Strad (and other) models database?

[Peter K-G]

Thanks Addie

 

You are the Forma master!

[Peter K-G]

So the G form isn't the fairest of them all  

 

I was wrong, P is the fairest 

[Addie]

P.S. forms are shown centered vertically and horizontally.

[John Harte]

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

 

 

Davide, I would be very surprised if the Maurin was produced on the S1703 form.

 

Caliper measurements for the Maurin can be seen here:

https://www.ram.ac.uk/museum/item/25089

 

As I have mentioned, based on the outline that I have for this instrument and the drawings that I have for each form, I suspect that the P or PG forms are better prospects.

Having said this, Melvin's very valid points made in Post #64 must be considered!

[Addie]

Here's a slightly better alignment of the G to the P and PG.  The G corners only show on the right hand side.

 

 

P G PG Overlay-2.pdf

[Berl Mendenhall]

After looking at Addie's overlays, one almost has to ask.  Is there really any notable difference "that matters"?  Could these be basically the same?  There certainly isn't huge differences.  There seems to be no rhyme or reason why they bounced around from one to the other.  As large as the production was in the Stradivari shop, I'm certain they had several fiddles going at once.   As well as cellos and guitars.  I've never experimented with all three shapes.  Anyone tried this and does the difference in these really matter?  I hope these questions don't sound too silly, there are so many unanswered questions about their working methods.

[Addie]

The difference between the P and PG is mainly in the radius of the corners--hardly earth-shattering.

If you think about it, the radii of the cross arches probably matter more than pointy corners. One of Davide Sora's videos hints that he pays attention to the arch radii.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Agreed that the arching is much more important tonally than the form used.  Also, keep in mind that this is a draft list, and I focused exclusively on geometry without taking any measurements into account.

[Davide Sora]

Davide, I would be very surprised if the Maurin was produced on the S1703 form.

 

Caliper measurements for the Maurin can be seen here:

https://www.ram.ac.uk/museum/item/25089

 

As I have mentioned, based on the outline that I have for this instrument and the drawings that I have for each form, I suspect that the P or PG forms are better prospects.

Having said this, Melvin's very valid points made in Post #64 must be considered!

 

Thanks for the link.

Measures, measures....It seems that Mr.Rattray has changed its caliper.....

On his book "Masterpieces of italian violin making" of the Royal Academy he gives these measures for the Maurin : back 354.5 - 166.6 - 109.4 - 205.3, stop lenght 192.2, but now on the website have become 355 - 166.75 - 113 - 206.75, stop lenght 193.

What strikes me is the difference between the numbers that I have highlighted in bold and also the fact that on the website are the same whether taken with the caliper that over arch.....(Melvin will think "I warned you" when he reads this   ).

When I saw this violin (here in Cremona in 2003) did not give me the impression of typical forms P, PG or G for its different appearance of proportions, giving a more upright and squarer overall impression with the lower bout less wide and the upper bout squarer.

There was something strange that did not convince me with the outline, that does not seem like the three classical forms (P-PG-G), so I began to think about the form S (of which it show some similar asymmetris, but this is a bit far-fetched).

Not at all sure of this attribution, but somewhere there must be violins made on this form, they can not be gone all destroyed.

Of course with a C bout at 113mm I would have also led to think of the form G, but observing it along with the 1708 Regent  from the same collection (which I put on the form G as also states Rattray) I would never say that could come from the same form.

It should be investigated further to clarify some details, but for me it remains a question mark next to the letter of the form.

[Davide Sora]

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.

Excellent description of the differences, I fully agree.

[Davide Sora]

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

 

 

And before anyone asks (Peter ) The P and PG

 

 

Here's a slightly better alignment of the G to the P and PG.  The G corners only show on the right hand side.

 

 Thanks Addie, great job as usual.

[Davide Sora]

After looking at Addie's overlays, one almost has to ask.  Is there really any notable difference "that matters"?  Could these be basically the same?  There certainly isn't huge differences.  There seems to be no rhyme or reason why they bounced around from one to the other.  As large as the production was in the Stradivari shop, I'm certain they had several fiddles going at once.   As well as cellos and guitars.  I've never experimented with all three shapes.  Anyone tried this and does the difference in these really matter?  I hope these questions don't sound too silly, there are so many unanswered questions about their working methods.

