lpr5184

Amati Viola

Recommended Posts

This is my first fiddle since a long break from the bench...I have a few more instruments planned in the next two years before retiring.

I'd like to post a few building photos as I build this viola. For those who know me please refer to me as lpr5184 or E. That would be appreciated and please don't ask about the dots. Now that's out of the way...

I build one fiddle at a time and this first one is the Amati viola in the Estense gallery. Please don't be bashful with your critique. So here it  goes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Conor Russell said:

Is that a carbon fibre ring in the bottom  block E? 

Conor, yes a ring on both sides of the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tommy Coleman said:

Bros Amati, right?

edit.  I see now that it is not Bros Amati.

Tommy, I think it's attributed to only Girolamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lpr5184 said:

 Made in 1625, so Hieronymus I.

Or the younger Niccolò........

Stylistically it's different than the 1615 Brothers on display in Cremona (Stauffer) which in 1615 was likely all Hieronymus I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lpr5184 said:

Conor, yes a ring on both sides of the block.

Referring to you as lpr is not going to work for me because that's what we call the "Lab Prep Room" at work.  I'll have to stick with E. :) 

Can you show us a picture of the rings prior to installation.  Are they to prevent cracks, control wood movement, deformation, or what?

Thanks,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bruce Carlson said:

Or the younger Niccolò........

Stylistically it's different than the 1615 Brothers on display in Cremona (Stauffer) which in 1615 was likely all Hieronymus I.

Bruce,  Indeed this viola is very different from the Stauffer. The book discusses briefly the issue of it's provenance and states that it remains unsolved. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Bress said:

Referring to you as lpr is not going to work for me because that's what we call the "Lab Prep Room" at work.  I'll have to stick with E. :) 

Can you show us a picture of the rings prior to installation.  Are they to prevent cracks, control wood movement, deformation, or what?

Thanks,

Jim

Jim,  You can go to Joe Regh's site and see a picture of the rings. I learned this from him when I bought his tool.

E

http://www.reghviolins.com/tools_pegringer.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:54 AM, Dwight Brown said:

Very nice model.  Corners look very sanitary :-)

 

DLB

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 2 and a half years away from building I knew I was bound to make some mistakes. And already it happened.

I managed to glue in the upper ribs with the flames going in the opposite direction as the C' bouts. So I had to unglue the ribs and flip them over. I also shortened all the corners a little bit too. 

I think opposite flames look great on a del Gesu, but not so much on an Amati. Oh well, over and done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My choice of viola wood on hand is very limited.

For the back I have .55 or .60  quartersawn Slovakian Maple.

For the top I have .33 or .43 Swiss Spruce.

What would be the best choice? Would it be best to go .33 top and .55 back? ...and stay light? ...or go heavier?

I think Manfio likes low density spruce and I think he likes red maple...so I'm thinking low density for maple too?

Top arch is almost 18mm   Back 15mm and change...

Share this post


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

.43 sounds very dense to me, I'd go with your lighter stuff. Beautiful garland! 

 

Jackson,  I think .43 would be a little too stiff too, considering the high arch. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a large cello billet of Sitka I purchased from Bruce Harvey. I'll see if I can measure the density today. It is large enough to get a viola and a cello top out of it. It would be nice if the density was low enough. I could get some nice one piece tops if I cut it down. I will not be building any cello's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2017 at 6:34 AM, lpr5184 said:

Jim,  You can go to Joe Regh's site and see a picture of the rings. I learned this from him when I bought his tool.

E

http://www.reghviolins.com/tools_pegringer.aspx

 

From the link above, I would be more than a little dubious using brass rings; or any metal for that matter.

I could see using  the carbon fiber for repair work, maybe it comes from a different source. 

 

addendum:

Yes, I see now from my notes:  method developed by Jerry Pasewicz for inside pegbox repair , ref published article in the Strad(?)

https://trianglestrings.com/reinforcing-cracked-pegbox-wall/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Wee B. Bridges said:

 

From the link above, I would be more than a little dubious using brass rings; or any metal for that matter.

 

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2017 at 0:11 PM, lpr5184 said:

I agree

 

Nice enough looking corner however,  If I had the choice I would run the grain orientation into the  corner when  splitting out and fit blocks, 

especially if I was using spruce. ;)   Good luck and have fun with your current viola build !

ex. illustration I plucked off the web: 

screenshot.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's what everyone does, Wee b., I mean, we all know everyone does it that way, but does it really matter (other than being prettier)? Is there a structural strength or a more pragmatic reason? 

Curious why you chose to make those Amati corners shorter E. How much shorter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 0:15 PM, Wee B. Bridges said:

 

Nice enough looking corner however,  If I had the choice I would run the grain orientation into the  corner when I splitting out and fit blocks, 

especially if I was using spruce. ;) 

Interesting point Thanks

EDIT- Looking at the closeup,I think I see what you mean now...I will do that on the next one, Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, not telling said:

I know that's what everyone does, Wee b., I mean, we all know everyone does it that way, but does it really matter (other than being prettier)? Is there a structural strength or a more pragmatic reason? 

Curious why you chose to make those Amati corners shorter E. How much shorter?

I always assumed it had to do with future repairs, not to mention that it ensures the grain relationship between block and rib is the same for both bouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.