messiah Help drawing scroll template

[Frank Nichols]

4 minutes ago, David Beard said:

This is definitely an aside for your purposes, but it's possible to uncover the geometry choices behind a scroll like the Messiah's.

In classical work, the scrolls can be seen as composed of circle arcs with the diameter or radius of each set by proportions.  Each arc then has a determined radius, and a boundary it touches, as well as joining smoothly with the prior arcs.

The designs start from the arc touching or 'bound' by the bottom of the volute's frame.  From this bottom point, and arc swings toward the volute, and in the opposite direction to begin forming the curve under the pegbox.   Sometimes the radii of the arcs on either side of the bottom point are same, but of the arc head under the pegbox has a longer radius, as happens here in the Messiah.

Pretty much there is one arc for every quarter turn, and one boundary for every arc.

 

The first several arcs are bound by the volute's frame, and are sized in proportion to the volute's height, and then the later arcs are sized in proportion to it's length.

Boundaries for the inner arcs are mostly set by dividing prior distance in thirds, but is complicated by the camfer margins are sometimes included and sometimes not;

 

 

 

I think my head just exploded... 

I will re-read this several times for sure!

 

 

[not telling]

8 hours ago, FrankNichols said:

So, that sounds like the better solution is to use the awl marks and then either a hand saw (I have a coping, but could get a jewelers, I do't see any real difference in this case)  or the band saw.

Thanks,

Frank

Jeweller's saws aren't expensive and they have teeny blades made to cut metal.  Get a bunch of blades,  they break. Whatever works for you,  that's fine, but I am cringing to think of the sound of the band saw on aluminum. Coping saws are definitely different. I guess you can get some kind of blade for it to cut metal,  but why? My saw (OK,  the saw that used to be mine) was $30, maybe, and that was with a pack of 12 blades. Just do it,  try it.  Try with the coping saw,  then see if you feel a difference with the jeweller's saw. You can always buy and return it, but it's an inexpensive thing that you're going to find helpful I bet. 

[Frank Nichols]

34 minutes ago, not telling said:

Jeweller's saws aren't expensive and they have teeny blades made to cut metal.  Get a bunch of blades,  they break. Whatever works for you,  that's fine, but I am cringing to think of the sound of the band saw on aluminum. Coping saws are definitely different. I guess you can get some kind of blade for it to cut metal,  but why? My saw (OK,  the saw that used to be mine) was $30, maybe, and that was with a pack of 12 blades. Just do it,  try it.  Try with the coping saw,  then see if you feel a difference with the jeweller's saw. You can always buy and return it, but it's an inexpensive thing that you're going to find helpful I bet. 

Wow, seriously, just because I ask for help and someone gives it to me you expect me to do the right thing and pay attention!

It's ordered and will be here Monday - thank you!

[Davide Sora]

14 hours ago, FrankNichols said:

Okay, I have the "release candidate" drawings ready, checked a few times, but I am terrible at checking my own work. So, if anything jumps out at anyone as "wrong" please drop me a line so I can correct it.
 

 

 

First of all your in your front wiew of the scroll the 37.5 measure is wrong and the 23.5 measure is in the wrong place : it should be at the end of the fingerboard with a more smooth blanding with the 26 width of the pegbox

The distance between the centers for tracing the back is a bit weird, too many different measures for a quick placement.

 

My interpretation is that Stradivari used two measures, one for the front and the other for the back, the main centers are located on the lines orthogonal to the fingerboard plane tangent to the volute (indicated by red arrows), the others derive from the division into equal parts of the front and back parts between these main centers.

If the overall measure of the volute become bigger or smaller the three main centers keep their position, what changes will be only the distance between the others centers that should be recalculated, so that it can be adapted to any scroll.

[Davide Sora]

Double post

[Davide Sora]

Double post !!

But how do you completely eliminate posts? The Cancel button doesn't work

[Frank Nichols]

3 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

 

First of all your in your front wiew of the scroll the 37.5 measure is wrong and the 23.5 measure is in the wrong place : it should be at the end of the fingerboard with a more smooth blanding with the 26 width of the pegbox

The distance between the centers for tracing the back is a bit weird, too many different measures for a quick placement.

 

My interpretation is that Stradivari used two measures, one for the front and the other for the back, the main centers are located on the lines orthogonal to the fingerboard plane tangent to the volute (indicated by red arrows), the others derive from the division into equal parts of the front and back parts between these main centers.

If the overall measure of the volute become bigger or smaller the three main centers keep their position, what changes will be only the distance between the others centers that should be recalculated, so that it can be adapted to any scroll.

 

Thank you for catching those!

