how do you think makers like jacobus stainer designed their scrolls?

[eliseveldt]

iVe read I’ve read quite a bit about proportions and the idea of “perfection” that Stradivari is often associated with. What I’m wondering is how Jacob Stainer designed his scroll. Many Tyrolean-style scrolls don’t really seem to follow any obvious golden proportions.

 

Is it plausible that he simply sketched them freehand until they looked right, or is there still some kind of underlying formula or system in Stainer’s scrolls?

 

I’d like to start designing some scrolls of my own, and any tips are welcome. They don’t have to be on the level of Stradivari or mathematically perfect, but I’d appreciate some kind of guidance so I’m not just wasting my time.

[jacobsaunders]

Since one may assume with confidence that Stainer was an Amati pupil/journeyman, your question has no basis

Also there were very few “Tyrolean” makers at the time 

[MANFIO]

4 hours ago, eliseveldt said:

I’d like to start designing some scrolls of my own, and any tips are welcome. They don’t have to be on the level of Stradivari or mathematically perfect, but I’d appreciate some kind of guidance so I’m not just wasting my time.

Makers are very orthodox about their scrolls. We like to follow the "grammar" stablished by the Italian classics, and there are quite good examples to follow by the Amatis, Stradivari and others. Every time we see a "creative" scroll, it is not as beautiful as the orthodox ones. 

[gorge riam]

The "Stainer Qartett" of the Winterthur Musikkollegium:

https://www.stainerquartett.ch/de/

[eliseveldt]

19 minutes ago, gorge riam said:

The "Stainer Qartett" of the Winterthur Musikkollegium:

https://www.stainerquartett.ch/de/

thankyou! some beautiful photos and measurements

[David Beard]

How were classical heads and scrolls designed?

Traditional geometry methods for some makers.  Best as can imitation methods for other makers.

Jacob Stainer knew and used the traditional divider and straight edge geometry.

 

Beginning of process:

N.B.   All of this is using an oncia of basically 39.75mm length.  Chamfers are included in the design work.  These margins are measured using small parts of an oncia. Most the frequent and commonly used small oncia measures seen in Cremona methods are o/60 o/40, o/30, o/24, o/20, o/18 and o/16.  Each of the design choices shown below have variations from including or excluding these margins.

The basic side view geometry:

1.  A key height is chosen in oncia. For violins, this is commonly 1 1/4o.  1 1/5, and 1 1/6 are also used at times.  For cellos, it usually 2 or 2 and a part up to 2 1/2 o

2. The volute itself is framed by a rectangle having this key height, and a width that is usually 3/4 the key, but can be 4/5 when a wider scroll is desired.  Variations excluding the chamfer margin at the forward the front of the violin and/or the side toward the tail are common.

3. Center frame abuts the volute or the volute with a simple 1 key by 1 key sizing.

The end of the underside of the peg box is placed by choosing an oncia distance from the center frame.  Similarly, if a cello or viola design uses a shoulder, this too is placed by an oncia choice as a simple fraction.  In earlier examples, the end distance choice usually includes the chamfer at the end.  In later Cremona work, it usually excludes this margin.

4. The level of the under turn arc forming the under side of the peg box is usually 1/2 the height of the frames (key/2) up from the bottom of the frame.  However, out side of Cremona, 5/9 is seen at times as an alternative.  (Cremona's version of these recipes is a specialization within more general versions of the recipe that include what is seen in Brescian and Venetian making, and making from these traditions).   The center of the main arc for the under turn is found horizontally and vertically by ratio relation to the frames.  I.e. 1/3 down and 1/8 out toward the end or just on the frame might be typical choices.  The shape under the peg box sometimes includes helper arcs for the main under turn arc. Any such helper arcs will have longer radii, set by ratio relation.

The top shape of the peg box is similar given mostly by one main box arc.  The center for this box arc is also set by ratio relation to the center frame. Usually this center is lower than the under turn center, and usually the same or near to frame horizontally than the under turn arc center.   This box needs a starting control point.  This point is chosen using a frame that is 1/3 the volute. This 1/3 frame is then placed in the front head corner of the center point.  The back tail corner of the 1/3 frame then gives our control point for the main box arc.  The 1/3 frame and center for this arc must be chosen so the arc makes a suitable approach to the front level of the frames at the end of the peg box.

5. A foundation or back arc under the volute is formed by setting it's center a ratio portion in from the front edge of the volute, and a ratio proportion in from the tail edge of the volute.  This might be 1/8 down and 1/5 in as example.  In some cases, this center is 0 in from the front edge, giving a radius equal the full volute height.  But this is less common.

