Michael Appleman Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 The exchange about the narrow waist/less satisfying sound has been interesting. As Ben Conover pointed out, Bergonzi waists aren't all that narrow. Looking at the exhibition book, the range is from 102,3-108 with most coming out around 106, taken with a caliper, so that's pretty much 112-118 over the arch. The interesting thing about the outline is the "kink" at the corner blocks, the way the purfling doesn't flow through the corner but kinks further in at the center bout than a Strad or certainly a Del Gesu would. Personally, I've always felt that mechanically the area on the bass side of the top just above the f-hole is critical to a violin's sound. The small area of wood between the bass bar and the edge, as the violin gets wider before hitting the corner and widening dramatically, seems to me to have the most important role in impeding or allowing the bass bar to "do its job." The area tends to have a compound curve by nature, and the outline here can affect the radii dramatically, thus making it more or less stiff in a drastic way. A "kink" at the upper corner would seem to me to alter the mechanical way the plate works, and would need quite different treatment in terms of blending the channel and thicknessing compared to a Del Gesu (or even a Strad) upper corner. Modelling in my cloudy brain, I'd think lower and wider spaced f-holes would work better with the "kink," leaving a longer patch of "simple radius" arching between the f'hole and the corner. F-holes placed higher (normal stop) might "tighten-up" the area. Sorry if this is boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I am also a BIG Bergonzi fan. I have made several that are being played by exceptional players and I think I have good reason for choosing to copy his works. Carlo Bergonzi was unquestionably one of the finest and most valued violinmakers of the Cremonese classical period, and was almost certainly a more prolific maker than his rare surviving instruments suggest. In spite of great efforts by modern researchers, his working life largely remains a mystery. There is no sign of him for over 30 years and he was well into middle age before he produced the instruments, which are now accepted as his own unaided work. Most appear to have been made in a single decade, between the years 1730 and 1740. ............................................. ............................................. It may not be a popular line, but the best of Bergonzi’s work might be considered the culmination of all the knowledge and artistry that was known passed on and improved upon during the 200 years of this great school. At least that is my opinion. A beautifully succinct snapshot. Thanks so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joerobson Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Thanks Roger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewPOV Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Back in the day I held only one Bergonzi but that was enough to hook me on finishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Hi Michael Looking at the exhibition book, the range is from 102,3-108 with most coming out around 106, taken with a caliper, so that's pretty much 112-118 over the arch.... Are this values taken from outside to outside of the plate or from the inner strip of the purfling.? Roger Your history class was very inspirational Thanks Tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarloBartolini Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Thank you Roger, no words to describe the enjoyment of reading your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian bayon Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Yes! I finally decide to do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joerobson Posted November 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Christian, Beautiful work! How do you like the sound? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Hargrave Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 Christian, you really seem to have caught the spirit. The varnish looks superb. Outline, wood, edgework and sound-holes all looking great. Please post some more pictures of the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian bayon Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 Thanks Joe and Roger! This words coming from you!!!! Very good for be carrying on! On Monday I' put more view of the scroll. For the sound Joe, several violinist like it more than my Del Gésú model, next week, Vladimir Spivakov will try it. It's the "freest" violin I have made so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiingfiddler Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Bergonzi waists aren't all that narrow. Looking at the exhibition book, the range is from 102,3-108 with most coming out around 106, taken with a caliper, so that's pretty much 112-118 over the arch. Michael, In measuring the center bout widths of the backs of 4 violins I have, whose archings do not vary greatly from a Strad or del Gesu model (ie, showing nothing unusual in terms of arching), I come up with a difference of 3, maybe 4, mm between caliper and flexible tape over the arching measurements. I don't get a 10 mm difference which you're suggesting. That would be a really big difference. A 102.3 mm center bout back width (measured with caliper) for a Bergonzi would be quite narrow by year 1700+ Strad and del Gesu norms, which, judging from published numbers, seem to be around (by caliper) 108 or 109 for 1700+ Strad and a mm or so wider for del Gesu. So, if most Bergonzis come out around 106 with caliper, that's still somewhat on the narrow side by year 1700+ Strad and del Gesu norms. Steven Csik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Appleman Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Steven, your comment is pertinent. Later this week I'll do some experimenting in my shop and post some caliper vs. aver the arch results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian bayon Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 This one have a center bout at 104 (caliper) or 109 with tape. More photos: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiingfiddler Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 This one have a center bout at 104 (caliper) or 109 with tape. More photos: Christian, Are you measuring the top or the back? Is there any difference in arching height, top and back? I ask because I'm somewhat surprised that the difference between tape and caliper is as large as 5 mm, but maybe I haven't measured enough fiddles. The other issue in comparing caliper and tape measurements would be to get the two measuring devices in sync, calibrated to one another. One device may be measuring consistently longer or shorter than the other on a straight, flat surface. By doing some measurements with both devices on a ruler, one could find out if there's a consistent difference between one's specific tape and caliper when measuring a straight, flat surface. (This is something I need to do.) Anyway, I realize that finding a measurement that's 1 mm larger than I thought it might be is really no big deal, given the variation in measuring tools and the variation in fiddles, one from the next. Thanks for the photos. That's a really great looking, elegant violin. Steven Csik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Hargrave Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 This one have a center bout at 104 (caliper) or 109 with tape. More photos: Fine fiddle and it is so nice to see something other than a stradianerius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Yacey Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I recall seeing an interview with Jack Benny on Youtube where he spoke highly of Bergonzi, although he pronounced it as Bergonza. Apparently he owned a Strad, and perhaps a Bergonzi too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Molnar Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I recall seeing an interview with Jack Benny on Youtube where he spoke highly of Bergonzi, although he pronounced it as Bergonza. Apparently he owned a Strad, and perhaps a Bergonzi too. Better than that, Bill, Jack Benny called it a Brugunza. Watch the video. It is a hoot. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiingfiddler Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Jeffrey Holmes gives a list of Benny's violins in this thread. Jeffrey's is the last entry in the thread. Steven Csik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassClef Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 This Bergonzi was easily one of if not the most beautiful violins I've ever seen in person. Photos I took when it was on display at the MET museum, sorry about the focus on the scroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiingfiddler Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Bassclef, Stunning photos. Thanks. Steven Csik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian bayon Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 It's real beauty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Yacey Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I don't know if it's the display lighting, but that varnish is absolutely radiant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassClef Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I don't know if it's the display lighting, but that varnish is absolutely radiant. Here's a link to the other instruments I photographed that day, it might help provide a baseline for the lighting. The Amiti viola in the same collection might be my favorite instrument of all. It's between those two. http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/329111-are-these-violins-as-good-as-claimed-photos/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiingfiddler Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Here's a link to the other instruments I photographed that day, it might help provide a baseline for the lighting. The Amiti viola in the same collection might be my favorite instrument of all. It's between those two. http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/329111-are-these-violins-as-good-as-claimed-photos/ BassClef, As noted on the other thread, those additional photos are great. Thanks again. It looks like, as a viewer, one might have wished that the backs were as prominently displayed as were the fronts. But you can't have everything. I wonder if the display people were really violin people. It looks like they assumed that violin backs aren't as important as fronts. The back, with its more durable maple, is usually a better indication of the original outline of the instrument than is the front, and the true violin enthusiast would want to spend as much time examining the back as the front. But most people who aren't steeped in violins wouldn't know that. Steven Csik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joerobson Posted December 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Bassclef, Is that the Bergonzi Kreisler? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.