Opinions on new f-hole template

[mapfluke]

So I've decided to make an attempt at creating a more original f-hole shape. Any opinions/critiques are greatly appreciated, and anyone who would like to share their original designs are welcome.

p.s. don't mind some of the irregularities, I freehanded this, scanned it, and then filled it in with black on the computer.

[Thomas Coleman]

Please take this with a grain of salt.  In my opinion the upper half and lower half are too incongruous.  Top half Guarneri/ bottom half Strad.  The upper eye looks too small in relation to the wing, well...not the wing but to everything around the eye.  I've drawn many f holes and have never used one of my own on an instrument so that should tell you something about my opinion.  One of my favorite non traditional f holes are the ones done by Lee Dale Nigh , I think thats his name.  Kudos for trying it!

[Ken_N]

I don't ever use templates, but I did just use the ones given on the Gofriller violin poster.  They worked nicely. I usually just draw them in until they look right.  You have the basics. There aren't too many. Tapers at both ends. The points of the wing are at the low/high point of the upper and lower radius. But the one thing missing is that the upper line for the top of the wing is not the same angle as the lower one.   A thousand ways to do them.  You can even do them SERIOUSLY WRONG!  Really you can do it AND get away with it:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/128063/#slide=gs-227267

[Michael_Molnar]

I agree with Coleman. You have a chimera of sorts.

[mapfluke]

10 hours ago, Ken_N said:

 the upper line for the top of the wing is not the same angle as the lower one.   A thousand ways to do them.  You can even do them SERIOUSLY WRONG!  Really you can do it AND get away with it:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/128063/#slide=gs-227267

 

Are there any real disadvantages to them not being parallel? Or is it just something most makers like to achieve because of the aesthetics?

[mapfluke]

Here's one abiding by the parallel rule, which I do like now seeing it

 

 

[DonCarlos]

I would not see a 'chimera' as a bad thing necessarily. As long as the design is executed thoughtfully and you are happy with it, I wouldn't put too much stock into mixing maker styles on an original design. On my past two violas I designed an ff that was a combination of primarily a Da salo ff, with the lower wing and eyes being more in line with a Guadagnini. I know that people scoff at that sort of thing but I was very happy with the outcome and so was the person who paid me for the instrument so ultimately, to me, that's what matters.
In regard to your ff, I would experiment with enlarging the upper eye though I don't think it looks bad as it is. I also recommend experimenting with averaging out the tapers at each end so that the curve along the outside going into the eyes are a little more similar. I hope that makes sense.


An example of my previously mentioned ff
Sorry for the poor quality photo, I am no photographer.

[Don Noon]

To my eye, the top and bottom wings still don't match well... but maybe I'm thinking of what it reminds me of:

[JohnCockburn]

yes i was just thinking that once all the anomalies are ironed out it'll end up looking just like a middle period del gesu.

 

[mapfluke]

11 hours ago, DonCarlos said:

I would not see a 'chimera' as a bad thing necessarily. As long as the design is executed thoughtfully and you are happy with it, I wouldn't put too much stock into mixing maker styles on an original design. On my past two violas I designed an ff that was a combination of primarily a Da salo ff, with the lower wing and eyes being more in line with a Guadagnini. I know that people scoff at that sort of thing but I was very happy with the outcome and so was the person who paid me for the instrument so ultimately, to me, that's what matters.
In regard to your ff, I would experiment with enlarging the upper eye though I don't think it looks bad as it is. I also recommend experimenting with averaging out the tapers at each end so that the curve along the outside going into the eyes are a little more similar. I hope that makes sense.


 

1

I believe I may have improved what you are talking about 

[David Beard]

You can still easily see those curve areas are out of round. Actual circle arcs is what the eye expects in these.

[Jacobus Drainer]

9 hours ago, JohnCockburn said:

yes i was just thinking that once all the anomalies are ironed out it'll end up looking just like a middle period del gesu.

 

Of course.  The thing is its impression as a whole.  Here's one of the most celebrated (and frightening to many) American makers.  It has a quasi-medieval quality.  Very pretty, to me.

 

[mapfluke]

2 hours ago, David Beard said:

You can still easily see those curve areas are out of round. Actual circle arcs is what the eye expects in these.

Make the circle small enough and you could easily fit an arc in there

[Jacobus Drainer]

More f-holes from the same maker.  They defy just about all advice I've read on this board, but are still attractive.  Maybe more so than any maker, living or dead.  They just look like they'd sound good....

 

 

[Andreas Preuss]

I think there are two different concepts in drawing f holes.

Some makers make a template and try to match the cutting as close as possible to the template. Sometimes they shift or tilt the template but in itself it never changes. This aims as well to a perfect mirror image of one f hole to the other.

The second approach goes by circling out with geometric design principles the location of the f hole and use the template if there is any rather as a general guide than a 'must follow precisely instruction'. This allows zillions of minimal variations, yet the style remains the same. 

You have obviously chosen the first approach and eventually you can do what want, let it be f holes with incongruous upper and lower half. This might even give your f holes a signature trait. It all depends on what goal you have. 

It is always instructive to look at f holes by famous makers of the past and ask yourself what makes them special or recognizable.

[Andreas Preuss]

On March 20, 30 Heisei at 9:00 AM, Bill Merkel said:

Of course.  The thing is its impression as a whole.  Here's one of the most celebrated (and frightening to many) American makers.  It has a quasi-medieval quality.  Very pretty, to me.

 

Peppered son? (Sometimes mobile phones have their own ideas about name spellings)

Peresson?

 

 

[Moroni Larson]

 .

 

[David Burgess]

On 3/17/2018 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Coleman said:

 In my opinion the upper half and lower half are too incongruous. 

Agreed.

On 3/19/2018 at 8:00 PM, Bill Merkel said:

Of course.  The thing is its impression as a whole.  Here's one of the most celebrated (and frightening to many) American makers. 

 

Really? Who was the maker, and was it a copy, or something to test the envelope, or what? It doesn't even show good knife handling skills.

[Jacobus Drainer]

^Pepperoni, as Andy Reas guessed I've only seen pictures but they all are very similar (as in these two pictures) and it does kind of "test the envelope" it seems to me, but the results appeal to me.  Most stuff in that category is too "out there" to appeal to me.  I don't know about knife handling skills except what I've read from William Fairbairn.    Could be that what good skills are could be rethought, not to sound like I'm pushing degenerate art...

[David Beard]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:08 AM, Don Noon said:

To my eye, the top and bottom wings still don't match well... but maybe I'm thinking of what it reminds me of:

Yes. The straight cut for the upper wing points a little too direct toward the center of the upper eye.   Despite the many variations, one thing we see consistently in classical soundhole shapes is that the straight cuts of the wings pass 'clear and outside' the centers of the eyes.

 

As in Don's example.