Sign in to follow this  
bkwood

Seeking Arching Templets

Recommended Posts

Julian, I believe that Joe is correct.  The pdf's are cycloids.  The laser images on the other hand look to be very useful, along with the measurements.  I haven't had a chance to see many REAL instruments.  Peter of Mantua was pretty cool, and looked to be basically a curdate cycloid, but probably not exact.  I saw photos of a Stainer violin that looked very standard and cycloidy, and a Stainer viola with a lion head scroll that looked like reverse catanary curves in the c bouts.  Maybe it is the way light hits it, but it looks very weird.  Cycloids would be useless on that one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Julian Cossmann Cooke said:

Joe, aren't the Luthiers Library photo images with laser definition of the arching the actual arching of the instruments.  It seems to me that would be a very accurate way of making templates, but as always I'm happy to be educated on the matter.  I have a subscription and have archived those for a number of instruments so I don't want to use them beyond their significance.

 

Yes they are.  As you note the laser profiles shows the actual arching of the existing instrument, in all it's aged glory..  I think if you want to copy and aged instrument they would make the proper template.  I want to start with proper arch before 300 years of sag.:)  But I know some people want to copy an instrument.  

It would be nice if they digitized the laser profiles instead of the Curtate Cycloid arches - which people do use.  I am no expert, but I thought those are supposed to be the "ideal" arching shape.  

For my Cello #1 I wanted to go with a Strad arching. I have Sacconi's book, but I went with Sergei Muratov as the arching templates are essentially identical to Sacconi's and easier to digitize and print out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be for the belly and someone made a mistake????  That  20.6 mm height does include the flat gluing edge  and I would use that for a belly but not the back plate.   

I have a plan that had 19.3 for total edge/arch height.  I was shooting for 19.5 mm height for the belly and thought afterwards at least another mm higher may be better appearance wise but hard to tell what would happen with sound - so I haven't raised heights yet.  I wouldn't use the 20mm height for a back but if you take away the edge height of the back that leaves a plate of what, 16 or so mm's.  That's probably o'k. to use now that I think about it. - makes both plates as Joe's plan shows using the same heights for both plates.   Surely that's been done before.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 11:53 AM, uncle duke said:

That may be for the belly and someone made a mistake????  That  20.6 mm height does include the flat gluing edge  and I would use that for a belly but not the back plate.   

I have a plan that had 19.3 for total edge/arch height.  I was shooting for 19.5 mm height for the belly and thought afterwards at least another mm higher may be better appearance wise but hard to tell what would happen with sound - so I haven't raised heights yet.  I wouldn't use the 20mm height for a back but if you take away the edge height of the back that leaves a plate of what, 16 or so mm's.  That's probably o'k. to use now that I think about it. - makes both plates as Joe's plan shows using the same heights for both plates.   Surely that's been done before.    

I responded with the above the other day more or less thinking you guys could make a violin with the plan that has the 20.6 mm overall height.  Now I'm not so sure.

After studying different sixth's of a violin template heights, going back over some of my previous making attempts, taking what I have for a neck heel angle template into consideration and finally looking and somewhat measuring works by others I just don't see how staying with a 20.6mm reading can work.  Maybe this is a viola plan in disguise.

  I'll admit this may not even matter to some - just make a fiddle.

Firstly, 16.5 -17.5 for total belly maximum height including the edge height.  I'm just seeing  20.6 mm as just plain too high.  Let's say someone does choose a 20.6 height.  How does the neck work?  What I can't see or figure is where the supposedly needed wood heights from the plan that says you'll need during the build goes to?  How does one make an acceptable plate weight with that height?

If Mr.  Swenson got that plan to work verbatim then I'll stand corrected as to yes, it can be done but I'll still be wondering.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately I had the student maker treatise from one of the Prier/Salt Lake personnel still hiding in the downloads.  It says total box thickness for a violin is 60 - 63 mm.  So for example, one could have 31.5 mm tall ribs, a 16.4 mm belly height and let's see.......... a 15.1 mm height left for a back plate - that equals 63 mm total.  Certainly one could make heights lower if they see fit to do so - like wider grained wood.  What are examples of wider grained wood?   Good question.  