The connect on the underside of the head, between the foundation arc and the under turn curve, can include joining arcs of doubles radius, and a joining line segment.

6. The volute shape itself consists of arc segments tangentially joined together, heading to the eye.

Each arc needs a set center, or a set radius, and each needs a frame border to set against.  Each is then placed so as to join tangentially to the prior arc.  The first foundation arc required a set center both horizontally and vertically.  For all the rest, one of these will be determined by joining tangentially with the prior arc.  The other will be set by direct radius choice or by positioning the center by a ratio relation across the relevant frame.

To start, we already have the foundation arc. Next, we must determine the arc the will sit against the head side of the volute frame.  We do this by setting a line for its center by a ratio relation across the frame.

These ideas continue for the rest, giving us a way to set arcs for each boundary.  We will need a new arc for each side of the outer, mid, and inner volute curves, until we reach the eye.

Also, for each new frame boundary, the maker sets the size of chamfer margins by a direct choice of size. 

For the outer volute curve, we set 4 arcs, each on the outer edge of the volute.  For the mid and inner curves, makers sometimes set their arcs outside the chamfers, but sometimes inside.

For the outer volute, our boundaries come from the volute frame.  But, beginning with the four arcs of the mid volute curve, the maker also needs to set each new boundary.  This is done by setting new 3by4 or 4by5 frames against the three prior boundaries.  The new frame then gives the needed new boundary.

At some point heading toward the eye, the making will switch from setting lines for the centers by ratio, to directly setting radii for the arcs.  Mostly these radio are set as parts of the volute height.  I.e. VH/6.

The eye itself has its diameter generally set as a part of the volute height.  VH/7 and VH/8 are most common.  The head side and back side edges of the eye are placed as off sets from mid lines of the volute frame.

7.  The level of the throat is set by ratio relation across the height of the outer volute frame.  The chamfer of the throat is often involved in this.  Horizontally, the center for the main arc for the throat is set on a line related to the volute work.  Usually this is simply aligned with the tail side framing of the mid volute.

The radius of this main throat arc is generally set by a simple fraction of an oncia.  There is usually a tighter arc finishing into the throat.  This will be set as a ratio reduction of the main radius, for example 2/3.  Then, to join out to the main pegbox top curve there can be one our more double radius joining arcs, then a joining line segment.

*****"

While not well articulated, that is a complete general expression of the sideview head and scroll geometry for classical Cremona and related tradition work, including Stainer.

 

[Pluto Vermin]

4 hours ago, gorge riam said:

The "Stainer Qartett" of the Winterthur Musikkollegium:

https://www.stainerquartett.ch/de/

What are we seeing exactly when we see a surface that looks like that?

 

[eliseveldt]

2 hours ago, David Beard said:

How were classical heads and scrolls designed?

Traditional geometry for some.  Best as can imitation for others.

Jacob Stainer knew and used the traditional divider and straight edge geometry.

Begining of process:

N.B.   All of this using an oncia of basically 39.75mm length.  Chamfer are included in the design work.  These margin are measured in frequently used small parts of an oncia. Most commonly o/60 o/40, o/30, o/24, and o/20.  Each of the design choices following have variations from including or excluding these margins.

The basic sideview geometry:

1.  A key height is chosen in oncia. For violins, this is commonly 1 1/4o.  1 1/5, and 1 1/6 are also used at times.  For cellos, it usually 2 or 2 and a part up to 2 1/2 o

2. The volute itself is framed by a rectangle having this key height, and a width that is usually 3/4 the key, but can be 4/5 when a wider scroll is desired.  Variations excluding the chamfer margin at the forward the front of the violin and/or the side toward the tail are common.

3. Center frame abuts the volute or the volute with a simple 1key to 1key sizing.

The end of the underside of the peg box is placed by choosing an oncia distance from the center frame.  Similarly, if a cello or viola design uses a shoulder, this too is placed by an oncia choice as a simple fraction.  In earlier examples, the end distance choice usually includes the chamfer at the end.  In later Cremona work, it usually excludes this margin.

4. The level of the under turn arc forming the under side of the peg box is usually 1/2 the height of the frames (key/2) up from the bottom of the frame.  However, out side of Cremona, 5/9 is seen at times as an alternative.  (Cremona's version of these recipes is a specialization within more general versions of the recipe that include what is seen in Brescian and Venetian making, and making from these traditions).   The center of the main arc for the under turn is found horizontally and vertically by ratio relation to the frames.  I.e. 1/3 down and 1/8 out toward the end or just on the frame might be typical choices.  The shape under the peg box sometimes includes helper arcs for the main under turn arc. Any such helper arcs will have longer radii, set by ratio relation.