The 37.5 was a blatant error, and should have been either 39.7 or 39.9 mm with for the scroll, the Strad Poster labelled it as 39.7, but drew it at 40 and the photograph on the poster shows it at 40, Strobel lists it at 42mm - so, I went with 40, and have adjusted it on my drawing. I see MikeC's drawing lists it at 41. 8, but it seems all the measurements for the Messiah are a bit narrower from other "Standard" Strad's or at least some seem to be from my measurements?

The 23.5 was a "SWAG". On the Strad poster drawing the inside of the pegbox at that end was listed at 17.7, except the drawing is scaled down by 75% and all the other measurements are listed at actual, so, if that width were actually 17.7, then it should be drawn 13.25mm wide, but is drawn only 10 mm wide... This led me to wonder if it was intended to specify the width of the nut, and the arrows were drawn wrong - so, I looked up nut width, and found the Strad poster has the nut drawn 17.7 or 18 mm wide which if you multiple that times the scaling 1.33 it comes out 23.5 - ah ha!. And Strobel showed the nut at 23.5 on the narrow width. Sadly, the Strad Poster DRAWING shows the nut being a rectangle and the photograph show it is a trapezoid! Argh, if I had looked closely at the photograph of the nut on the Strad Poster, I would have seen it was in fact a trapezoid and not a rectangle - so, thank you very much for catching that one. It is corrected to reflect the nut width at the upper end of the fingerboard and not on the pegbox side, making the taper from the pegbox to the fingerboard more gentle.

Also, I see the measurements for the inside of the pegbox pegbox listed on the Strad Poster were correct, but the drawing was wrong (compared to the photograph). So, I have corrected that also now, to reflect the measurements I have taken from the photograph.

I think you had a picture attached to your post, but it is gone now. However, it appears what you are describing for the scroll contour is what MikeC posted in his picture - with two sets or circles with equal spacing. I just need to figure out where to start, and I think I can make that out on his drawing. I will update this also tonight. (Now, back to watch you layout the circles on the scroll again on your video and see if I can understand what is going on better!)

Thank you very much, I value your input and appreciate the time you are giving to me to help me learn this!

Frank

[Davide Sora]

 

I have re-inserted the image, something must have gone wrong (see double posts....)

The 17.7 measure on The Strad poster seem correct,  the photograph of the front view of the scroll appears in the right scale and corresponds (a bit wide for my taste).

The nut seems a good 24.5 mm from the same photo.

 

 

[Frank Nichols]

1 minute ago, Davide Sora said:

 

I have re-inserted the image, something must have gone wrong (see double posts....)

The 17.7 measure on The Strad poster seem correct,  the photograph of the front view of the scroll appears in the right scale and corresponds (a bit wide for my taste).

The nut seems a good 24.5 mm.

 

 

Thank you, I have finished watching your video again, and it makes complete sense now. I understand what you were saying. I will update my contour drawing to reflect your method and drawing.

Yes, the photograph seems to be the most accurate source material, the drawing has numerous errors. I will go back through and check again everything against the photographs, but a couple of the measurements, like your peg spacing, I prefer.

The nut in the photograph appears to be 4.5mm, which is a bit small, and from your drawing it appears you size it to 5.5mm which is what I set mine to.

Thank you very much! 

[not telling]

5.5 is modern standards, just one of those things you don't know until you know.   But if you ever see original instruments (Vermilion etc.,)  you might see funky nuts that look too small.  Also.  Maybe you can tell by now that Stroebel is wrong and inconsistent with what someone like Davide Sora does,  a lot,  and maybe someone else will add to this about other learning resources you may find more professional and accurate. There are other books.  Not the Wake book.  Others.  But... I just have to say,  I'm glad you're getting a good saw for the job.  Honestly it's not your worst problem now since there are so many ways to proceed, but I can definitely affirm that I would only want to cut a scroll shape into metal with a precise tool,  and not a bandsaw ever.   Fingers, I need them.  Don't we all.  Anyway.  I am very happy to follow your progress in producing a scrollish object. Woot

[Frank Nichols]

1 minute ago, not telling said:

5.5 is modern standards, just one of those things you don't know until you know.   But if you ever see original instruments (Vermilion etc.,)  you might see funky nuts that look too small.  Also.  Maybe you can tell by now that Stroebel is wrong and inconsistent with what someone like Davide Sora does,  a lot,  and maybe someone else will add to this about other learning resources you may find more professional and accurate. There are other books.  Not the Wake book.  Others.  But... I just have to say,  I'm glad you're getting a good saw for the job.  Honestly it's not your worst problem now since there are so many ways to proceed, but I can definitely affirm that I would only want to cut a scroll shape into metal with a precise tool,  and not a bandsaw ever.   Fingers, I need them.  Don't we all.  Anyway.  I am very happy to follow your progress in producing a scrollish object. Woot

Thank you, and yes, I am finding there seems to be a lot of variance on the various measurements. It is a real learning experience - but then, that is what I am doing this for, it is great fun trying to figure out what I am doing

And I do believe one should have the best tools you can afford - and like you said, that is a minor cost. I appreciate the suggestion.

