Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Science and "Evidence"


Peter K-G
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

And yes, it is frustrating when someone questioning a common truth.

It mIght still be right, the "hearsaying/common truth". But it's so old that not many can defend it with (forgotten) evidence. Annoying isn't it!

A while back, the Smithsonian made thickness and elevation maps of a good number Strads and Del Gesu.  To my opinion, only a very few of those appeared altered from shared common patterns that seem to hvae come from.the makers.  

Of course, a study like that would have tried to have avoided obviously compromised instruments.  But, that survey seems to support you idea that significant regraduations where more the exception than the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

A while back, the Smithsonian made thickness and elevation maps of a good number Strads and Del Gesu.  To my opinion, only a very few of those appeared altered from shared common patterns that seem to hvae come from.the makers.  

Of course, a study like that would have tried to have avoided obviously compromised instruments.  But, that survey seems to support you idea that significant regraduations where more the exception than the rule. 

Thanks,

I think in general, it's amazing on how insignificant small pieces of evidence, established "facts", quite often are based on.

The worst part is that a lot of other things later builds up on such "facts". Then people are starting to guard it, because years/decades of work might fall apart if the base has loose grounds.

I actually have no idea about regraduation, what bothers me is that there is in my opinion not enough evidence, only hearsaying. Likewise with the pins under purfling = purfling was done after soundbox closed.

To me this is not nearly enough to even come close to evidence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

Thanks,

I think in general, it's amazing on how insignificant small pieces of evidence, established "facts", quite often are based on.

The worst part is that a lot of other things later builds up on such "facts". Then people are starting to guard it, because years/decades of work might fall apart if the base has loose grounds.

I actually have no idea about regraduation, what bothers me is that there is in my opinion not enough evidence, only hearsaying. Likewise with the pins under purfling = purfling was done after soundbox closed.

To me this is not nearly enough to even come close to evidence.

 

 

 

Some regraduation was done.  The question is how much and how extensively.

I agree with position of routinely and agressively challenging received wisdom, but....    That doesn't mean the received wisdom is wrong.  And it really doesn't mean the opposites are automatically true.

I equally believe in being skeptical of my own biases and anything I think I know, or that is convenient or self serving for me.

You should be suspicious of your own desire to deny the purfling was done with instrument closed. 

The only evidence you have given for your position is that you don't created the existence of evidence for purfling after close.  But that is still no evidence for your position.

And, I've responding on this thread giving some of the reasons I believe it was after closing.  But you don't acknowledge that?  And, you read more about why that conclusion is drawn reading Hargrave and others.

While I agree with the principle of challenging premises, it does rather seem you are entrenching a defense of what you already do rather than probing a question?

 

Pleae pardon if I'm off base on this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2021 at 11:08 AM, Andreas Preuss said:

The only proof I know of  that thinning out instruments seemed to have been an 'acceptable' practice is written in the book of Antonio Marchi (1786). He writes that if a customer with a Guarneri del Gesu comes into the shop he gives the following advice: (my wording) after the customer has left the shop, open the instrument and thin it down where you think it is too thick.

My understanding is that some of the evidence is the presence or absence of the original layout marking on the inside.... whether they remain or have been scraped away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

My understanding is that some of the evidence is the presence or absence of the original layout marking on the inside.... whether they remain or have been scraped away.

However, that could potentially happen from agressive cleaning and light scraping rather than significant reshaping of graduations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, David Beard said:

However, that could potentially happen from agressive cleaning and light scraping rather than significant reshaping of graduations.

 

One clue might be how well the presence or absence of layout marks corresponds with instruments which are thicker or thinner than usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

One clue might be how well the presence or absence of layout marks corresponds with instruments which are thicker or thinner than usual.

That would be an interesting project. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

However, that could potentially happen from agressive cleaning and light scraping rather than significant reshaping of graduations.

 

Doesn't the Cannone Guarneri have varnish or colorant runs on the inside near the ff holes which appear to be soaked in pretty deep? Those might take some pretty aggressive wood removal to get rid of.

http://www.premiopaganini.it/archivio/violi_guarneri_immagini_eng.htm

In other words, I think much of the conjecture about regraduation is based on some pretty careful observations, involving a high number of instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

Doesn't the Cannone Guarneri have varnish runs on the inside near the ff holes which appear to be soaked in pretty deep? Those might take some pretty aggressive wood removal to get rid of.

In other words, I think much of the conjecture about regraduation is based on some pretty careful observations, with a high number of instruments.

Sure. But that could still just be clean up rather than rethicknessing. Though obviously there would at least be minor impact.

My skepticism about how much thicknesses were altered comes primarily from the large Smithsonian study.  Though, those are very select instruments and don't necessarily reflect the fate of less famous Cremona making.

But, in those instruments Strad and Del Gesu each show distinct patterns of thicknessing, and the each show their own somewhat different patterns.

But, I remember there were at least 2 Strad examples in the set that didn't show his pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Beard said:

Some regraduation was done.  The question is how much and how extensively.

I agree with position of routinely and agressively challenging received wisdom, but....    That doesn't mean the received wisdom is wrong.  And it really doesn't mean the opposites are automatically true.

