What's missing?

[Conor Russell]

For most of us, 'what's missing' changes with every new violin, from the cradle to the grave, at least in our own work. That's what keeps us learning, and with a bit of luck improving.

 

When I started out, and saw my first decent French trade fiddle, to be able to make something as cleanly as that was the ultimate goal. It took seeing a few really good violins for me to realise that there was much more to it all than tidy edges and polished varnish. 

 

Seeing the makers hand and personality in the work is very important for me. A well educated hand is usually pretty obvious. The old Cremonese makers had the benefit of unbroken generations of learning and teaching. If anything is missing, it's that unbroken chain. The bowmakers are so lucky - they have a lineage that stretches all the way back to Tourte. 

 

But since we have so many examples of the great makers' work, we can take them as our teachers,and guided by our talented and generous colleagues, that's not a bad start. The great thing is to avoid getting too hung up on some particular aspect, and getting sidetracked. I actually think it's all pretty simple, and that with an open mind, and a decent eye, you can make great fiddles. 

 

I'm pleased to tell you Lucitano, that most of the science is completely lost on me. But I'm not sure that it's all that necessary anyway. 

[Craig Tucker]

 

I'm pleased to tell you Lucitano, that most of the science is completely lost on me. But I'm not sure that it's all that necessary anyway. 

 

Well, there you go.

A second point we probably almost agree on.

"the science" is something that changes - often radically - from person to person, or from "scientist" to "scientist'. Not that I mind this or these views, mind you, It just isn't a view that I adopt in my own making, or even my own thinking.

"The science is" most usually based on an idea. A personal observation, lets say. And the ideas are usually simply personal beliefs - or "arbitrary". The science that comes afterwards might be true and accurate, but I'm thinking that it is mostly *based* on false assumptions.

 

Oh well.

[Lusitano]

Oh, come on. Many posters on this forum have incorporated the Greiner/Brandmair findings into their work. Their findings are actually not a million miles away from the procedures that folks like Roger Hargrave, Neil Ertz, Melvin Goldsmith and others have developed and have been using for years. Like Eno's Fat Lady of Limbourg, "their sense of taste is such that they'll distinguish with their tongues..... The subtleties a spectrograph would miss......"

Speaking for myself, the only step that I use that is not broadly consistent with the most recent research in this area is the use of a mineral ground. I will continue to do so for practical reasons, not because I think it's the secret of stradivari.

 

Well then I stand corrected, curious that your instruments as well as the ones from the makers you listed as soo well seen! I personally like them, I wonder why that is.... Have all of you actually started using drying oils as grounds? When did that happen and where did you get the old artist's recipe from!?

 

For most of us, 'what's missing' changes with every new violin, from the cradle to the grave, at least in our own work. That's what keeps us learning, and with a bit of luck improving.

 

When I started out, and saw my first decent French trade fiddle, to be able to make something as cleanly as that was the ultimate goal. It took seeing a few really good violins for me to realise that there was much more to it all than tidy edges and polished varnish. 

 

Seeing the makers hand and personality in the work is very important for me. A well educated hand is usually pretty obvious. The old Cremonese makers had the benefit of unbroken generations of learning and teaching. If anything is missing, it's that unbroken chain. The bowmakers are so lucky - they have a lineage that stretches all the way back to Tourte. 

 

But since we have so many examples of the great makers' work, we can take them as our teachers,and guided by our talented and generous colleagues, that's not a bad start. The great thing is to avoid getting too hung up on some particular aspect, and getting sidetracked. I actually think it's all pretty simple, and that with an open mind, and a decent eye, you can make great fiddles. 

 

I'm pleased to tell you Lucitano, that most of the science is completely lost on me. But I'm not sure that it's all that necessary anyway. 

 

It really isn't necessary, it just went and proved to everyone that simplicity is key to making the work pop and that people are drastically overcomplicating something with little tangible results even when the recipe is spelled out for them! Who cares if you don't know what the hell a biomolecule or a peptide bond is, as long as you understand that the varnish everyone is trying to copy is very simple in nature, you got the point of the research

 

Well, there you go.

