Dodd bow: about face.

[Bownut]

Dear Maestronetarians, I have this nice old Dodd ( John?) which will need some looking after before I can play with it but I have high hopes it will sing in my hand! My question is what sort of face to put on. There is the remains of a silver face but, as far as I can tell, the bow is a good bit earlier than the start of metal faces, according to Mr. Saunders' very useful chart. I have seen a couple of similar Dodds but cannot exactly remember how the faces looked. Ebony plain or, the now conventional, ivory with ebony under-face, and in what thicknesses? Would weight be an issue? Could I solicit some opinions how it might have looked originally. Thanks.

[martin swan]

Lovely bow

it appears to be modelled on an early FX Tourte 

Tourte was using silver faces by 1810 so I wouldn’t be that surprised if you have the remnants of the original face

[Guido]

I was wondering if there is any possibility that this is the original face as it is.

[jacobsaunders]

Is the frog stamped "DODD" on the audience side?

[GeorgeH]

3 hours ago, Guido said:

 

I was wondering if there is any possibility that this is the original face as it is.

I was wondering the same thing. I can’t imagine how it would break like that without damage to the wood.

[Brad Dorsey]

Is the silver ring on the butt end an original Dodd feature?

 

[Bownut]

I cannot answer Jacob's question, I have simply forgotten and the bow is in the bowmaker's Shop. I will try and contact him. 

To the other question: I would think not. I have not seen anything similar that was not a safe but unsightly repair. 

[jacobsaunders]

5 hours ago, Bownut said:

Dear Maestronetarians, I have this nice old Dodd ( John?) which will need some looking after before I can play with it but I have high hopes it will sing in my hand! My question is what sort of face to put on. There is the remains of a silver face but, as far as I can tell, the bow is a good bit earlier than the start of metal faces, according to Mr. Saunders' very useful chart. I have seen a couple of similar Dodds but cannot exactly remember how the faces looked. Ebony plain or, the now conventional, ivory with ebony under-face, and in what thicknesses? Would weight be an issue? Could I solicit some opinions how it might have looked originally. Thanks.

I think your original question boils down to trying to make an accurate assessment of the age of your bow. I spent several years compiling my “useful chart”, and had to learn an awful lot in the process. The general overview was that British bow making went off at it’s own tangent for (particularly) the first half of the 19thC., and in many ways reconnected with continental bow making about by William Tubbs. The pre-Tubbs ones all more or less had typical idio-cnyracies, which one could see to a greater or lesser extent on all bows. These include: Top Hat mortice, 45° facets wider than top/bottom/side ones, Stick mortice nearer to the adjuster, frogs narrower than sticks. Large nipples on stick end, stamp on audience side of frog, also the evolution of the face plate. From the provided pictures, I struggle to find any of these features (correct me if I have missed anything), which frustrates any attempt to date the bow. One should never forget that “DODD” was probably the second most popular (most popular being Tourte) apocryphal stamp in Markneukirchen

[martin swan]

2 hours ago, Brad Dorsey said:

Is the silver ring on the butt end an original Dodd feature?

 

There’s a crack in the lower facet of the handle …

[martin swan]

If we accept that the stick nay have been lengthened by the silver ring then the mortice is close to the adjuster and the frog is narrower than the stick … 

[jacobsaunders]

3 minutes ago, martin swan said:

If we accept that the stick nay have been lengthened by the silver ring then the mortice is close to the adjuster and the frog is narrower than the stick … 

How does a silve ring to shore up a crack lengthen the stick?

[martin swan]

You’re right - i thought it was unusually long and maybe had a solid end but looking closer I see wood at the end of it

[Bownut]

Here is one piece of the puzzle answered...

[jacobsaunders]

9 minutes ago, Bownut said:

Here is one piece of the puzzle answered...

Thank-you very much. Could you find any of the other features I listed?

[GeorgeH]

45° facets wider than top/bottom/side ones?

[jacobsaunders]

4 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

45° facets wider than top/bottom/side ones?