 

From the structural point of view, they are practically the same, I use them regularly for my violins just because the construction parameters are interchangeable and comparable.

Only the form P leads to some slight differences in treating the transition of arching in the channel at the corners, because of the position of the corner blocks just more inside at the bouts.

I think it's just a matter of aesthetic difference, P is more rounded, amphora-shaped, with the corners more skinny and elegant, while the PG and G give an impression stronger and massive.

[Michael_Molnar]

Thanks, guys.

[Berl Mendenhall]

This topic has been great, thank you for everyones input. I have one question that I don't think has been covered. Why the initialed necks? If these forms aren't much different, why worry about the neck? Even the longer G form, if you divide the extra distance in half, the stop still can't be more than a couple mm's. I don't understand why a longer or shorter neck would would be needed, if that is the reason for the leters inside the peg box. Hope I made myself clear.

[Addie]

No takers?

 

I don't know how many necks there are that are marked.  Anyone?

 

But the Stradivari workshop patterns are meticulously marked in matching sets.  Maybe old Antonio was a neat freak?  Or, with all of those apprentices that must have worked in his shop, it was necessary to mark everything.  Sort of like tool outlines on the pegboard today. 

 

[Berl Mendenhall]

I don't know Addie, maybe the thread is waring thin, or maybe it's a ridiculous question. After looking at your overlays and the similarities of the center one third section of all forms I would say it's the most important part acousticly. I bet if you looked at the archings in this area of all three models, it would be the same. Just some thoughts.

[pbelin]

Different stop lengths, different neck lengths?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I'd add 'Different string lengths', as well.

[Davide Sora]

 I have one question that I don't think has been covered. Why the initialed necks? If these forms aren't much different, why worry about the neck? Even the longer G form, if you divide the extra distance in half, the stop still can't be more than a couple mm's. I don't understand why a longer or shorter neck would would be needed, if that is the reason for the leters inside the peg box. Hope I made myself clear.

 

 

I don't know how many necks there are that are marked.  Anyone?

 

But the Stradivari workshop patterns are meticulously marked in matching sets.  Maybe old Antonio was a neat freak?  Or, with all of those apprentices that must have worked in his shop, it was necessary to mark everything.  Sort of like tool outlines on the pegboard today. 

 

I think Antonio was a little "neat freak" with inscriptions

But it could be useful to distinguish the necks for the smaller forms (T, Q), or to match the wood of the neck with that of the back, even if it does not seem that he worried much about this.

For me the necks of the violins of large form (G,PG,P) were quite interchangeable, the case of the Messiah is enlightening with neck marked G and body on the form PG.

I know very little about these letters in pegbox and I've never given much importance, also because all the original templates of  violin neck seem lost : for example I have no notice of neck marked P or PG, I only know the Messiah and the Soil marked G, maybe even a PG but not remember which one.

May someone increase this list?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The Lady Blunt is marked 'PG'.

 

[Davide Sora]

The Lady Blunt is marked 'PG'.

 

1721 Lady Blunt 289(42).jpg

 

Yep, I remember now, the PG on Lady Blunt pegbox.

Would need a list of the instruments with the scroll not grafted, there should be letters on those pegboxes.

[Peter K-G]

If you think about the produced quantities of violins it had to be systematic. There had to be a lot of necks & ribs garlands stored in the workshop.

 

Are the forms survived all there is?

 

I imagine that there had to be a lot of forms. Another possibility is that someone at his shop serial produced rib garlands on the same form -> ribs of and then next one on.. That's what I would do if I was about to produce f.ex. 20 violins. Then stack them in a way so their shapes would not change.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

We know the neck was nailed onto the rib structure BEFORE the plates were made, and assuming there was a stack of rib/necks, it would make sense to label them for model identification.  The necks were probably interchangeable to some extant, but they most likely wanted to know which ribs they were working with...  Just a thought.

[Torbjörn Zethelius]

We know the neck was nailed onto the rib structure BEFORE the plates were made

Are you sure?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Are you sure?

Nope!  I think it's highly likely, though.