A second point we probably almost agree on.

"the science" is something that changes - often radically - from person to person, or from "scientist" to "scientist'. Not that I mind this or these views, mind you, It just isn't a view that I adopt in my own making, or even my own thinking.

"The science is" most usually based on an idea. A personal observation, lets say. And the ideas are usually simply personal beliefs - or "arbitrary". The science that comes afterwards might be true and accurate, but I'm thinking that it is mostly *based* on false assumptions.

 

Oh well.

 

Craig here we go again How are findings from mechanical analysis via spec of Strad's varnish (basically you put samples in, it shoots lasers at the sample, it records the findings and pretty much tells us every single componente in the varnish to a degree of error which is literally so extremely small you would have better luck winning the lottery 3 times in a row with the same algorithms) subjective? Science doesn't change from person to person/scientist to scientist, I think you are confusing creeds and religion/personal opinions with science Craig

 

 

1- Without any chance of error, there was no protein coat, this means that there is absolutely no hide glue sizing, no gelatin sealer, no human blood yada yada, nada...The proteins found in the varnish are trace proteins most likely from the brush used or the maker's hands.

2- The pigments found are - trace amounts of cinnabar and a lot of iron oxide prima rally.

3- There was nothing in the wood that colored it initially, the structure was not "ossified" or treated in anyway as the cellular structure maintains the same characteristics it would only if it hadn't been tampered with. 

4- The sealer/ground layer comprised of drying oils commonly found in that period of time and impreganted the top layer of cells with no trance of anything on the interior of the instrument.

5- there are 3 layers present only and they are not that thick.

 

There you go, now would you PLEASE accept once and for all that although Strad and the cremonese were absolute geniuses their varnish is actually genius in it's simplicity and that the reason why so few people manage to produce anything remotely like it is simply because they create wild theories and refuse to go simple?!

 

I mean seriously, what exactly is it going to take for people to open up a bit and understand that THIS whole thing is done to help them and is totally unbiased the research HAS been redone N times with peer review mixed into it!

[Craig Tucker]

 

"The Fat Lady of Limbourg"

Brian Eno....

 

Well, I rang up Pantucci,
Spoke to Lu-chi,
I gave them all
They needed to know.
If affairs are proceeding
As we're expecting,
Soon enough the weak spots will show.
I assume you understand that we have options on your time,
And will ditch you in the harbour if we must:
But if it all works out nicely,
You'll get the bonus you deserve
From doctors we trust.

The Fat Lady of Limbourg
Looked at the samples that we sent
And furrowed her brow.
You would never believe that
She'd tasted royalty and fame
If you saw her now.
But her sense of taste is such that she'll distinguish with her tongue
The subtleties a spectrograph would miss,
And announce her decision,
While demanding her reward:
The jellyfish kiss.

Now we checked out this duck quack
Who laid a big egg, oh so black
It shone just like gold.
And the kids from the city,
Finding it pretty, took it home,
And there it was sold.
It was changing hands for weeks till someone left it by their fire
And it melted to a puddle on the floor:
For it was only a candle, a Roman scandal oh oh oh,
Now it's a pool.
That's what we're paid for
That's what we're paid for
That's what we're paid for here.

[Conor Russell]

 

"Well then I stand corrected, curious that your instruments as well as the ones from the makers you listed as soo well seen! I personally like them, I wonder why that is.... Have all of you actually started using drying oils as grounds? When did that happen and where did you get the old artist's recipe from!?"

 

Many makers have used a light wipe of oil as the ground. Wilf Saunders put linseed oil that had soaked up the colour from Alkenet root, and dried it in the sun, which turned it from a pink to a nice warm gold. The Idea of oils for ground is nothing new to modern makers, and I think it can be lovely.