I equally believe in being skeptical of my own biases and anything I think I know, or that is convenient or self serving for me.

You should be suspicious of your own desire to deny the purfling was done with instrument closed. 

The only evidence you have given for your position is that you don't created the existence of evidence for purfling after close.  But that is still no evidence for your position.

And, I've responding on this thread giving some of the reasons I believe it was after closing.  But you don't acknowledge that?  And, you read more about why that conclusion is drawn reading Hargrave and others.

While I agree with the principle of challenging premises, it does rather seem you are entrenching a defense of what you already do rather than probing a question?

 

Pleae pardon if I'm off base on this.

 

No problem, I'm not defending anything nor have I an agenda. Questions in OP are just that. Simple questions that I have thought about and can't understand how there isn't more evidence to these common "established facts"

I did read what you wrote earlier, but couldn't find anything that couldn't be done with the plates off the ribs. In fact my ribs are far from square and equal. Corners vary from side to side and top/back is way of sometimes.

And yes, I'm a fan of Roger Hargrave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

No problem, I'm not defending anything nor have I an agenda. Questions in OP are just that. Simple questions that I have thought about and can't understand how there isn't more evidence to these common "established facts"

I did read what you wrote earlier, but couldn't find anything that couldn't be done with the plates off the ribs. In fact my ribs are far from square and equal. Corners vary from side to side and top/back is way of sometimes.

And yes, I'm a fan of Roger Hargrave

Well, I agree it seems possible either way.  But when you go and make a fiddle you have to choose which way to go.  For now, I strongly favor closing the box first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

A clue from Del Gesu suggesting sequence in edge work.  

 

928892746_1735ChardonDelGesu.jpg.3ac3f2d2b841ac6dfad8fe4c6a7e0c16.jpg

What does it suggest?

Rounding the edges after, that I always do. I don't follow Roger's (nor Davide's) method on that.

I find it the fastest way is to do egework after soundbox close, prefarably with the neck on for final adjustments before varnishing.

This also gives the possibility correct/conseal overhang deviations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peter K-G said:

What does it suggest?

Rounding the edges after, that I always do. I don't follow Roger's (nor Davide's) method on that.

I find it the fastest way is to do egework after soundbox close, prefarably with the neck on for final adjustments before varnishing.

This also gives the possibility correct/conseal overhang deviations

But, if you touch the outline for any reason, a purf done before won't reflect the change.  I purf done later won't reflect that.

Doesn't seem like most classical work puts much stock in even overhangs.  (Maybe some Amati work?)

 

The Del Gesu example were the purfling could have gone in even after the FB.   But nothing is absolutely conclusive about it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Beard said:

But, if you touch the outline for any reason, a purf done before won't reflect the change.  I purf done later won't reflect that.

Doesn't seem like most classical work puts much stock in even overhangs.  (Maybe some Amati work?)

 

The Del Gesu example were the purfling could have gone in even after the FB.   But nothing is absolutely conclusive about it.

 

 

Agree, outline changes are minor though, mostly eyeballing for small changes in roundness where overhang looks too much or too little and at the same time upperside so that the purfling looks as equal from the edge as possible. Also correcting the channel towards the edge ridge simultaniously.

Another advantage is that I don't have to be so careful with the clamps, when glueing.

I work fast.

http://www.thestradsound.com/ongoing/edgework-1

 

How I work has nothing to do with my questions though.

I have thought about doing the purfling after close, but I can't see how it would speed up anything, unless I would make the channel half done and insert the purfling not so deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

I have thought about doing the purfling after close, but I can't see how it would speed up anything, unless I would make the channel half done and insert the purfling not so deep.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, David Burgess said:

One clue might be how well the presence or absence of layout marks corresponds with instruments which are thicker or thinner than usual.

 

14 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Doesn't the Cannone Guarneri have varnish or colorant runs on the inside near the ff holes which appear to be soaked in pretty deep? Those might take some pretty aggressive wood removal to get rid of.

http://www.premiopaganini.it/archivio/violi_guarneri_immagini_eng.htm

In other words, I think much of the conjecture about regraduation is based on some pretty careful observations, involving a high number of instruments.

These are in my opinion valid as evidence if there are documentation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the pins.

One could also argue that those, without pins, had purfling done after gluing the plates. Those with pins were purfed with plates not glued, taking them on and of ribs while working.

The first two I made I used the second method

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

 

These are in my opinion valid as evidence if there are documentation.

 

Sacconi would be the guy to talk to. He had a lot more of these instrument open than I ever have. ;)

Bruce Carlson has also been an astute observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, David Burgess said:

My understanding is that some of the evidence is the presence or absence of the original layout marking on the inside.... whether they remain or have been scraped away.

Hmm, so this would mean all instruments without markings were re-graduated? (Basically over 95 percent?)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

When arguing such things, keep in-mind Occam's Razor: 

The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation.

Stradivari pins installed where only half of the pin is visable would be tough to do with free plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should one consider the paucity of genuinely untouched examples that one may have access to, all talk of “Science” and “Evidence” seems to be somewhere between masturbation and a red herring. All one can realistically do, is to join the dots, which was Rogers approach.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...