The PG mould does not fit the Messiah Poster?!

[Michael Szyper]

Dear friends,

I need your help.  Today I wanted to make a few new molds after I bought a nice walnut board. 

I started with the PG (1689, ms21) and had the following resources:

- Addie’s great drawings

- Francois Denis’ drawings

- life-size pictures and measurements of the mold (made by Fausto Cacciatori/ museo del Violino)

- Messiah Strad Poster 2011

- Messiah drawings by the Hills

The mold drawings seem to match pretty well despite minor differences. The measurements given by Cacciatori fit the mold perfectly. 

In both the Hills and Strad Plan there is a big mismatch between the mold and the Messiah poster. 

I printed Addie’s drawing on a transparent Paper to show you better what I mean. 

(I aligned the left side as good as I could to show the difference on the right side)

What are your thoughts about it?

Especially in the corner regions the differences are so huge that I can not imagine Stradivari used the PG corner templates and moulds. 

Or is it the great cam distortion? (But the PG mould also has been photographed and  fits a lot better than the Messiah)

[Davide Sora]

PG form on Messia ribs CT scan from the book "The absolute Stradivari - the Messie violin" seems a good match .

[Michael Szyper]

Hi Davide. Thank you for this great resource! So it seems to be the poster distortion. 

By the way: we met each other at the Cremona mondomusica during our lunch break. Was nice to meet you!

 

5 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

PG form on Messia ribs CT scan from the book "The absolute Stradivari - the Messie violin" seems a good match .

 

[Michael_Molnar]

29 minutes ago, Michael Szyper said:

 

Especially in the corner regions the differences are so huge that I can not imagine Stradivari used the PG corner templates and moulds. 

Or is it the great cam distortion? (But the PG mould also has been photographed and  fits a lot better than the Messiah)

3

The drawing fails to connect the curves in the bouts near the corners with a tangential straight line. Look at the bouts near the corner blocks. A VSA judge pointed this out to me on one of my violins that had the shape of this drawing. I threw that form out and copied the real thing.

[Addie]

I can only draw the artifacts as they appear: I cannot and will not draw what judges think, or what posters lead one to expect.

[Michael Szyper]

This drawing seems to follow the original mold very closely. The corner templates are a different thing.... they are not very elegant. 

1 hour ago, Michael_Molnar said:

copied the real thing.

In this case, the Strad poster does not seem to show the ‘real thing’ at all.

I know what you mean by this tangential line, but in undistorted ct scans of rib outlines this ‘tangential connection’ is IMHO a rare event. 

[Addie]

Only one Stradivari form has corner blocks in place.  They don't look much like the block templates. 

[Michael_Molnar]

18 minutes ago, Michael Szyper said:

This drawing seems to follow the original mold very closely. The corner templates are a different thing.... they are not very elegant. 

In this case, the Strad poster does not seem to show the ‘real thing’ at all.

I know what you mean by this tangential line, but in undistorted ct scans of rib outlines this ‘tangential connection’ is IMHO a rare event. 

Examine the lay of the purfling and the tangents pop out.

[Michael Szyper]

6 minutes ago, Michael_Molnar said:

Examine the lay of the purfling and the tangents pop out.

Again, it is hard to judge this aspects on distorted photographs... The corners are the first to change their look in photographs.

Btw, who was the judge?

[MarkBouquet]

I don't know if it's relevant here, but paper, like wood, will change dimensions with differences in moisture content, as brought about by differences in relative humidity.

[Jim Bress]

3 hours ago, Michael_Molnar said:

The drawing fails to connect the curves in the bouts near the corners with a tangential straight line. Look at the bouts near the corner blocks. A VSA judge pointed this out to me on one of my violins that had the shape of this drawing. I threw that form out and copied the real thing.

Can the straight line be formed by the corner block being shaped a little proud of the form?

[Davide Sora]

4 hours ago, Michael Szyper said:

Hi Davide. Thank you for this great resource! So it seems to be the poster distortion. 

By the way: we met each other at the Cremona mondomusica during our lunch break. Was nice to meet you!

 

 

Hi Michael,

 

now I get it, it's difficult to remember a name (at least for me....) but it's always easier when you see the face!!

It was nice to meet you in Cremona, maybe again next year if you come back.

 

Back to forms and shapes, it's always difficult to find perfect match among forms and real violins, even CT scans of ribs at the right location fail to give a perfect match.

 

I think this is absolutely normal given the lack of propensity to respect the accuracy of ancient luthiers (I see no reason why they should do it) and if we also put deformations, repairs and  wood shrinking over time the picture is complete.

I believe we must resign ourselves to this...

So I see only three possible approaches :

1) use the original form's shape as it is and do what Stradivari did, just use it and make your own violin with the same form that Stradivari used ; 

2) use the poster (checking that the measurements are correct.....) because in the end that is the outline that we like and that led us to chose that shape ;

3) use the original form's shape trying to understand how Stradivari used it and what modifications he has done more or less consciously to the form's outline like corner blocks with different shapes and more or less protruding from the form, same for upper and lower blocks (i.e. the upper block of the Messia is quite flat, so much so that a kink is clearly visible where the ribs meet the block), not respecting a constant edge overhang from the ribs, which Stradivari regularly did in specific areas such as the upper curve of the C where the edge never completely follows the line of the ribs with variations that are practically always the same for each form.

This requires a rather obsessive study of different instruments made on the same form, very interesting to understand the original intentions of the maker but also a bit obsessive / compulsive for a modern luthier's point of wiew.