 

But oil can travel, and you could very easily find oil in the surface of the wood that had migrated from another layer. I do appreciate the importance of research, but I think that just knowing what's there doesn't necessarily tell us the whole story.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

 

 

 

 

 

1- Without any chance of error, there was no protein coat, this means that there is absolutely no hide glue sizing, no gelatin sealer, no human blood yada yada, nada...The proteins found in the varnish are trace proteins most likely from the brush used or the maker's hands.

2- The pigments found are - trace amounts of cinnabar and a lot of iron oxide prima rally.

3- There was nothing in the wood that colored it initially, the structure was not "ossified" or treated in anyway as the cellular structure maintains the same characteristics it would only if it hadn't been tampered with. 

4- The sealer/ground layer comprised of drying oils commonly found in that period of time and impreganted the top layer of cells with no trance of anything on the interior of the instrument.

5- there are 3 layers present only and they are not that thick.

 

There you go, now would you PLEASE accept once and for all that although Strad and the cremonese were absolute geniuses their varnish is actually genius in it's simplicity and that the reason why so few people manage to produce anything remotely like it is simply because they create wild theories and refuse to go simple?!

 

I mean seriously, what exactly is it going to take for people to open up a bit and understand that THIS whole thing is done to help them and is totally unbiased the research HAS been redone N times with peer review mixed into it!

Hi Lusitano,

Your summary above does not really concur with what Brandmair and Greiner published in their Stradivari Varnish book. Have you read that book? 

[Craig Tucker]

 Craig here we go again How are findings from mechanical analysis via spec of Strad's varnish (basically you put samples in, it shoots lasers at the sample, it records the findings and pretty much tells us every single componente in the varnish to a degree of error which is literally so extremely small you would have better luck winning the lottery 3 times in a row with the same algorithms) subjective? Science doesn't change from person to person/scientist to scientist, I think you are confusing creeds and religion/personal opinions with science Craig

 

1- Without any chance of error, there was no protein coat, this means that there is absolutely no hide glue sizing, no gelatin sealer, no human blood yada yada, nada...The proteins found in the varnish are trace proteins most likely from the brush used or the maker's hands.

2- The pigments found are - trace amounts of cinnabar and a lot of iron oxide prima rally.

3- There was nothing in the wood that colored it initially, the structure was not "ossified" or treated in anyway as the cellular structure maintains the same characteristics it would only if it hadn't been tampered with. 

4- The sealer/ground layer comprised of drying oils commonly found in that period of time and impreganted the top layer of cells with no trance of anything on the interior of the instrument.

5- there are 3 layers present only and they are not that thick.

 

There you go, now would you PLEASE accept once and for all that although Strad and the cremonese were absolute geniuses their varnish is actually genius in it's simplicity and that the reason why so few people manage to produce anything remotely like it is simply because they create wild theories and refuse to go simple?!

 

I mean seriously, what exactly is it going to take for people to open up a bit and understand that THIS whole thing is done to help them and is totally unbiased the research HAS been redone N times with peer review mixed into it!

 

Yes, and my particular thinking is that "what's missing" isn't, and hasn't been, a 'varnish secret'..., period

I understand the amount of "research" that has gone into the 'varnish question', and yes, I understand why. At least, I understand many of the why's involved. I do understand that there is a mystique equated with the varnish(s) used by the Cremonese, that in the main - transcends reality... In many ways - it's so grand, it's so individual, it's so un-reproduce-able - and all the rest of it.

 

That's why I started and posted my own experiments and experiences with oil based "Spar Varnish" which many people also experimented with, and used, or which many people say cannot, in any respect, be used because is much too "plastic", and all the rest of it...

But the fact is that a varnish must be used on violins made today, and this varnish (I'm thinking about looking for and posting another varnish that works GREAT, since they stopped makng this varnish that I wrote about) - since the bulk of posters seem to have some difficulty finding and using something readily available, and cheap.