I'm just replying so that newer makers that are here now and the ones who show up in the future won't or shouldn't have to go through everything for making a violin on their own using hit or miss tactics like I did. 

Here's what I think I want to do from now on.  Use a 1733 Del Gesu outer back, early, early 1700's Stradivari outer belly arching, use Maggini inside back plate thickness specs and just possibly the belly inside graduation specs from what Mr. Swenson has above.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1717 Montagnan poster I have shows a 19.9 belly, and a 15.6 back.  I've made two; they look cool.  The necks are set 9-10 mm above the block, 5-6  mm overstand I guess.  I like using the block instead, works with the plan.  The saddle is about 8 mm, and they have rather short bridges, 30 mm.  I'm guessing about a 157-58 string angle. At least least what I planned on. I made baroque bridges so they don't look so short.  They seem to work just fine, and they look cool too.  The soundpost side has decided to do some modeling of its own. My photography is terrible. Phone cameras are too hard to use.  They need a button on the top, and they need to stay in focus.

20180131_101946.thumb.jpg.c1ebe07bd01c182a3b9ae307e7e10913.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is 352.  Pretty much normal length.  It has a somewhat longer stop which you can either embrace, or ignore.  I embrace it just because that's what it is.

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 2:02 PM, with_joerg said:

Isn't it that 20.1mm max height for the back is a bit much? Should it not be somewhere around 16 - 17mm?

Sorry for the confusion.  I should have posted the original drawing instead of my template version.  Here is the full drawing to scale and a couple showing the dimensions.

IMG_6084.jpg

IMG_6082.jpg

IMG_6081.jpg

IMG_6080.jpg

IMG_6079.jpg

IMG_6076.jpg

IMG_6075.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2016 at 10:02 AM, bkwood said:

Thank you very much! And Merry Christmas to you!

 

On 12/31/2016 at 10:19 AM, Joe Swenson said:

You are quite welcome.  I made a 16 3/4" viola using the same scaled patterns which came out sounding quite nice as well.  A little "wolfy" on the F# on the D string. :)

I have made 3 fiddles using the top template you providedand they all have a distinctly different sound from the first 3 fiddles I made using Strobel templets. I have used wood from the same tree for all these fiddles. For my style of playing (folk and bluegrass) I prefer the grittiness (I guess I would call it) I get from your templet. The last of these fiddles was a 5 string, carving the top the same, and keeping scale length the same, just widening the neck and adding half an inch to the peg head. The result is pretty good tonewise, but the C string, being short, is a little harder to draw a tone from - different from the other strings anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me but..... looking at those plans I see the "20.6mm" measurement as locating the inside of the upper eye of the ff from centerline NOT the height of arching templates???

See that arch at 15mm to 16mm/

Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, with_joerg said:

For the Kreisler main arch I recently used this from the US library of congress. It is 'approx' 1:1. Was pretty useful (until now :D). The sizes in the file name are the sizes of the photograph, not the violin.

Guarneri_Kreisler_back_0001_376mm.pdf

Guarneri_Kreisler_side_0003_384mm.pdf

thanks with_joerg for these!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume the old makers used templates.   But there is no evidence for this.    The earliest arching templates existing are the ones produced by Guadagnini for Cozio.   But these are known to have been in the nature of documenting the arching of particular instruments for study, a wooden equivalent of taking a cast.

A number of modern makers have demonstrated that arching can be done without templates.   Some essentially work freehand.   Others use some rules that govern the shape.

I've put forward an approach that I believe allows you to create exactly the range of arching shapes seen in the classical work.   Classical arching without templates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using David Beard's proposed method because it sounded too interesting not to try. Checking the results with a beaded chain shows that the result is perfect catenaries. It doesn't treat with the egde channel, so it's up to you to get the cycloid finished out. I see no reason to pick up the templates again, but there are many valid ways to get to a good arch. Best of luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 3:52 PM, Michael Jennings said:

Pardon me but..... looking at those plans I see the "20.6mm" measurement as locating the inside of the upper eye of the ff from centerline NOT the height of arching templates???

See that arch at 15mm to 16mm/

Am I missing something?

Nope... :)

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.