Strad (and other) models database?

[Berl Mendenhall]

Yes, great job.  Thank you for posting.

[Addie]

And I thought I could be of any help... Well, maybe another time.

Great job!

Ditto. Very impressive.

[Michael_Molnar]

Ok. so, here's the 1700-death draft.  I used the Cozio archive names for the instruments as well as I could to make it easier for people to find info on them. 

 

 

Strad model database updated draft.pdf

There are some controversial assignments in this document. For instance, according to Faber ("Stradivari's Genius") the 1709 "Viotti" is made on the PG form. That is why you need to cite the source. Anyhow, nice job.

[Davide Sora]

Ok. so, here's the 1700-death draft.  I used the Cozio archive names for the instruments as well as I could to make it easier for people to find info on them. 

 

 

Strad model database updated draft.pdf

 

Tremendous job, congratulations.

It is staggering how many violins I do not know that appear in this list, far too many have come out of that workshop.....

One thing that puzzles me is the assignments to form P (MS44) dated 1705 to violins with label of previous years, which most probably should be attributed to the form P (B).

But who knows, the labels may not be original or the form post dated.

The two forms are quite the same, the P 1705 has only a broadened lower bout, the same treatment as to the PG when it was rebuilt as a form G.

Maybe Stradivari liked fat bottomed girls......

Another puzzling thing is the absence of the S form, at least the Maurin of 1718 I'd attribute to that form, which it was also obviously very used because there is an old one and another redone in 1703 (MS2 and MS39).

[Janito]

There are some controversial assignments in this document. For instance, according to Faber ("Stradivari's Genius") the 1709 "Viotti" is made on the PG form. That is why you need to cite the source. Anyhow, nice job.

 

Magic Molnar makes good points re 'assignee' and 'good job'.

 

Seems to me that there are some variable assignments, so it would be of interest to identify which instruments these apply to as it may uncover some further insights. For example, was the rib wood more prone to expansion/contraction/distortion after removal from the Forma.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

There are some controversial assignments in this document. For instance, according to Faber ("Stradivari's Genius") the 1709 "Viotti" is made on the PG form. That is why you need to cite the source. Anyhow, nice job.

 

As I've said before, the source is the geometrical analysis I performed on the instruments, not what has been recorded previously by others.  In your 'Viotti' example, I'm aware that Faber wrote that it was from the PG form.  Strad magazine, however, wrote in an article that it was from the G form.  I wanted to decide for myself what the most likely candidate form was, not simply re-record what may or may not be true.  Similarly with the 'Habeneck', it has been recorded as both a PG and a G, by experts whos opinions I trust.  Clearly it can't be both.

 

Tremendous job, congratulations.

It is staggering how many violins I do not know that appear in this list, far too many have come out of that workshop.....

One thing that puzzles me is the assignments to form P (MS44) dated 1705 to violins with label of previous years, which most probably should be attributed to the form P (B).

But who knows, the labels may not be original or the form post dated.

The two forms are quite the same, the P 1705 has only a broadened lower bout, the same treatment as to the PG when it was rebuilt as a form G.

Maybe Stradivari liked fat bottomed girls......

Another puzzling thing is the absence of the S form, at least the Maurin of 1718 I'd attribute to that form, which it was also obviously very used because there is an old one and another redone in 1703 (MS2 and MS39).

 

I posted previously that in addition to the P MS44 and P( forms, I believe there was a third P form that was lost.  The P( is geometrically dissimilar to the P form, and is fairly easy to recognize.  Even after the appearance of the 1705 P form, I still see what I believe to be the use of two P forms (the lower bout especially has a different asymmetry between them).  I similarly believe there were two PG forms, one of them probably made in the late teens.  I do agree that the S form appears to be heavily used, although I don't really see the geometry appearing.

[Davide Sora]

 

I posted previously that in addition to the P MS44 and P( forms, I believe there was a third P form that was lost.  The P( is geometrically dissimilar to the P form, and is fairly easy to recognize.  Even after the appearance of the 1705 P form, I still see what I believe to be the use of two P forms (the lower bout especially has a different asymmetry between them).  I similarly believe there were two PG forms, one of them probably made in the late teens.  I do agree that the S form appears to be heavily used, although I don't really see the geometry appearing.

 

Good remark, there is always the tendency to consider that the forms in the museum are the only ones, but I also think that in a workshop with a so prolific production  as that of Stradivari, the existence of pairs of forms of the same model would probably be desirable.

I have noticed some odd things with some P form violins that do not seem to match up with the two existing forms, but undoubtedly made on that model, actually explainable with a third form  of the same model now lost.