 

Well, the truth is that today there is no Cremonese Varnish available off of the shelf and any and everything used is "experimental" at least to a degree.

 

No. I don't really think that varnish has much to do with "what's missing" with regard to Cremonese violins, and their general superiority...

But hey, that's just me. Everyone has their own ideas about "what's missing" and what's not. I just thought it might be interesting to find out what others thought

 

Thanks, as usual, for your in depth answer(s) and your great participation in this discussion. Where would I be without answers like yours that make me think, or make me re-think other options, other variables...

[not telling]

That cryptic comment almost makes it less creepy that you want to know my identity so bad that you want to pay cash money to someone who would sell me out, and then get in a physical fight with me. And this just in, you hate science. Oh, but see? Eno. Oh, ok. You couldn't be that bad.

:-S

Just giving you ****. Don't take it the wrong way.

[Craig Tucker]

 

:-S

Just giving you ****. Don't take it the wrong way.

 

I like getting ****.

 

(But, you knew that, right?)

[MikeC]

Lusitano,  are you referring to Echard's analysis of Strads that were produced over a period of several decades?  Also worth noting that he found no trace of a thick mineral ground.    What is the provenance of the samples in the other studies that did find mineral ground? 

 

"not that thick"   Perhaps because of wear and polishing.  I think original varnish coatings may have been a little thicker than most think.   

[not telling]

Ew. I think you just took it the exact wrong way. Good lord. Someone say something else about varnish, quick.

What about organic gums as "sealers" ? An analysis would not show protein. I think many methods in use then would not be really distinguished by analysis...wood treatment for example, or protective grounds like gums meant to seal out the endgrain even temporarily. The idea of rubbing straight oil into wood seems less logical for acoustics. The literature also does not suggest that any artists of the period prepared wood for varnishing or coatings with oil alone.

Mike C, there is definitely enough CaCO3 to support at least plaster, gesso, chalk, and more...and enough silica to start thinking of DE shaving grass, that sort of thing. Iron oxide was found in high quantities in the regional dirt (think venetian red). Even if it doesn't look like a layer I think some minerals are there, and there are effects acoustically.

But who knows????

[John Harte]

Lusitano,  are you referring to Echard's analysis of Strads that were produced over a period of several decades?  Also worth noting that he found no trace of a thick mineral ground.    What is the provenance of the samples in the other studies that did find mineral ground? 

 

"not that thick"   Perhaps because of wear and polishing.  I think original varnish coatings may have been a little thicker than most think.   

 

Mike, in the case of the mineral ground study my guess is that provenance is not the issue but most likely the interpretation of analytical data.

 

I suspect that you are at least partially correct re thicknesses.

[Carl Stross]

 The idea of rubbing straight oil into wood seems less logical for acoustics. The literature also does not suggest that any artists of the period prepared wood for varnishing or coatings with oil alone.

 

 

"The literature"...   What "literature" ?  

[Marty Kasprzyk]

What about organic gums as "sealers" ?

I've been using cherry gum as a sealer/ground on both the inside and outside of the tops, backs, and ribs.  The outside surfaces have additional oil varnish layers. It seems to work alright.

 

I haven't tried adding water soluble color to the cherry gum.  I suspect that cherry gum darkens with age like cherry wood does.  Some globs I've gotten off of trees are nearly water clear while others go continuously darker to dark amber.  Attached is a photo of a few.

[not telling]

"The literature"... What "literature" ?

"The literature" in the definite article sense refers to the same things anyone else might be reading, Carl. I feel like everyone else has the awesome information , but Cennini, de Mayerne, the Baese hook, Sacconi, Dipper's writings/research etc.come Immediately to mind. I also have some books no one on MN ever talks about, and I won't either. I'll just quote them and maybe sound like I know something. Everyone knows the truth.

