Brad H

Fitting New Fingerboards to Old (Not new) Violins

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

No, not only is it not the tradition I come from, but it never made much sense to me.  Why make the part of the fingerboard thinner that is not supported by the neck? 

Leaving the end of FB thick doesn't do anything structually.

If you don't do this, FB appears thicker at both ends and thinner in the middle especially bass side.

It is not leaving unsupported part of FB thin, it is make the middle of FB ( at the neck ) heavy.

It makes perfect sense, but this is not critical at all, you can do whatever you please.

 

KYC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, chungviolins said:

 

If you don't do this, FB appears thicker at both ends and thinner in the middle especially bass side.

 

Not if you hollow the sides of the fingerboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glancing through the Derber book, I see that he recommends planing the bottom of the board so that it is composed of two flat sections that pivot about a point at the end of the neck root.  With his method, BOTH the neck end and the free end are relieved by 0.5 mm so that when the board is glued to the neck, the bottom of the bridge end is 1.0 mm higher than the nut end.  I don't see an explanation given for the need for this, but I haven't read the entire section.

 

I will add a word of warning to the discussion for those who might need it.   The free end of the fingerboard will take on the shape of the neck surface.  If you leave a hump in the long axis of the neck surface, the free end of the FB will droop.  If you leave the length of the neck surface concave, the free end will banana up.  So, unless you want to be chasing the free end of the board, plane the neck suface dead flat (not talking about tilt).

Share this post


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

Leaving the end of FB thick doesn't do anything structually.

If you don't do this, FB appears thicker at both ends and thinner in the middle especially bass side.

It is not leaving unsupported part of FB thin, it is make the middle of FB ( at the neck ) heavy.

It makes perfect sense, but this is not critical at all, you can do whatever you please.

 

KYC

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

Not if you hollow the sides of the fingerboard.

As David stated.  We make our fingerboards 24/24.5, 32, 42 so there is scoop to the sides.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

As David stated.  We make our fingerboards 24/24.5, 32, 42 so there is scoop to the sides.  

 

When making a new board on an old neck, I make the new board the same width as the (existing) old neck, even if I would wish for my ideal dimensions.:unsure:

 

This thread seems to me to be making something straight forward into advanced rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

When making a new board on an old neck, I make the new board the same width as the (existing) old neck, even if I would wish for my ideal dimensions.:unsure:

 

This thread seems to me to be making something straight forward into advanced rocket science.

As stated earlier, and for the most part, the body side IS the same as the existing neck, but if the original neck is too small at the nut, we flare that end of the board (from the neck up to the playing surface) to get a reasonable width, it is preferable to a neck graft with NO down side.  Do you still make the board to match if the nut end would be too small?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

  Do you still make the board to match if the nut end would be too small?

 

If the nut end of the neck was very much too small (or much smaler than I would like) I would wonder if just making a new board would be the appropriate measure

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brad H said:

Glancing through the Derber book, I see that he recommends planing the bottom of the board so that it is composed of two flat sections that pivot about a point at the end of the neck root.  With his method, BOTH the neck end and the free end are relieved by 0.5 mm so that when the board is glued to the neck, the bottom of the bridge end is 1.0 mm higher than the nut end.  I don't see an explanation given for the need for this, but I haven't read the entire section.

I wouldn't do that on a new fiddle. I'd rather save that for someone down the road, who needs to correct for distortions which inevitably occur over time under string tension.

 

52 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

This thread seems to me to be making something straight forward into advanced rocket science.

An actual "rocket scientist", with a foot in both worlds, has stated or implied that violins are much more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jacobsaunders said:

 

If the nut end of the neck was very much too small (or much smaler than I would like) I would wonder if just making a new board would be the appropriate measure

 

As we all would.  But if the answer is making a board that is slightly flared at the nut end from the neck to the playing surface, it does not seem like rocket science to make the appropriate call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

 

 

An actual "rocket scientist", with a foot in both worlds, has stated or implied that violins are much more complicated.

No wonder that you lot buy your rockets from the Russians then:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

No wonder that you lot buy your rockets from the Russians then:)

let's see, Austria is not on this list. Maybe that is why fingerboards seem like "advanced rocket science".B)

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/featurethe-10-countries-most-active-in-space-4744018/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jacobsaunders said:

No wonder that you lot buy your rockets from the Russians then:)

When I spent a little time in Moscow recently, I didn't find that our differences were nearly as great as our politicians would like to make them out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

No wonder that you lot buy your rockets from the Russians then:)

That sounds like "Fake news" to me.

Seriously,  you can pretty easily widen the nut end or narrow the heel end by about 1mm with careful shaping of the edge profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, David Burgess said:

When I spent a little time in Moscow recently, I didn't find that our differences were nearly as great as our politicians would like to make them out to be.

Under Communism man exploited man. Under capitalism it is just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Under Communism man exploited man. Under capitalism it is just the opposite.

Perhaps, but Russia these days very much resembles a capitalistic society, as does mainland China.

Casualties during the Second World War were only around five hundred thousand for the US, versus around 20 million for Russia. I won't hold it against them if they continue to place a high priority on protecting from invasion, including buffer zones, based on their past experience.

The trip to Moscow was a very enlightening experience. We interacted with some "old school" communist era folks, but also with some younger folks who were somewhat apologetic about the "old school" folks.

In the end, it was one of the "old school" guys who ended up giving the most numerous and lengthy toasts to my wife and I at the closing dinner, saying things like we had been excellent ambassadors, and hoping for continuing better relations between our nations. That was interesting, because we didn't even try. We simply went there with open minds and a desire to learn. That's all it took.

Another thing that many of us don't realize is that when "the wall came down", the accompanying changes  resulted in major hardship for Soviet citizens. The whole system went into a temporary state of chaos, resulting in everything from food supplies to garbage collection breaking down.

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.