However I do not see much difference in terms of geometry between the two existent P forms, only the lower part is a little different, but the position of C, of corner blocks and the upper bout are pretty much the same, at least by comparing the photos of Pollens.

The S 1703 form seems very little used (although his older sister is instead pretty consumed ) which suggests maybe a sporadic use after 1703 or so, and this may explain the rarity of violins made on this form after that year.

[John Harte]

Ok. so, here's the 1700-death draft.  I used the Cozio archive names for the instruments as well as I could to make it easier for people to find info on them. 

 

 

Strad model database updated draft.pdf

 

Thank you for your great work!

 

Several possible amendments:

 

According to Peter Beare, The Alard 1715 was produced on the PG form.

 

The Leslie Tate 1710 is likely another.  The back outline that I took off this instrument quite nicely fits the PG form drawing that I have.  It does not fit on the G form drawing.

 

The Loder 1729 outline that I took off this instrument does not fit the G form.  This outline is slightly shorter than the Leslie Tate outline making it a less comfortable fit on the PG.  Corner profiles aside, the best fit seems to be the P1705 form.

 

The Maurin 1718 outline that I have doesn't fit the G form either.  (I didn't take this outline.)  I have a vague recollection of hearing that the P1705 form might have been involved here, but also see the PG as a prospect...

[Davide Sora]

Thank you for your great work!

 

Several possible amendments:

 

According to Peter Beare, The Alard 1715 was produced on the PG form.

 

The Leslie Tate 1710 is likely another.  The back outline that I took off this instrument quite nicely fits the PG form drawing that I have.  It does not fit on the G form drawing.

 

The Loder 1729 outline that I took off this instrument does not fit the G form.  This outline is slightly shorter than the Leslie Tate outline making it a less comfortable fit on the PG.  Corner profiles aside, the best fit seems to be the P1705 form.

 

The Maurin 1718 outline that I have doesn't fit the G form either.  (I didn't take this outline.)  I have a vague recollection of hearing that the P1705 form might have been involved here, but also see the PG as a prospect...

 

Other observations on the few violins in the list that I know (only 28):

 

Viotti 1709 :  G form, not PG (back at 358 mm suggest a pretty new G form)

Alard 1715 : PG form, not G (based only on visual impression)

Oppenheim 1716 : PG form, not P (overall impression and flat lower corners external curves)

Provigny 1716 :  P form, not G (shorter lenght than G violins, rounder lower bout and lower corners external curves)

Maurin 1718  :  S 1703 form, not G (shorter lenght than G violins, squarer upper bout especially where the curves approaches the upper block)

Abergavenny 1724 : PG form, not G (overall impression with doubt, I do not know the exact measurements, if it was 357 or 358 long I could change my mind)

[The Violin Beautiful]

This is an awesome project Thank you for putting the work in to compile this list, Advocatus! I'll be enjoying this for a long time and look forward to the list of early Strads.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Davide,

 

Here are photos of the Maurin overlayed on the G form and S (MS2).  Although it isn't a completely perfect fit via the photo, it's the closest match by far.  I also have three tracing of it, and they all match the G form extremely well.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Looking at my notes, I have the Abergavanny recorded with a LOB of 358ish.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The Provigny has a back length of 356.2(?), which would point to a PG.  The geometry, however, points to a G with the locating pins set slightly too close together, thus squishing the rib structure a bit.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Reading through this thread I would urge some caution re sources.

 

1/ Photos are not reliably dimensionally proportionate representations ( even really good full size photos)

 

2/ Strad posters are not always reliable 

 

3/Other people's outline tracings are not necessarily entirely reliable depending on method etc.

 

4/ never rely on other people's measurements

 

5/ Other peoples measurements can be entirely accurate but still give a misleading impression. ( For instance a back and front from the same fiddle could easily be 2mm different in length)

[Davide Sora]

Reading through this thread I would urge some caution re sources.

 

1/ Photos are not reliably dimensionally proportionate representations ( even really good full size photos)

 

2/ Strad posters are not always reliable 

 

3/Other people's outline tracings are not necessarily entirely reliable depending on method etc.

 

4/ never rely on other people's measurements

 

5/ Other peoples measurements can be entirely accurate but still give a misleading impression. ( For instance a back and front from the same fiddle could easily be 2mm different in length)

I agree, these are the inevitable problems of this type of research, but I do not think will ever be possible to have the absolute certainty of all these parameters, except not to measure and see in person all the violins, calibrating the photographs (taken by the same lens) one by one on their own measures.

But this of course is not realistic, so I think that with a bit of care and common sense something interesting could still get out.