[Carl Stross]

"The literature" in the definite areicle sense refers to the same things anyone else might be reading, Carl. I feel like everyone else has the awesome information , but Cennini, de Mayerne, the Baese book, Dipper's writings/research etc.come Immediately to mind. I also have some books no one on MN ever talks about, and I won't either. I'll just quote them and maybe sound like I know something. Everyone knows the truth.

 

You do realize that if it's in a book or on MN the chances of it being "true" or "working" are about nill.

[Lusitano]

Lusitano,  are you referring to Echard's analysis of Strads that were produced over a period of several decades?  Also worth noting that he found no trace of a thick mineral ground.    What is the provenance of the samples in the other studies that did find mineral ground? 

 

"not that thick"   Perhaps because of wear and polishing.  I think original varnish coatings may have been a little thicker than most think.   

 

I am As well as some other tid bits that have been published

 

You are correct about the actual varnish being worn, on many a Strad (truth be told) there is a shadow of what can be considered "true" varnish left, the ground layers are what survived! The trace minerals were in such quantity that it ruled out mineral layer grounds also, thank you for mentioning that

 

Mike, in the case of the mineral ground study my guess is that provenance is not the issue but most likely the interpretation of analytical data.

 

I suspect that you are at least partially correct re thicknesses.

 

I didn't really catch what you were trying to say? There is no interpretation for "no mineral coating or layer was found" on any sample....

 

Ew. I think you just took it the exact wrong way. Good lord. Someone say something else about varnish, quick.

What about organic gums as "sealers" ? An analysis would not show protein. I think many methods in use then would not be really distinguished by analysis...wood treatment for example, or protective grounds like gums meant to seal out the endgrain even temporarily. The idea of rubbing straight oil into wood seems less logical for acoustics. The literature also does not suggest that any artists of the period prepared wood for varnishing or coatings with oil alone.

Mike C, there is definitely enough CaCO3 to support at least plaster, gesso, chalk, and more...and enough silica to start thinking of DE shaving grass, that sort of thing. Iron oxide was found in high quantities in the regional dirt (think venetian red). Even if it doesn't look like a layer I think some minerals are there, and there are effects acoustically.

But who knows????

 

Now why on earth would modern spectrometers not find the resemblance of decomposed proteins in said study? The study was not only based on chemical analysis but also on electron microscope imagery... I repeat, there was no visible or chemical basis to state that an intentional layer comprised of any sort of mineral was used on the instruments.

 

"The literature"...   What "literature" ?  

 

Strad left a tutorial!? PLEASE do share it

[Lusitano]

Further clarification! I did NOT say, nor does the research state that the wood was impregnated with oil (as in raw oil or anything of the sort!), what was found was a very hard layer of polymerized DRYING artist oils (apparently the same used by artists of the time period) which do not go past the first layers of cells in the instrument's body. This is what was seen and recorded via the spec analysis.

 

Mr. JS's father seems to have been doing (as many also have) what strad most likely did himself. Now what specific ingredients did they actually use, how was it applied and how did they treat the varnish is something anyone who professes the superiority of the cremonese varnish work should be trying to look into.

 

Homework - historic research into oil paint used by artists as well as suppliers/manufacturers of furniture/general varnish from the time period Strad lived in and in a logical vicinity. Oh wait a clock tick... Hasn't Joe Robson actually done this sort of thing already? Isn't he concocting a special brew atm?.... Hmmm.... Didn't Strad himself mention that the varnish he used took ages to dry, hmmmmmmmmm

[John Harte]

I didn't really catch what you were trying to say? There is no interpretation for "no mineral coating or layer was found" on any sample....

 

 

Lusitano, I was referring to the Barlow and Woodhouse particulate ground study.

[not telling]

Yes, several studies of ground and varnish layers exist. Minerals were found in the earlier studies. I was referring to those. I don't have the Brandmair/ Greiner book. That's the thing now, huh. So they didn't see that layer? Why, pray tell, did multiple other studies find that calcium carbonate and iron oxide, etc.? And a dozen other minerals? Why is no one asking what the ...heck...is going on?