I couldn't establish that from the photos

[Bownut]

From this side, I would venture to suggest that the diagonal facets do seem wider and the frog is clearly narrower than the stick. I understand your wanting to question crucial evidence and respect your knowledge greatly but, dare I ask, does this bow look Markneukirchen-like to you, despite some features not being clearly discernable? (..yet! I think we may well find out more in the course of the restoration.) If we could assume, for now, that the bow is a DODD, what type of face would you expect to have been original?

[jacobsaunders]

11 minutes ago, Bownut said:

From this side, I would venture to suggest that the diagonal facets do seem wider and the frog is clearly narrower than the stick. I understand your wanting to question crucial evidence and respect your knowledge greatly but, dare I ask, does this bow look Markneukirchen-like to you, despite some features not being clearly discernable? (..yet! I think we may well find out more in the course of the restoration.) If we could assume, for now, that the bow is a DODD, what type of face would you expect to have been original?

If you go back to my “useful chart”, one can work that out by establishing which general features were typical of which periods, then go down to the face plate vertical line, and see if an ebony plate without ivory, an ivory plate without ebony and if a “nose” etc. were to be expected

[Blank face]

If I recall the essay right, shouldn’t apply the “45 degree facets wider” to complete octagonal sticks only? And what’s about a top hat mortise, would it be expected at an early John Dodd? The length of the stick could be important, too.

Edit: Just read that the question regarding the top hat mortise was answered above.

[jacobsaunders]

16 minutes ago, Blank face said:

If I recall the essay right, shouldn’t apply the “45 degree facets wider” to complete octagonal sticks only? And what’s about a top hat mortise, would it be expected at an early John Dodd? The length of the stick could be important, too.

 

round sticks also have an octagonal part at the frog end

The essay is here The British bow: a rough guide to dating and development | Blogs | The Strad

our thread about it here https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/333967-a-method-how-to-date-18th-19th-c-english-bows/

 

[Blank face]

17 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

round sticks also have an octagonal part at the frog end

The essay is here The British bow: a rough guide to dating and development | Blogs | The Strad

our thread about it here https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/333967-a-method-how-to-date-18th-19th-c-english-bows/

 

Thanks. The last time I tried to look it up it was behind a paywall.

[GeorgeH]

The way the plug sits in the head mortice is odd - could have a been a top-hat that was modified? Also, that tip plate looks like it was made deliberately that way, not broken.

[Mike_Danielson]

Two features I am curious about:  would Dodd be capable of making such a mis-shapen tip mortise, and wjy is the Dodd stamp on the frog rather than the stick?  Is this a characteristic of Dodd's work?  Also, the face plate does not make sense since it does not reinforce the weak portions of the tip

[martin swan]

The bow is stamped on the frog and on the stick, which is what one would expect on a genuine example.

The head mortice may be recut - but we’d have to see it without the plug to know what shape it is.

[Bownut]

My original purpose in posting this bow was to try and find out what type of face would fit it. Of course, an approximate dating is inherent in that but was really not my prime concern. Of the salient features mentioned by Mr. Saunders I would argue: that the head-mortice was a " top-hat" seem a distinct possibility; the diagonal ( 45 degree) facets look, to me, slightly wider, especially from the audience side; the placing of the frog mortice has been distorted by the silver-collar repair, as has the appearance/presence of the nipple; the stamps are exactly as one expects to see. (Is there information to be gleaned from the exact state of the letters in the stamp? )

So, one feature is correct, one is possibly open to question and the others are not to be ruled out. This could,( let's remain hypothetical, for now) point to a pre-1835 date, which, according to the chart ( invaluable!) would rule out a metal face. The idea the bow was originally made like this, or an intentional repair, seems strange, to say the least. So I have a conundrum on my hands, here! On the one hand, Mr.Swan's observation of the stylistic tribute to early(ish)Tourte seems plausible but, on the other, has anyone ever seen a DODD of this pattern head and frog ( which no-one, almost miraculously for Maestronet, has yet suggested do not belong together!) with a metal face? Still two basic questions: does this bow look like it was made in Markneukirchen? And what sort of face would fit the bow, purely from the style of it?