Sign in to follow this  
nathan slobodkin

Vieuxtemps Guarneri

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Has anyone here seen the inside of the Vieuxtemps? I was just looking at the strad poster with the Graduation map and was wondering how original they were.

I'm very curious to know about this as well. I have not seen the scans/grad maps yet, but would assume this instrument was "improved" at some point like almost all of the classics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JacksonMaberry said:

I have not seen the scans/grad maps yet, but would assume this instrument was "improved" at some point like almost all of the classics. 

According to the poster, the grads are relatively thick, and the archings are very full.  Curtin found that the signature mode frequencies are extremely high.  It's a very stiff fiddle.

I would assume that any "improvements" are minimal, if there are any at all.

Share this post


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

According to the poster, the grads are relatively thick, and the archings are very full.  Curtin found that the signature mode frequencies are extremely high.  It's a very stiff fiddle.

I would assume that any "improvements" are minimal, if there are any at all.

That's refreshing to learn! Thanks, Don. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Don Noon said:

According to the poster, the grads are relatively thick, and the archings are very full.  Curtin found that the signature mode frequencies are extremely high.  It's a very stiff fiddle.

I would assume that any "improvements" are minimal, if there are any at all.

Didn't realize you were capable of assuming, Don.:D 

The grads are certainly quite stout in the top but the pattern is not what I have always assumed Guarneri to have used which would be thicker in the center. I'll see if I can find the Strad articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just read Borman's article (May 2018) and it seems he did not see the inside of the open fiddle and took the map using CT scans. He attributes the thicker grads at the edges to the very full, non-recurved arching.So the question remains; was the center of the plate even thicker at one point but has been modified?

Share this post


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

So the question remains; was the center of the plate even thicker at one point but has been modified?

As a maker and infomercenary, I can't see anything other than academic interest in knowing if it might have been thicker in the past.  We know what it is now and sounds like now...  what would be the interest (other than academic) of knowing what it was... but having no idea what it sounded like?  If it was thinned out, perhaps there was a very good reason to do so... and you can't very well complain that the tone has been destroyed.

I don't intend to demean those who are interested in the history of stuff and exactly what the Old Guys did, just for the sake of knowing it... but it won't help me make a better instrument today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder whether we should accord considerable acclaim to  whoever did the thinning of the plates (Cozio's shop, Mantegazza brothers?)?  If it sounded wonderful before, it probably wouldn't have been re-graduated.  Are many of the celebrated violins wonderful sounding now due to efforts beyond those of the original maker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally with Don Noon's comment. It is pretty difficult to prove conclusively whether or not a nearly 300 year old violin's thicknesses have been tampered with, and even if we could, it wouldn't teach us much about how the violin sounded before. We do have some documentary evidence about how relatively well informed people felt about Del Gesus circa 1800, such as the Abbé Sibire book, written under the guidance of Nicolas Lupot, no less. The opinion expressed was that the sound was inferior to Strads, and it's interesting that Lupot made very few (if any...it's not a 100% consensus that he did make any) DG copies. Vuillaume also started out with Strad models, and I don't believe he started making Del Gesu models until Paganini came to town. He got his hands on Paganini's DG, and apparently took it appart, took measurements and made patterns, but as far as I know, there are no existing Vuillaume DG models with Cannon-like thicknesses, whether they be Cannon, Alard or Ole Bull inspired models. I find it hard to believe that Vuillaume would have rejected those thicknesses on purely "ideological" grounds, as he was a pretty wild "experimenter" trying out some crazy violin and bow ideas over the years. If he could have found a way to make those thicknesses work for him, I imagine he would have used them. A more recent anaogy is of course Scarampella...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Don Noon said:

As a maker and infomercenary, I can't see anything other than academic interest in knowing if it might have been thicker in the past.  We know what it is now and sounds like now...  what would be the interest (other than academic) of knowing what it was... but having no idea what it sounded like?  If it was thinned out, perhaps there was a very good reason to do so... and you can't very well complain that the tone has been destroyed.

I don't intend to demean those who are interested in the history of stuff and exactly what the Old Guys did, just for the sake of knowing it... but it won't help me make a better instrument today.

Well I can. If Instruments where made consistently thicker in the past, that Points towards a different Sound ideal from what it is now. If they would have considered the Sound of thinner plates better, then they would have made thinner plates, it is not that hard to do so.

 

But I have never heard of consistency in the thickness of the plates in old violins or violins of specific Areas and times. Has anyone tried to do Research on the subject?

 

Interestingly, in my experience most baroque violin playerrs prefer rather lightly made Instruments. Whatever that may mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any reason why a violin maker in the past would have chosen as a correction a thickness pattern which contradicts general ideas on thicknessing at that time. (edge thicker than center) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??  When I did study ct scan maps and thickness maps for Cremona maps, I came away with the following:

* Backs generally have a extra central mass of thickness, sometimes near circular, sometimes elongated along the center line.

* Tops generally are near equal thickness diaphragms with thickness drift around with about .2mm variance in no really consistent patern

* Immediately near the edges tend to be thicker for backs and tops.  Outside the f holes to the edge tends to be considerably thicker.

* The area of the top between the upper soundhole eyes tends to be barely thinner, particularly in Strad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.