Measuring the back, approaches?

[dpappas]

Hello, 

I was taking some measurements of my violin, out of sheer curiosity.  But when measuring the back length, one can measure with calipers or over the arch.  When comparing my violin, the back over the arch is 352 mm, a little on the small side.  It's a little smaller than my old instrument, just based on how it fits in the case.  I didn't know if the data I saw on other instruments (e.g. Tarisio) was over the back or with calipers.  

The instrument length may or may not affect tone, I don't really know or care.  My instrument sounds the way it does because of all of the mix of various factors.  I'm really just curious how the back is usually measured and reported.  There was a thread on MN a while back on back measurements, but I couldn't glean if reported values adhere to a standard method of measurement (being the violin, I bet they don't).

 

Thanks

dimitri

[Fiddlemaker5224]

I was always instructed to measure the Body length with calipers. Then add the overhang at the end pin, and the length of the neck button from the purfling. This will result in a linear measurement of the back plate where the ribs are attached. Measuring over the arch will lengthen the measurement.

[David Burgess]

25 minutes ago, dpappas said:

Hello, 

I was taking some measurements of my violin, out of sheer curiosity.  But when measuring the back length, one can measure with calipers or over the arch. 

Unless the measurement specifies which method was used, or one knows from the history of the shop which method was used, I don't think there's any way of knowing. Same with widths. Calipers, or over the arch?

[David Beard]

To me, it's a frustrating issue.

My impression is that over the arching used to be by far the more common and normal way.  But in concept, measuring over the arching is obviously flawed and absurd.

It seems that giving a clean straight measure from edge to edge is growing more common.  It's obviously the cleaner and more repeatable/confirmable approach.

For now we're midstream of a transition from the one approach to the other.  If you see measures without clarifying statements, you're left guessing.

It's going to stay confused like that until the 'over the arch' method goes so far out of fashion as to be unacceptable.  Or until it becomes standard to always declare which approach is used.

 

Definitely a messy issue as things stand.

[deans]

Seems like an easy one for dealers. If its a bit oversized, measure with calipers. If its a bit too petite then measure over the arch.

[dpappas]

That’s what I figured.  It seems that any dimensions that one does not measure directly are useless.  

[David Beard]

1 hour ago, deans said:

Seems like an easy one for dealers. If its a bit oversized, measure with calipers. If its a bit too petite then measure over the arch.

Surely that is part of the issue.

Violins that are much shorter and a little shorter than modern preferences are quite common in classical Cremona production.  Perhaps that's a factor in dealers preferring the old over the arching approach.

I think this is only beginning to yield now that technology and the internet are pushing a somewhat greater transparency onto violin dealing.

[Wood Butcher]

I expect in the past most people had access to a measuring tape, but a calliper was probably a very expensive thing. I doubt too many dealers had a calliper big enough to measure a cello back, or have one now.

 

[David Beard]

1 hour ago, Wood Butcher said:

I expect in the past most people had access to a measuring tape, but a calliper was probably a very expensive thing. I doubt too many dealers had a calliper big enough to measure a cello back, or have one now.

 

True it's easy to measure over the arch, but that doesn't really explain.  If there were a will to measure faithfully, a way could be found.

Three sticks and a square are enough to improvise a large caliper of any desired size.  Certainly this is a challenge well within the capacity and imagination of any violin shop.  For whatever reason, there obviously wasn't a will to measure the actual dimensions.

[JohnCockburn]

1 hour ago, Wood Butcher said:

I expect in the past most people had access to a measuring tape, but a calliper was probably a very expensive thing. I doubt too many dealers had a calliper big enough to measure a cello back, or have one now.

 

We don't like common sense answers like this in these here parts...

I think obsession with dimensions/standardisation is a relatively modern phenomenon. 

 

[dpappas]

9 hours ago, JohnCockburn said:

We don't like common sense answers like this in these here parts...

I think obsession with dimensions/standardisation is a relatively modern phenomenon. 

 

I wouldn't disagree.  Before the internet, how many violinists even ask these questions.  I'm taking measurements of my violin for sheer curiosity, but when doing so, one wonders what the range or standards happen to be.  My violin, over the arch, is 352 mm.  I'll probably rig up calipers tonight and see as well.  Interestingly, the stop length and string length are normal.  I've had to use a custom tailpiece to get near the 1/6 starting point for string length.

[David Beard]

352 over the arch is smallish.  You have a clear market incentive to claim the larger number, even though many Strads, Amati, and Guarneri are the same size as yours.