Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Strad (and other) models database?


Advocatus Diaboli
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 442
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm already on it Davide! :)

They are not the same.

 

Thanks Addie for the P1705 / P comparison.

The differences are not that huge, can justify the violins that seem to be made on the form P 1705 but are of previous years (ie 1704 Betts and Dornroschen).

For me they are made with the P [B] with a bit of "air" between the ribs and form, expecially at lower bout.

Maybe even with some block left protruding a bit from the profile of the form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Addie for the P1705 / P comparison.

The differences are not that huge, can justify the violins that seem to be made on the form P 1705 but are of previous years (ie 1704 Betts and Dornroschen).

For me they are made with the P [B] with a bit of "air" between the ribs and form, expecially at lower bout.

Maybe even with some block left protruding a bit from the profile of the form.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Addie for the P1705 / P comparison.

The differences are not that huge, can justify the violins that seem to be made on the form P 1705 but are of previous years (ie 1704 Betts and Dornroschen).

For me they are made with the P [B] with a bit of "air" between the ribs and form, expecially at lower bout.

Maybe even with some block left protruding a bit from the profile of the form.

 

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

 

I will second that motion ....... and withdraw the motion!!! Halfheartedly!  :wacko:

 

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

In order for the Betts/Sleeping Beauty/etc. to have been made on the P(B), there would need to be a sizable gap on both sides of the lower bout.  That's completely doable using Cremonese working methods.  However,

 

1.  The lower blocks on the Betts et all don't line up well with the block cutouts on the P(B).

 

2.   The asymmetry in the lower bouts of the pre-1705 P form instruments is very between instruments consistent in a way that would be highly unlikely if there was a sizable gap between the mold and the ribs.

 

3.  It would be possible to shim the mold so that the rib structures would be consistent.  That being said, there are still instruments made on the P(B) from this time period, and it would be a pain to re-shim every time a P form rib structure was needed.  It would also be improbable that the shims would line up exactly the same way every time without some method of attaching them besides gluing.  As far as I know, there isn't any sign of this on the original form.

 

4.  We know that not all of the Strad forms have survived (B form cello, unless it was cut down to create the B Piccolo form).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for the Betts/Sleeping Beauty/etc. to have been made on the P( B), there would need to be a sizable gap on both sides of the lower bout.  That's completely doable using Cremonese working methods.  However,

 

1.  The lower blocks on the Betts et all don't line up well with the block cutouts on the P( B).

 

2.   The asymmetry in the lower bouts of the pre-1705 P form instruments is very between instruments consistent in a way that would be highly unlikely if there was a sizable gap between the mold and the ribs.

 

3.  It would be possible to shim the mold so that the rib structures would be consistent.  That being said, there are still instruments made on the P( B) from this time period, and it would be a pain to re-shim every time a P form rib structure was needed.  It would also be improbable that the shims would line up exactly the same way every time without some method of attaching them besides gluing.  As far as I know, there isn't any sign of this on the original form.

 

4.  We know that not all of the Strad forms have survived (B form cello, unless it was cut down to create the B Piccolo form).

Do you think we are missing some rib forms from Stradivari's shop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly of interest (to me, at least), In the early 1780s Guadagnini made a third violin form that was strikingly similar to the P ( B ), but not identical.

 

Interesting theory, maybe it's right there that has been ended up the missing third form P.

Count Cozio may have lent the original Strad's form to Guadagnini and he has kept it for his personal use, as a justification to write on the label "Alumnus Antonii Stradivarii".......

I quite agree that there must be missing form P, maybe the second replica ( P(S)? ) before the third replica P1705.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting theory, maybe it's right there that has been ended up the missing third form P.

Count Cozio may have lent the original Strad's form to Guadagnini and he has kept it for his personal use, as a justification to write on the label "Alumnus Antonii Stradivarii".......

I quite agree that there must be missing form P, maybe the second replica ( P(S)? ) before the third replica P1705.

 

Just to be clear, I don't think Guad was using one of Strad's forms for these instruments.  It mostly looks like he was inspired by the Strad form, but didn't know a good way to re-draw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I don't think Guad was using one of Strad's forms for these instruments.  It mostly looks like he was inspired by the Strad form, but didn't know a good way to re-draw it.

 

I've never done such research with the outline of Guadagnini's violins, but he worked for Cozio that had the original forms, the connection is certainly possible.

It would not be the only one working directly with the original forms, many others have done this.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davide and others, I have a data base of Strad sizes of finished instruments from 1666 to 1735.  One hundred and fifty six instruments all together.  I have no idea where I got it, probably here on MN, but not sure.  It gives length and width of bouts upper and lower on all, and center on maybe three fourths.  The thing is these measurements are all over the place.  This leads me to believe they did nail the neck on before they attached the back to the ribs.  I doubt perfection was an issue ( at least center bout wise ) they may have already inserted the locating pins in upper and lower blocks so the length and upper and lower bouts would have some consistency.  It's the center bout I'm mainly concerned with.  This may also account why some have long corners and some have shorter corners.  I think I may very well be straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel worrying about CB width.  Strad and DG  may have cared less if the CB was 109mm or 113mm.   If you think I'm all wrong here, please tell me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...