The top shape of the peg box is similar given mostly by one main box arc.  The center for this box arc is also set by ratio relation to the center frame. Usually this center is lower than the under turn center, and usually the same or near to frame horizontally than the under turn arc center.   This box needs a starting control point.  This point is chosen using a frame that is 1/3 the volute. This 1/3 frame is then placed in the front head corner of the center point.  The back tail corner of the 1/3 frame then gives our control point for the main box arc.  The 1/3 frame and center for this arc must be chosen so the arc makes a suitable approach to the front level of the frames at the end of the peg box.

5. A foundation or back arc under the volute is formed by setting it's center a ratio portion in from the front edge of the volute, and a ratio proportion in from the tail edge of the volute.  This might be 1/8 down and 1/5 in as example.  In some cases, this center is 0 in from the front edge, giving a radius equal the full volute height.  But this is less common.

The connect on the underside of the head, between the foundation arc and the under turn curve, can include joining arcs of doubles radius, and a joining line segment.

6. The volute shape itself consists of arc segments tangentially joined together, heading to the eye.

Each arc needs a set center, or a set radius, and each needs a frame border to set against.  Each is then placed so as to join tangentially to the prior arc.  The first foundation arc required a set center both horizontally and vertically.  For all the rest, one of these will be determined by joining tangentially with the prior arc.  The other will be set by direct radius choice or by positioning the center by a ratio relation across the relevant frame.

To start, we the foundation arc and must determine the arc the will sit against the head side of the volute frame.  We do this by setting a line for the center by a ratio relation across the frame.

These ideas continue, giving us to set arcs for each boundary,  for each side the outer, mid, and inner volute curves until we reach the eye.

Also, at each boundary, the maker sets the size of chamfer margins.  For the outer volute curve, we set 4 arcs, each on the outer edge of the volute.  For the mid and inner curves, makers sometimes set their arcs outside the chamfers, or sometimes inside.

For the outer volute, our boundaries come from the volute frame.  But, beginning with the four arcs of the mid volute curve, the maker also needs to set each new boundary.  This is done by setting new 3by4 or 4by5 frames against the three prior boundaries.  The new frame then gives the needed new boundary.

At some point heading toward the eye, the making will switch from setting lines for the centers by ratio, to directly setting radii for the arcs.  Mostly these radio are set as parts of the volute height.  I.e. VH/6.

The eye itself has its diameter generally set as a part of the volute height.  VH/7 and VH/8 are most common.  The head side and back side edges of the eye are placed as off sets from mid lines of the volute frame.

7.  The level of the throat is set by ratio relation across the height of the outer volute frame.  The chamfer of the throat is often involved in this.  Horizontally, the center for the main arc for the throat is set on a line related to the volute work.  Usually this is simply aligned with the tail side framing of the mid volute.

The radius of this main throat arc is generally set by a simple fraction of an oncia.  There is usually a tighter arc finishing into the throat.  This will be set as a ratio reduction of the main radius, for example 2/3.  Then, to join out to the main pegbox top curve there can be one our more double radius joining arcs, then a joining line segment.

*****"

While not well articulated, that is a complete general expression of the sideview head and scroll geometry for classical Cremona and related tradition work, including Stainer.

 

thankyou for your time! i will print out your message to look at it from time to time. still got alot to learn but youre of great help!

[David Beard]

Here is a full worked out example.

It's difficult for many modern makers to imagine actually fully working the design choices like this each time.   We are currently used to highly skilled version of imitative design.  People copy the old scrolls without working or understanding the designs.   Such approaches seem to work surprisingly well.

 

Still, for those individuals who might be curious:

 

[lorenzo fossati]

I think the primordial idea came from a shell, or something similar.

[HoGo]

15 hours ago, David Beard said:

Here is a full worked out example.

It's difficult for many modern makers to imagine actually fully working the design choices like this each time.   We are currently used to highly skilled version of imitative design.  People copy the old scrolls without working or understanding the designs.   Such approaches seem to work surprisingly well.

 

Still, for those individuals who might be curious:

 

Was that photograph adjusted for distortion? On most posters and similar pictures the scroll pics were taken from relatively short distance which exaggerates size of the second and especially third turn. When I compared resized pictures with caliper measured numbers there were too large differences inflating towards the eye. Enough to not be usable for the second and third turns.

With enough fractions of unit and enough circles connected you can design Ferrari or cathedral.

