Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Arching Plaster Casts


GerardM
 Share

Recommended Posts

I will probably never get to examine a Stradivarius violin. So perhaps the next best thing would be castings of the front and back arching. Can such a thing be purchased? Having searched the internet with no luck, maybe some of you might know of a source. Thank you in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were N. Amati plate casts and multiple scroll casts at the last T2 auction. Keep your eyes open and jump at the rare opportunities. Otherwise, it’s one of several very important reasons to go to conventions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scans I've seen of early instruments by Stradivari and others posted on this forum and elsewhere show distortions so bad there would be no point in trying to copy their arching profiles. And using castings to make arching guides would be totally impractical.

Having said that scans of some instruments are very informative as to the general approach to arching of those makers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased an old violin made around 1930 to help with understanding the shape and flow of the arching, as recommended by Jacob. But as Dennis pointed out the castings reflect any distortions. I have also purchased a few Strad posters which are very informative regarding distortions etc. Thank you Jim for your suggestion about the T2 auctions. Take care G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there would be anything special about Stradivari's, or any other maker's arching. There is also the question of how the long arch is constructed, both front and back.  It's purely a matter of what is practical, or what fits.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dave Slight said:

Wow! You really think so?
Are these first hand observations you have made?

What's so special about Strad arching. It's much like any other competent maker's arching of the time. How does it differ to other makers' work?

I'm sure they knew the basic geometry of arching and applied that in their work. At least some of them did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some arching guides I made myself from my own outline pattern and long arches.

They are at the upper (front and back), and front lower bout narrowest position next to the corners. A pair of each, one with the full arching scoop and the other cut straight across. 

 

1800212556_DSC_00022.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dennis J said:

What's so special about Strad arching. It's much like any other competent maker's arching of the time. How does it differ to other makers' work?

I'm sure they knew the basic geometry of arching and applied that in their work. At least some of them did.

 

 

Do you think there is nothing of interest between the arcing templates? There's a lot of information in the transitions that I never tire of studying. Then again, maybe I'm just a slow learner. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can vary arching profiles I make. It all comes down to the location of the inflection point. Moving it toward the centre narrows the convex part of the profile and widens the concave and scoop part of the profile. And making it higher or lower also affects the shape of the arch. I've tried different combinations and I think the ones I've shown here are about where I want to be with the long arch I'm using. The top is 15 mm and the back 14.5. It all comes down to what looks right to me.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plaster casts of archings and scrolls around. Most are not made available due to clients and museums view that they are proprietary and are not to be shared.

I disagree that due to distortion casts are not useful. If a maker is trying to work out the areas that are in-between the templates that are available, a cast can be invaluable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just made front and back long arch templates after reviewing what I have done in the past. And the cross-arch pics I've  shown are made to work with those long arches at each selected cross-arch position. So they are very accurate in that regard.

The idea that some ancient arching guide copy can be of much use doesn't make sense to me.

So my advice to any aspiring maker would be to look at designing long arch templates before worrying about cross-arch ones.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arching geometry is absolutely the most important thing for the function of an instrument after wood properties.

Dennis, you are entitled to your opinion. But your assertion that there's nothing special about the arching of the greatest makers of antiquity is absolute balderdash. There is a great deal to be learned from the study of these instruments, distortion or no, and you ignore this at your peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I just don't get it. I realise how closely makers examine various examples of arching by famous makers, but how you get from that to actually replicating those is something I don't understand. You would need to copy the whole instrument and its original measurements.

What I am saying is that if you know how to design arching the way those early makers did you can do just that.

I think the arching templates I've shown here are consistent with their work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dennis J said:

I have to say I just don't get it. I realise how closely makers examine various examples of arching by famous makers, but how you get from that to actually replicating those is something I don't understand. You would need to copy the whole instrument and its original measurements.

What I am saying is that if you know how to design arching the way those early makers did you can do just that.

I think the arching templates I've shown here are consistent with their work. 

You're very close to seeing what we're getting at. Because they didn't leave us nice tidy notes, studying the surviving work is what enables us to reverse engineer the "rules" they used to design their arching. Or do you mean to say you're able to make your templates which you claim are "consistent with their work" in some kind of vacuum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guided by what is apparent to me in their existing work along with a lot of thought and a bit of guesswork.

You would have to show me where my templates are not consistent with that work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dennis J said:

I'm guided by what is apparent to me in their existing work along with a lot of thought and a bit of guesswork.

You would have to show me where my templates are not consistent with that work.

 

I didn't say they aren't. I haven't even looked at them closely enough to make a comment. I'm concerned only with your assertion that studying the existing archings is somehow useless. I must be misunderstanding you, because I fail to see how anyone could arrive at archings they claim are historically relevant without studying the historical examples? Casts/CT scans/real instruments are the only records of the geometric guidelines we all rely on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted quite a lot of my work on arching and I have modified some aspects over time. However the basic geometry behind what I have laid out remains the same.

I'm quite confident that my critics can't prove where my method is wrong. So I hope that those who are interested in what I'm posting continue their interest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dennis J said:

I've posted quite a lot of my work on arching and I have modified some aspects over time. However the basic geometry behind what I have laid out remains the same.

I'm quite confident that my critics can't prove where my method is wrong. So I hope that those who are interested in what I'm posting continue their interest.

 

 

You continue to deflect- the presumed correctness of your approach is not what is being discussed. It's your erroneous claims that 1) examination of casts, prints, etc of real Cremonese masterpieces is somehow unhelpful, and 2) the specific arching schemas of Strad, DG, et al. are 'nothing special'. 

To repeat, this isn't about your personal approach being right or wrong. It's about either clarifying your unusual claims, ones that disagree with an alarming majority of well established contributors with iron clad pedigrees.

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...