Also...I hope readers will agree that people like Andrew Dipper, Roger Hargrave, John Dilworth, and others are in the business of sharing real information. I know they are. They maybe don't share everything they know, but should they? I am very sure that luthiers who know what their hands are doing, and who read, have a major edge. To deny that is absurd imho.

As for Strad's varnish...

I have no idea just like everyone else. I've never smelled it or touched it when it was new. I don't think it's accurate to say that there's so little true information floating around, though. Some people know more than others. How am I representing myself as knowing more than nothing? I don't. I can point to those "some people" and say I'm going to read and try to understand the main ideas. I know how to do research. I get the sense that many professionals in this field do not read much.

[JohnCockburn]

Has anyone ever carried out the rather obvious reality check of applying modern analytical techniques to a contemporary instrument with a known (but not to the investigator) varnish system and composition?

[John Harte]

Has anyone ever carried out the rather obvious reality check of applying modern analytical techniques to a contemporary instrument with a known (but not to the investigator) varnish system and composition?

 

John, this is probably not quite what you have in mind but may be worth a look...

 

Lattuati-Derieux A., Gomes S., Tirat S., Thao-Heu S., Echard J.-P., New insights into molecular evolution of oil/colophony varnishes: towards Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry-based quantitation, e-Preservation Science, 2014, 11, pp.54-63.

 

You can download this here: http://echard.fr/publications.html

 

There are various studies that have involved the analyses of individual resins and oils, these aimed at producing reference spectra.   I vaguely recall having some older studies involving analyses of varnishes of known composition but, following a quick look, haven't been able to find these. 

 

During the early 1990s I was able to check out a range of ground systems and varnish samples that I had prepared using SEM/EDAX.  This was done in an attempt to better understand the Barlow and Woodhouse particulate ground study.  SEMs have evolved enormously since so what I had access to probably could not be considered modern...

[JohnCockburn]

John, this is probably not quite what you have in mind but may be worth a look...

 

Lattuati-Derieux A., Gomes S., Tirat S., Thao-Heu S., Echard J.-P., New insights into molecular evolution of oil/colophony varnishes: towards Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry-based quantitation, e-Preservation Science, 2014, 11, pp.54-63.

 

You can download this here: http://echard.fr/publications.html

 

There are various studies that have involved the analyses of individual resins and oils, these aimed at producing reference spectra.   I vaguely recall having some older studies involving analyses of varnishes of known composition but, following a quick look, haven't been able to find these. 

 

During the early 1990s I was able to check out a range of ground systems and varnish samples that I had prepared using SEM/EDAX.  This was done in an attempt to better understand the Barlow and Woodhouse particulate ground study.  SEMs have evolved enormously since so what I had access to probably could not be considered modern...

Thanks, John. I'll take a look at that later.

By the way (this is not addressed directly to you John), I'm all in favour of the view that is often put forward that the Cremonese were working craftsmen, with little time to waste, and that this should inform our speculation on their working methods. It would seem to me that the most simple and effective way to produce a highly coloured oil varnish is by using one or more pigments, and that the most simple and effective way to make that varnish look good over white wood is to stain the latter.

The other point is, of course, that surely it's highly unlikely that Strad, for example, used the same varnish process for all his instruments? I'm not one of the lucky chaps that sees Strads up close on a daily basis, but on my frequent visits to the RAM museum in London, I always find the difference in, say the Viotti and the Habaneck very striking in this respect. Same applies to the instruments in the big Ashmolean exhibition. Does anyone really think these were all varnished using identical materials and processes?

Feel free to treat this as a straw man argument. Knock it down, burn it, educate me.

[Carl Stross]

Has anyone ever carried out the rather obvious reality check of applying modern analytical techniques to a contemporary instrument with a known (but not to the investigator) varnish system and composition?

 

Yes, it's been done quite a bit.

[JohnCockburn]

Yes, it's been done quite a bit.

what happened?