lpr5184

Amati Viola

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Nick Allen said:

Then I must be making the most beautiful violin ever that tells a LOOOOOONG story. 

You're a natural for making antiqued instruments...nothing wrong with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick Allen said:

Can you explain why you set your perimeter in so far from the edge? Does it have to do with your arching and channel shape?

Yeah sure,  Right now it is set in quite far just as a rough guide all around the perimeter. After I remove the garland from the form I trim and finish the blocks and linings. Before I glue the back, I install the pins and align the back to the rib structure, clamp and mark in pencil the inside perimeter, then trim it back close to the linings and blocks, but leaving a small amount past to allow for shrinkage.

And actually the center of channel extends about 1cm in from the edge and has high arching. So you're right it has a lot to do with that and for now I'm leaving enough room for later adjustment. It's the "you can always remove wood but can't put it back" rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice arching Ipr, I like the well blended scoop (channel).

But to me looks a bit too flat across the centerline, just a bit.

I like the cleanliness of the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 3:02 PM, Davide Sora said:

Very nice arching Ipr, I like the well blended scoop (channel).

But to me looks a bit too flat across the centerline, just a bit.

I like the cleanliness of the work.

Davide,  The architecture is different than anything I have built so far. The freeplate warps a lot before being glued to the garland and so I was getting false readings from the templates but I still have time to adjust things. The arching is very  close to the templates provided with the book but it does need some more work after gluing.  The central running spine and the thin deep channel I'm finding warps things a lot.  The Sultana I will build next has even higher arching!  Thanks for looking at this. I welcome all of your advice!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked earlier by Nick about the wide ledges. Before gluing the back on I will adjust edge overhang and mark the inside with pencil and then finish removing wood before gluing the back to garland.

010.JPG

011.JPG

012.JPG

013.JPG

Share this post


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

Davide,  The architecture is different than anything I have built so far. The freeplate warps a lot before being glued to the garland and so I was getting false readings from the templates but I still have time to adjust things. The arching is very  close to the templates provided with the book but it does need some more work after gluing.  The central running spine and the thin deep channel I'm finding warps things a lot.  The Sultana I will build next has even higher arching!  Thanks for looking at this. I welcome all of your advice!

I'm bruised from beating myself up but still having fun. No Pain No Gain......:)

 

My impression is from the observation of the lines "drawn" by the flames and so not very accurate, sometimes this can be misleading due to possible flame irregularities.
It seems to me that the curve is flat in the center and therefore more accentuated before starting the descent towards the channel.

What I like and what I often see in the Cremonese back arching curves (especially Amati) is a greater roundness through the center with a more constant radius.

5911cde281c9e_AmatiEstenseViola.jpg.6150ba925327aa5c657134cb38c1b491.jpg

 

But that's not always the case and it's just my preference, in your case maybe I was a bit too fussy, a force of habit, I do not think it's the case to worry about and make further changes, also Girolamo arching is not irreproachable in this sense.....:)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 7:41 AM, Davide Sora said:
 

My impression is from the observation of the lines "drawn" by the flames and so not very accurate, sometimes this can be misleading due to possible flame irregularities.
It seems to me that the curve is flat in the center and therefore more accentuated before starting the descent towards the channel.

What I like and what I often see in the Cremonese back arching curves (especially Amati) is a greater roundness through the center with a more constant radius.

5911cde281c9e_AmatiEstenseViola.jpg.6150ba925327aa5c657134cb38c1b491.jpg

 

But that's not always the case and it's just my preference, in your case maybe I was a bit too fussy, a force of habit, I do not think it's the case to worry about and make further changes, also Girolamo arching is not irreproachable in this sense.....:)
 

Davide, You have eagle eyes and for that I must ask for your help. Here is where the arching is at right now. You can see from your photo that the channel is quite thin 1.2 at the thinnest of the upper bout and 1.7 in the c bout section. I have the arching at the right height but I'm afraid to go that thin in the channel. I can still do that and if I do it will match the template perfectly, which will make it look less flat.

Right now the channel is 3.3 deep in the c bout's. I was planning on going 2.7 in the c's and 2.5 in the upper and lower bouts. Do you think 1.5 -2.0 is too deep in the channel? What would you do? I'm at the point where I can make this changes easily but I'm afraid to go too thin.

