Gliga. Gems versus Gama.

[geoff1954]

Around ten Gligas have passed through my hands in the past few years, some Genial and some Gems. I've been very impressed with them all, the Gems generally looking and sounding better (as they ought.)  I recently bought a Gama, hoping that it would be even better. It isn't. It sounds very similar to the Gems I've been playing for several years. Similar in all parts of the register. Am I just lucky with the Gems or unlucky with the Gama? Has anyone else compared the two? 

 

[Don Noon]

If the "recently bought" violin also means "recently made", I would think it would be at a tonal disadvantage from the age standpoint when compared to what you have been using for "several years".

I have no clue what workmanship differences there might be between Gliga's Gems and Gamma lines, but I would guess that the main difference is nicer-looking wood... finer, more even grain on the top, and deeper flame on the maple.  That means nothing for tone.

[reg]

What Don says is exactly correct.

Gliga are classic examples of Violins that need 'playing in' - and a replacement bridge and good strings also make a huge difference

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, reg said:

Gliga are classic examples of Violins that need 'playing in' -

Interesting - I was under the impression that violins don't 'play in'.

[Don Noon]

Violins change over time, I think almost everyone agrees with that.  Let's not get into the endless "play-in" debate, which has been addressed many times without resolution.

One other thing... no matter how identical you make violins, they don't come out sounding all the same.  Wood varies, not just in measurable and selectable measurements, but how it sounds in the end as well.  Wood that you might think is not-so-hot can end up surprisingly better sounding than the "best" stuff.  Or not.  You never know.