.org/cms/index.php/the-violins

 

Plowden Guarneri ~ Willemotte Stradivari ~ Titian Stradivari

 

 

Titian Stradivari

[not telling]

Overhang on Strads is between 2.5 and 3, with 2.8 being average and the # to aim for acc. to Sacconi. And my blunderstanding is that you go off the back measurements.

Read the Zyg article that came with the poster in Feb. 2009. Much useful info.

[Davide Sora]

I thought the Titian is a PG form like I adopted.

 

Anyone disagree?

 

I have to agree with Denis, for me the Titian was made on P form, the CT scans of the ribs on the poster, although a bit fuzzy, match quite well that form.

I used that scan along with the picture and measurements of the form of  Pollens and Denis to make mine, checking the outline on other violins that I like and seem to be made on the same form, like the Toscano 1690, the Betts 1704, the Dornroschen 1704, the Dancla 1710, the Emperor 1715, the Park 1717, the Milanollo 1728 and of course the Titian.

 

The problem is that the P and PG forms and also the G to some extent, are not so markedly different in size and is not so obvious to attribute a violin in one form or another, often there are different opinions and interpretations.

But if the purpose is not to make an exact copy, who really cares?

The Cremonese system is designed so that you can make several variations starting from the same form, so I'm sure we can safely make a Titian like violin also starting with PG form.

 

Here are my measurements for the P and PG forms, if they can be useful for a comparison,

 hoping that they are understandable

 

 

Davide

[violins88]

I located some useful info on a previous Mnet thread here.

[DonLeister]

Hi John,

I know you are committed to this model presently but if you have a chance get the Strad's Huberman poster, you might even have it, it is a lot better resolution ct scans. Very crisp.

[Davide Sora]

....if you have a chance get the Strad's Huberman poster, you might even have it, it is a lot better resolution ct scans. Very crisp.

 

Oh, mea culpa, I forgot to put the Gibson / Huberman 1713 in my list of favorite instruments built on P form and I also forgot the Conte de Fontana 1702.

 

I would like to point out that there are two P forms, the oldest P/B and the P dated 1705, which is the probable reconstruction of the old P/B.

They are very similar with the second slightly longer and I believe that the shorter violins (352/353mm) are made on the P/B and the longest ones (about 355mm) on the P 1705.

 

Davide