[David Beard]

We're used to seeing 'measurement' as a reliable approach to work.   But back when the Messiah and similar were made, there was even a standardize unit of measure available.   In that time, the simple and reliable way to work was by proportion.

So here's a little more on how proportions give the width needed in a scroll and pegbox.

 

First, notice that a very common feature in classical scrolls is that the length and width of the inner part of the volute are 1 to 1, that is they form a square.

 

I'm also using the closely related Lady Blunt head to illustrate these principles.

For lack of a better term, I refer to this as the 'box square'.  This square relates the width of the head to the volute work.

In the Messiah, the length of this inner portion was found as 2/3 the width of the whole volute.

Strad tends to make the pegbox slightly wider than this guide width, but in a great number of earlier classical work the 'box square' width exactly gives the pegbox maximum width. 

The various width of the head all relate to this key width in various ways.

Here are some of the guiding proportions.  Strad used the mostly the same choices in the Messiah and Lady Blunt heads.

 

 

Also, notice that the asymmetries and looseness of classical work make the precise measurements seems chaotic and almost meaningless, but the proportions track right along.

 

[Frank Nichols]

David, I appreciate the education! I have read it twice now, and I am starting to form questions - like if I find discrepancies in the Messiah then I should assume those discrepancies are human error and for my "measurements" I shovel adjust my drawings to the ideal? Then what I produce is still based on Messiah, but is my attempt to make the ideal and \not my attempt to make a copy of the actual instrument?

I will sleep on that, it is after midnight here, and I need to be up around 5AM - Have a good night, and thank you very much. I really do appreciate this forum and it's members that are willing to give me their valuable time to help me learn. It is just amazing.

Frank

[David Beard]

You raise some heavy questions.

I'll give you my take on these issues, but I represent very much a minority position.

 

If you idolized grandma's pasta sauce, and you set off to duplicate it even though the recipe is lost, are you aiming to duplicate the appearance exactly, or something else?

Unless you aim to make plastic duplicates to fool the eye in a display case, then you want to duplicate ingredients and process, not the exact distribution of tomatoes and meat in a particular plating.

 

But this notion runs contrary to the whole general approach of modern copy work.  A great portion of work aims to 'look like what the masters did', rather than to 'be like what the masters did' or to be 'done like the masters did'.

 

 

 

[Muswell]

The exact copy antiqued approach leaves me cold, but then I don't make violins to sell.  When you first start it is easiest to copy something from the Strad plans, because you can get stuck into making straight away, but my life as an engineer means I like to know the why as well as the what and so I have found this and other discussions about geometry very interesting. For my next scroll, which starts soon, I'm going to construct my template using these geometric principles and I'm very grateful for the information Davide and David have posted......there must be something about that name

[Frank Nichols]

6 hours ago, David Beard said:

But this notion runs contrary to the whole general approach of modern copy work.  A great portion of work aims to 'look like what the masters did', rather than to 'be like what the masters did' or to be 'done like the masters did'.

 

2 hours ago, Muswell said:

The exact copy antiqued approach leaves me cold, but then I don't make violins to sell.  

I can understand the interest in making an exact copy of something that is considered the "best" of it's field. And the fascination of trying to extract ever more minute details from information still available.

But, I have to agree with Muswell and David that I am not so interested (at this time) in attempting to make an exact copy of a violin. Instead I want to make the best violins and cellos I can. To do that I fall back on my project management experience and first put together a set of requirements (documentation) and study the requirements until I understand what needs to be done and why - rib lining to strengthen the ribs and provide a larger surface area for gluing on the top and bottom, cloth/linen strips on the ribs of cellos because the ribs are so thin they need support to help prevent cracks, sound post veneer to strengthen the top plate so the sound post doesn't cause a crack, etc, etc, etc. A myriad of details that I am sure I have only just scratched the surface on. 