Thank you for noticing this. I have been fighting the urge to dig deeper! :)

002.JPG

004.JPG

003.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nick Allen said:

You're a brave man, taking the rib garland off so early lol. 

Hi Nick, Not so brave it will be glued on today.

-And actually if you bend and fit the ribs so there is no real tension then there is little spring back. But I would not let the garland stand alone for days on end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I suppose our rib fitting techniques are different. I kind of cram them on home to the form. Explains why I get more spring back so soon lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this garland weight look? I can take more off top and bottom blocks. Just wondering if this is in an acceptable range.

007.JPG

008.JPG

Share this post


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

Davide, You have eagle eyes and for that I must ask for your help. Here is where the arching is at right now. You can see from your photo that the channel is quite thin 1.2 at the thinnest of the upper bout and 1.7 in the c bout section. I have the arching at the right height but I'm afraid to go that thin in the channel. I can still do that and if I do it will match the template perfectly, which will make it look less flat.

Right now the channel is 3.3 deep in the c bout's. I was planning on going 2.7 in the c's and 2.5 in the upper and lower bouts. Do you think 1.5 -2.0 is too deep in the channel? What would you do? I'm at the point where I can make this changes easily but I'm afraid to go too thin.

Thank you for noticing this. I have been fighting the urge to dig deeper! :)

 

 

I had to face the same Hamlet-like dubt  with the thicknesses of my Andrea Guarneri model viola, where the original (Conte Vitale) near the channel reaches 1.7 / 1.8 mm with peaks up to 1.5 mm near the corner blocks. I wondered long, wondering if the original works so well with those thicknesses why not reproduce them?

I was very undecided on what to do, but in the end I did not dare to go so low and I opted for more conservative thicknesses reaching a maximum of 2.2 / 2.0 mm (already much lower than my usual), still trying to reproduce a similar distribution of masses.

Fortunately my viola worked very well so that I think I would do the same next time, but go thinner still scares me and I think I will never go below this thickness.
In my opinion the thickness of those antique violas is not intentional but only the result of the construction system (closed box channelling) not supported by sophisticated thickness calipers : an unconscious choice in short, and if you don't know the numbers you do not worry about overcoming them or not.

Anyway, in the end I do not think that going so slim in the channel area can give remarkable acoustic results, but maybe Girolamo and Andrea was better masters than me......:P:)



 

Share this post


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

How does this garland weight look? I can take more off top and bottom blocks. Just wondering if this is in an acceptable range.

007.JPG

008.JPG

My last finished garland (Andrea Guarneri model) weighed 77 g, so I would call yours fairly normal, but I do not have a production of violas so large to be considered as statistics values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Davide Sora said:
 

 

I had to face the same Hamlet-like dubt  with the thicknesses of my Andrea Guarneri model viola, where the original (Conte Vitale) near the channel reaches 1.7 / 1.8 mm with peaks up to 1.5 mm near the corner blocks. I wondered long, wondering if the original works so well with those thicknesses why not reproduce them?

I was very undecided on what to do, but in the end I did not dare to go so low and I opted for more conservative thicknesses reaching a maximum of 2.2 / 2.0 mm (already much lower than my usual), still trying to reproduce a similar distribution of masses.

 

Fortunately my viola worked very well so that I think I would do the same next time, but go thinner still scares me and I think I will never go below this thickness.
In my opinion the thickness of those antique violas is not intentional but only the result of the construction system (closed box channelling) not supported by sophisticated thickness calipers : an unconscious choice in short, and if you don't know the numbers you do not worry about overcoming them or not.

 
Anyway, in the end I do not think that going so slim in the channel area can give remarkable acoustic results, but maybe Girolamo and Andrea was better masters than me......:P:)



 

Thanks for the insight Davide. I hadn't thought about closed boxed channeling. I definitely will not go below 2.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ipr5184 thank you for starting this thread. It's a pleasure to view your fine work and the comments a varied and interesting. 

Share this post


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

Ipr5184 thank you for starting this thread. It's a pleasure to view your fine work and the comments a varied and interesting. 

Thanks Mike!  Thanks really belong to the members who regularly contribute unselfishly. For me that is how I am able to continue to learn and grasp small portions of this complicated craft.

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.