After all we should not create lifesaving medicines, then the risk of making some mistakes can not hurt anyone, except to those who lose their time doing research.

Anyway I would add to your list also the different measuring tools and the possible confusion among violins with similar names.

[Michael_Molnar]

Maybe the Devil's Advocate now appreciates my request for citing sources for a form match. This is not easy stuff - always very controversial. Still, I want to commend the Martian for taking a shot at this. 

 

Davide, I disagree with your assignment for the Viotti 1709. Using F. Denis' work, I find the Viotti matches the PG form. Moreover, the line of center for the inner c-bouts is off center from those of the upper and lower bouts. There is also some other small asymmetry in the lower bout. 

[pbelin]

I find that the f-hole placement on the viotti suggests a PG form. He probably experimented a bit with that, but I find G forms tend to have the ffs more upright, the bottom holes being closer together.

[Davide Sora]

Davide, I disagree with your assignment for the Viotti 1709. Using F. Denis' work, I find the Viotti matches the PG form. Moreover, the line of center for the inner c-bouts is off center from those of the upper and lower bouts. There is also some other small asymmetry in the lower bout. 

 

In fact it is not easy to see clearly whether G or PG.

First let's see if we are talking about the same violin

I am speaking of the 1709 Viotti-Bruce, now in the possession of the Royal Academy of Music, the one of the posters of The Strad.

As you probably know the photos on this poster are not accurate, 3mm shorther and about 1 mm narrower, also the drawing on the back is 1 mm shorter, width about ok.

I refer to the photo on the Greiner-Brandmair book Violin varnish, which has length and widths more accurate.

What makes me lean more towards the form G is the tipically longer lower bout, but also a lower block left most protruding could result in this added lenght with the PG......

Looking at the C bout, not too wide and nicely round, me too would be inclined to think of form PG, but the same effect may be obtained with G form with tight ribs on the form (or that have a little approached during gluing),and a slightly diminished edge overhang......

Maybe a CT scan at the level of ribs could remove some doubt, although the possible movements of the ribs during the gluing would always remain a  non-eliminable variable.

So you are right to disagree, the match is possible with both forms if we consider the possible variables of the working process.

From the standpoint of practical use I consider these two forms roughly equivalent.

[Peter K-G]

Just a silly question, what purpose does such list serve? (no offence meant)

The reliability is questionable because a photo can be skewed in many ways.

If you don't know for sure the exact length and widths of the bouts, it's almost impossible to make reference to match a forma.

 

And if one is really into copying the real instrument has to be studied from all angles possible anyway.

 

I am interesting in how the outline of  P, G and PG looks on top of each other though.

[Davide Sora]

Looking at my notes, I have the Abergavanny recorded with a LOB of 358ish.

 

Then G form may be more appropriate (but see also my post #68)

 

The Provigny has a back length of 356.2(?), which would point to a PG.  The geometry, however, points to a G with the locating pins set slightly too close together, thus squishing the rib structure a bit.

 

Are we talking about the same violin?

I refer to the violin that is in the "Musee de la musique" of Paris, which appears in the book "Antonio Stradivari, the 1987 Cremona exhibition" By Charles Beare and Bruce Carlson.

Back lenght of 355 mm and top lenght of 352,5 mm, with very asimmetrical back lower bout and a an overall shape that which makes me think more to form P than the PG (I would exclude the G with those lenght) but of course my impression is questionable.....

I do not understand the matter of locating pins : why should they cause the squishing of ribs?

[Michael_Molnar]

Good analysis, Davide. Yes, we are talking about the same violin.

 

Peter, properly assigning the violins to their forms opens another historical window to Stradivari's shop. It also gets us thinking about what we see.

[Peter K-G]

Good analysis, Davide. Yes, we are talking about the same violin.

 

Peter, properly assigning the violins to their forms opens another historical window to Stradivari's shop. It also gets us thinking about what we see.

 

True!

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I am interesting in how the outline of  P, G and PG looks on top of each other though.

The biggest difference between the PG and P is in the upper half of the lower bout: starting at the widest point of the LB, the P form has a slightly tighter radius than the PG.  The corner constraints are also shifted about 1mm toward the center on the P.  Think of the upper half of the G (top block to lower corners) as similar to the PG, but with the widest point of the LB shifted very slightly downward, and the radii below the widest point of the LB slightly larger.

[Addie]

Here is the actual difference between the P, PG, and G.  PDF @ 50%

 

 

P G PG Overlay.pdf

[Addie]

And before anyone asks (Peter ) The P and PG

 

 

P PG Overlay.pdf