Second step for me, once I have collected the requirements is to put together an approach with a description of how I am going to go about it. I probably will not make a full blown task dependency diagram  but the idea is sound (pun) to consider what sequence of tasks works for me - neck/scroll (is that called the head?), followed by the mould and ribs, the the back, then the top. There are also many sub-steps like acquiring/making tools, practicing physical procedures like the delicate/intricate carving on the scroll with scrap wood before destroying my maple block, etc) At each step, knowing me, I will stop and google everything I can find on that step,

For example, I have probably watched 20 video's on sharpening chisels at this point and have practiced each one many times (I particularly like Paul Sellers practical advice) and find that I now use a little from the ones I think work best for me, with Japanese water stones and leather strops on glass, and the Veritas® Mk.II Honing Guide System which was a "major" expense to me, but after trying a couple of the cheaper ones I gave up on them and paid the price to get a good one. I KNOW I will learn eventually to sharpen the chisel without it, but I also know that I was just frustrating myself trying to get to the level of sharpness I saw others achieving, and now with the Veritas guide my chisels are down right scary!

All that is to say that for me personally, it is as much about the process of making the violin as it is to eventually actually have a violin. I am not doing it for the money but for the pleasure of doing fine detailed work.

And having found Maetronet is high on my list of major resources! The people here are incredibly generous with their valuable time and knowledge. I mentioned to my wife just the other day how amazing the internet is, that some of the best people in the world in any field come online and offer up their knowledge - something that not to long ago would only have been available if your could travel to the master, and convince them to take you on as an apprentice. Now, we only need to login and type, and suddenly volumes of today's and yesterday's history, experience and advice become almost instantly available for free.

Wow, just wow... and I frequently just SMH...

[Joseph bebrux]

On ‎04‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 0:19 AM, Davide Sora said:

 

First of all your in your front wiew of the scroll the 37.5 measure is wrong and the 23.5 measure is in the wrong place : it should be at the end of the fingerboard with a more smooth blanding with the 26 width of the pegbox

The distance between the centers for tracing the back is a bit weird, too many different measures for a quick placement.

 

My interpretation is that Stradivari used two measures, one for the front and the other for the back, the main centers are located on the lines orthogonal to the fingerboard plane tangent to the volute (indicated by red arrows), the others derive from the division into equal parts of the front and back parts between these main centers.

If the overall measure of the volute become bigger or smaller the three main centers keep their position, what changes will be only the distance between the others centers that should be recalculated, so that it can be adapted to any scroll.

Hi Davide,

I watched your videos about the volute, they solved a lot of my doubts, It's a serie really well done, very detailed videos, congratulations and thanks !!

thanks to the questions asked by Frank Nichols I solved the missed doubts,

your drawing that showing the three main points was very useful.

I would like to ask you two questions, may be useful to the others in this forum

 

How do you identify the narrowest part of the volute from the drawing ?

This point is hidden and I don't know how to find it.

I have thought in various ways, the only way I can think, it's to draw a tangent line on the higher part of the volute , but here there is a problem, the tangent part is quite wide,  my idea is to look for half of this tangent line, this should be the point where the narrowest part lies, but looking at your drawing I see that the narrower part of the volute is not on halfway of this tangent. How do you identify the narrowest part of the volute ?

 

I Note that the narrowest point of the volute of the first turn is not aligned

At the narrowest point of the second turn , you find this point using the compass.

And that is the only mark you make, you don't mark all the second turn with a line to Creating an outline as I often see by many makers (for beginner is not so easy to work without a precise reference, it's for experienced makers)

How do you put the mark on the second turn, this would help me to look

The other marks so I can connect them.

[Davide Sora]

12 hours ago, Joseph bebrux said:

How do you identify the narrowest part of the volute from the drawing ?

This point is hidden and I don't know how to find it.

I have thought in various ways, the only way I can think, it's to draw a tangent line on the higher part of the volute , but here there is a problem, the tangent part is quite wide,  my idea is to look for half of this tangent line, this should be the point where the narrowest part lies, but looking at your drawing I see that the narrower part of the volute is not on halfway of this tangent. How do you identify the narrowest part of the volute ?

 

I Note that the narrowest point of the volute of the first turn is not aligned

At the narrowest point of the second turn , you find this point using the compass.

And that is the only mark you make, you don't mark all the second turn with a line to Creating an outline as I often see by many makers (for beginner is not so easy to work without a precise reference, it's for experienced makers)

How do you put the mark on the second turn, this would help me to look

The other marks so I can connect them.

Hi Joseph,

 

you have correctly interpreted, the narrowest part lies on the highest point of the volute, where it is tangent to the line orthogonal to the fingerboard plane line.
You can quickly find it by resting a square on the fingerboard plane and mark where it touches the volute on its upper part.

Being a curve that comes in contact with a straight line, the contact point isn't wide at all, but confined precisely to one point only.