I agree that the original design was most likely carried out with series of circles I wouldn't be so quick at suggesting their exact centers and diameters. The scrolls are often very worn and even if we assume the original drawing was perfect, the cut out template (if they used it) was likely slightly "smoothed" by cutting out, the marked outline was likely not cut exactly to line and smoothed with scrapers or glass by eye, then the final cuts of turns were likely not exact replicas of original intention as well. So this accumulated error makes exact reconstruction of scroll geometry impossible just from photographs. Something can be found on the paper/parchment drawings from Strad's workshop but there are too few of those. You'd need to reconstruct full unworn outline and compare many of those but preferrably not working from photographs that introduce errors of their own.

[David Beard]

That photo is a separate side view close up shit.  Also, it was scaled to data from a Strad poster.

[Jay Higgs]

One of many scrolls carved in stone at the top of columns of Villa (Museo) Borghese in Rome, circa 1609-13.  At least the first turn looks familiar.  

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Do fern plants use circle arches to design their spirals?

[Violadamore]

On 6/9/2026 at 3:22 AM, eliseveldt said:

iVe read I’ve read quite a bit about proportions and the idea of “perfection” that Stradivari is often associated with. What I’m wondering is how Jacob Stainer designed his scroll..............

Very carefully, I'm sure, just like he carved it.  

[David Beard]

I've taken the earlier posts in this thread as a jumping off point to develop a more thorough visual presentation of Cremona head and scroll design methods.

I'm hoping these visuals will be self explanatory, something I might use in other presentations.

It would be very welcome if people point out anything that doesn't seem clear or straightforward.

I hope some find this interesting.

Since the images are large, I will post this as several sequences.

This first set of visuals shows the design choices for framing a classical head and scroll side view design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David Beard]

This next sequence shows how to choose and set arcs for the outer curves of classical Cremona and related volute designs.

 

 

 

 

 

[David Beard]

This sequence continues with designing the mid volute arcs and setting the eye.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David Beard]

This sequence continues with the inner arcs and completion of the volute design.

 

 

 

 

 

[David Beard]

This last sequence shows the methods for designing the throat, and the completion of the overall head and volute design.

 

 

 

 

 

[Andreas Preuss]

On 6/17/2026 at 2:21 AM, David Beard said:

This last sequence shows the methods for designing the throat, and the completion of the overall head and volute design.

 

 

 

 

 

Very impressive! 
 

For me, this comes from a world where you could still find harmony. For an aesthetic expression which reflects our time where we live in the conflict that the belief in dominating nature might just create the opposite, ‘harmony’ needs IMO a new definition.  

Though, first we need to understand the concepts of the old Masters and David has made a huge contribution to our community in this respect.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

On 6/9/2026 at 8:24 AM, MANFIO said:

Makers are very orthodox about their scrolls. We like to follow the "grammar" stablished by the Italian classics, and there are quite good examples to follow by the Amatis, Stradivari and others. Every time we see a "creative" scroll, it is not as beautiful as the orthodox ones. 

Did anybody ever do a blind test where a bunch of scrolls made by various makers were voted on to find the best looking ones?

I would expect a lack of agreement where some scrolls are liked by some people and disliked by others like what happens in other things in life.

[LCF]

11 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Did anybody ever do a blind test where a bunch of scrolls made by various makers were voted on to find the best looking ones?

I would expect a lack of agreement where some scrolls are liked by some people and disliked by others like what happens in other things in life.

My preference is always for a cinnamon scroll. 

[MANFIO]

13 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Did anybody ever do a blind test where a bunch of scrolls made by various makers were voted on to find the best looking ones?

I would expect a lack of agreement where some scrolls are liked by some people and disliked by others like what happens in other things in life.

Yes, but it is almost impossible to dislike an Amati scroll, or a Stradivari. But the differences are subtle, in general, unless we are talking about scrolls by Storioni or some of the many types of del Gesù scrolls. 

www.manfioviolas.com

[Marty Kasprzyk]

On 6/9/2026 at 3:22 AM, eliseveldt said:

iVe read I’ve read quite a bit about proportions and the idea of “perfection” that Stradivari is often associated with. What I’m wondering is how Jacob Stainer designed his scroll. Many Tyrolean-style scrolls don’t really seem to follow any obvious golden proportions.

 

Is it plausible that he simply sketched them freehand until they looked right, or is there still some kind of underlying formula or system in Stainer’s scrolls?

 

I’d like to start designing some scrolls of my own, and any tips are welcome. They don’t have to be on the level of Stradivari or mathematically perfect, but I’d appreciate some kind of guidance so I’m not just wasting my time.

I did a quick freehand pen sketch of a scroll.  I don't see why others couldn't do it too until it looked right for them.