I confess that I adhered a lot to the approach of point 3), but I'm increasingly going in the direction of point 1) which is the most natural and personalizing even if starting directly from that without going through the other two without much specific experience is quite risky and may lead to unpleasant result with the outline and give problems with some fairly important measures (as stop lenght, F-holes placement, body lenght) creating a lot of confusion and disappointment with the results.

Good luck!!

Davide

 

PS Of course there is also the approach n° 4), that is to draw one's own form and make one's own violin totally ignoring those of the ancients, surely the method that will return the greatest personality, for the better........ or for the worse

 

 

[Bill Yacey]

Those Strad posters are only a lithographers rendition of what they think it should look like. They free-hand draw it from memory.

[Michael_Molnar]

Michael,

It wasn't that long ago when I encountered this very issue with the forms and plate shapes. So, I settled on using the plate shape to define my form. I used the Viotti and get nice compliments on the plates made from this. Another issue is the asymmetry of the plates and f-holes. Anyhow, my form fits very closely the Strad PG. I believe the tangent lines on the original forms have worn away and have become rounded. I also suspect that Strad's blocks were fatter (wider) which produces the tangent lines. Hope that helps. 

As for the VSA judge, I spoke with 3 and forget which one mentioned this.

[Addie]

6 minutes ago, Michael_Molnar said:

I believe the tangent lines on the original forms have worn away and have become rounded. 

There is plenty of evidence to back this up.

The forms, plate outlines, and CT scans are all useful, but no one approach is perfect.

[David Burgess]

5 hours ago, Michael Szyper said:

Again, it is hard to judge this aspects on distorted photographs... The corners are the first to change their look in photographs.

Btw, who was the judge?

There's a possibility that I was one of the judges, and I could have easily made such an observation. since my opinions run very close to what Molnar has observed about the approach into the corner blocks.

If I was the one who said that, I will stand behind my opinion

[David Beard]

Push, pull, twist.    Pin and clamp.

 

Why expect the final plate to exactly match the form?   Rib structures can flex.       The arcs rising from the main bout lines to the corners are often curved in more on the molds than the plates.

[Michael Szyper]

15 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

I confess that I adhered a lot to the approach of point 3), but I'm increasingly going in the direction of point 1) which is the most natural and personalizing even if starting directly from that without going through the other two without much specific experience is quite risky and may lead to unpleasant result with the outline and give problems with some fairly important measures (as stop lenght, F-holes placement, body lenght) creating a lot of confusion and disappointment with the results.

Dear Davide, thank you for your opinion. Great to have you here. Hope we meet soon again in Cremona!

12 hours ago, David Burgess said:

There's a possibility that I was one of the judges, and I could have easily made such an observation. since my opinions run very close to what Molnar has observed about the approach into the corner blocks.

If I was the one who said that, I will stand behind my opinion

Dear David, I am not really convinced about the "straight tangent" theory. Since I highly appreciate your and Michael Molnars opinions, maybe you could explain again what you mean? I marked a tangent line as i understand it over the viotti upper corner. To my eye a larger radius fits a lot better than a straight line, but maybe I just understood you completely wrong.

[francoisdenis]

Dear Michael(s),

look this Messie's pictures of its distorcions. That will give you some argues for the next contest

-Caracteristic bump of the form pusching the ribs before the blocs

-Caracteritic distorcion of the garland a tthe level of the bloc often due to the shrinking of the wood

 

 

 

[JacksonMaberry]

Great, M. Denis! Thank you.

[Michael Szyper]

Thank you for this great input and rare pictures, Monsieur Denis!

Here you can see clearly what Davide Sora previously mentioned: The overhang in the c-bouts can vary a lot.

[David Burgess]

6 hours ago, Michael Szyper said:

Dear David, I am not really convinced about the "straight tangent" theory. Since I highly appreciate your and Michael Molnars opinions, maybe you could explain again what you mean? I marked a tangent line as i understand it over the viotti upper corner. To my eye a larger radius fits a lot better than a straight line, but maybe I just understood you completely wrong.

Perhaps we are talking about different things.

I was talking about the continuing convex curvature of the form as it approaches the corner block, the portion between the arrows on each side. If the ribs accurately followed this curvature of the form in that area, and then the outline was traced from these ribs,  the outline would be different from what we usually see. Notice how curved that area of the form is, while that portion of the outline between the arrows is quite straight.

So perhaps the form was worn, or perhaps the trimmed blocks protruded enough from the form that the ribs did not follow the curve, or maybe that section sprang straight when the rib assembly was removed from the form? Maybe Denis has a theory on this. But when I see that much curvature carried over to the outline on something like a Strad copy, it looks like a mistake to me.

[MikeC]

David B. in that pic with the arrows on the bass side the drawn form and plate outline seem to be a match, it's only on the treble side that there looks to be a difference. If the corner blocks are carved slightly proud of the form the ribs would bridge that gap and make the straighter outline.   

[Michael Szyper]

33 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

I was talking about the continuing convex curvature of the form as it approaches the corner block, the portion between the arrows on each side. If the ribs accurately followed this curvature of the form in that area, and then the outline was traced from these ribs,  the outline would be different from what we usually see. Notice how curved that area of the form is, while that portion of the outline between the arrows is quite straight.

Ah, now i understand what you mean. I agree totally in this point, that kind of "kinking" is anything but elegant to the eye.

[francoisdenis]

33 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Maybe Denis has a theory on this.

I think that there is probably not a single explanation to this fact but the coincidence more or less obvious and marked of a making process which generate a tendency to the straight. The fact is that this trend became a kind of caricature among the late Cremoneses.