The position of this point is only theoretical and for practical purpose, because during the working it could be moved further forward or further back at will of the maker, which will harmonize the curves by eye as he likes.

Centering the compass at this point I draw the two arcs that locate the narrowest point of the second turn, but this too will be subject to small variations in the harmonization of the curves by eye.

I prefer not to draw the entire outline of the second turn (and also of the volute) because is quite difficult to trace a reliable line on curved surfaces and the pencil marks will smear the wood and confuse the perception by eye of the clean lines created by the cutted wood edges.

But I understand that at the beginning this can create insecurity during cutting, so it might be also useful to try drawing these lines with the pencil to see the effect, erasing and modifying them until you are satisfied.

 

When you will get tired of finding traces of graphite in the wood pores  (impossible to remove) you will understand why I prefer not to draw them relying only on the lines resulting from the cutting.

 

 

[saintjohnbarleycorn]

thanks for the good info, and perfect timing !

 

[Davide Sora]

13 minutes ago, saintjohnbarleycorn said:

thanks for the good info, and perfect timing !

 

Perfect timing? ?

[carl1961]

2 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

Perfect timing? ?

Davide maybe he is starting to do a violin neck

[saintjohnbarleycorn]

yes I just roughed out the scroll today your info was invaluable! thanks again!

[Joseph bebrux]

23 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

only on the

Sorry, before I ask my question I did not spend time to introduce myself

This is my first time in a forum, I never been in a forum before, I have to understand how it works.

this was my first time in the forum and the answer to my question came very fast,

I really appreciate it.

 

learn something through a video or forum and receive the answer Directly from the author of the video in less than a day, for me it's amazing, in this case I have to say wow!

I know it is no longer fashionable, but in an Anglo-Saxon environment I would apologize for my bad English. thanks David for your incredible timming.

 

I'm here to collect information, when I was not yet registered I read many interesting things here, I'm interested in bow instruments in general , but you can not start without  a complete idea of the whole project. the videos of Davide are a big help.

Yes Carl 1961 correct! now I can start to try to make a scroll ! before I had many doubts, now I feel a little relaxed. I feel like I have no more questions on this subject.

 

 

So, just when the line of the tangent comes in contact with the curve of the volute That is the narrowest point (or the theoretical narrowest point, depends abaut the maker's taste  … do it a little bit back or forth)

resting the square on the fingerboard plane and than mark it, from the front of course ? And of course Use the square even for the narrowest point of the second turn.

 

I take this opportunity for another question as we are talking about scroll template,

It seems that the lines of the begbox are straight to the circle number two , is it a rule in general ? or should be observed case by case? however if it is not, the circle  two is in a strategic position aligned to the bottom part of the volute, if the straight lines do not end at this point, you can use this point as an initial reference and then move them depending  where the lines end to be straight , Correct ?

[Davide Sora]

2 hours ago, saintjohnbarleycorn said:

yes I just roughed out the scroll today your info was invaluable! thanks again!

[Davide Sora]

18 hours ago, Joseph bebrux said:

So, just when the line of the tangent comes in contact with the curve of the volute That is the narrowest point (or the theoretical narrowest point, depends abaut the maker's taste  … do it a little bit back or forth)

resting the square on the fingerboard plane and than mark it, from the front of course ? And of course Use the square even for the narrowest point of the second turn.

 

I take this opportunity for another question as we are talking about scroll template,

It seems that the lines of the begbox are straight to the circle number two , is it a rule in general ? or should be observed case by case? however if it is not, the circle  two is in a strategic position aligned to the bottom part of the volute, if the straight lines do not end at this point, you can use this point as an initial reference and then move them depending  where the lines end to be straight , Correct ?

The narrowest point is located with the square on the top of the volute, not on the front (see the arrow on the photo), I never checked if also the narrowest point of second turn is on the tangent line, I simply mark it down from the previous point on the volute. Keep in mind that these are only reference point mainly used to keep simmetry, not to exactly locate the narrowest points, this is left to maker choiche. It's quite difficult to discerne were these points are on an original scroll, I never had the occasion to put my sharp compass point on the Messiah scroll....

Regarding the pegbox lines, once again the circles are only for keep simmetry on both sides,  widths are almost the same as the back but little difference might be induced by the working. You start with straight lines but in the end they will have to be a little convex, as to appear straight to the eye. See drawings for circles correspondance from back to front of pegbox. Measures may vary from model to model, the only measure to be strictly respected is the 26.5 mm over the nut approximately at the first peg (G) to keep the inside width of the pegbox at 16 mm (not less) to assure strings clearence from pegbox wall.