Things purposely omitted in beginner's violin making?

[Riccardo964]

Hello,

As some of you may know by now, I am making my first build, finally, after 3y in the forum learning from you - it has been a gratifying experience.

I have looked for this in the forum, on books (I have Johnson & Courtnall's, Juliet Barker's, Henry Strobel's, and Bruce Ossman's books) and I couldn't (easily) find this information:

1. It gets mentioned to allow 16mm of height for the boards (right before arching), however, what should be the height of the board before start to hollow it out in violin making? Is there a difference for the top and for the back? I read that Guarneri experimented with higher options whereas old Amatis and Strads would be more conservative (14-15.5mm) - Does 1mm or 1.5mm make that much difference here? I wonder.
2. I noticed my back and top plates have 357mm in length (I'm not too worried about it, as I don't plan to sell this), and I was shooting for 351mm (I am using Kochanski's templates). I was then wondering that I used the Herdim's template for creating my own template for glueing the blocks, without accounting for the extra 3mm washer (line) that gets drawn from the garland. That would account for the extra 6mm I have ended up. So, should I have created my template 3mm less than Herdim's template?

Thanks in advance, this forum has been very fruitful and a true learning experience for me. I have contacted people privately and they've always answered back in due time and with the utmost respect - you know who you are! thank you again!

Best, and cheerios.

Riccardo964

 

[MikeC]

I'll tell you what I do but I'm only working on my second one.  For plate height, I got measurements from Davide Sora's videos.  Don't recall the numbers off hand though,  I would have to look them up or go watch the videos again.  

for plate length,  that depends on the ribs.  First I build the ribs garland on a copy of Stradivari's P or PG internal form.  Then draw the plates from the ribs.  So there's no specific length measurement, it's just whatever the ribs dictate.  

My first build I made the long arch of the top and back plate the same, string pressure flattens to top plate a bit.  This second build I used slightly different measurements for the top plate so it has a little bit of built in flatness.  Sora's measurements again.  

[Dr. Mark]

I'm mostly on the same page as MikeC.  I have forms I built from the del Gesu plan published by Heron-Allen, all more or less modified now, and one I built by scaling a form to a smaller size.  The size and outline of the plates conform to the garland.  I always carve the outer surface first to near completion (including height) except for the edges before carving out the inside to thickness.

I should add - I am an untrained amateur.  I read what the pros and accomplished amateurs say, but in the end I do what I like or want to try.  I should also add that the outline of my first top had the aura of a long neglected gem of baroque art with it's rounded shoulders and long corners.  Entirely by accident because I had no real idea what I was doing, and I sincerely hope that both the s.o.b. who said it should soak in linseed and the fool who believed him will burn in Hell forever.  I built a couple of others from the same mold but they lacked the spark.  Later I decided the C's were too closed and opened them up on the mold.  For awhile the final outlines were off - like a leaf partially eaten by a caterpillar.  It took a long time to get the rest of the form and the C's to work together.  I've never been able to reproduce the feel of that first one.

"When old age shall this generation waste

Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,

 

         "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

 

                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.""

 

Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'

 

[Don Noon]

1.  If you start with a wedge-shaped board that's 16 mm maximum height at the edge, your ending arch height will have to be a few mm less, as the peak of the wedge has to be trimmed off.

2.  DON'T CUT OFF THE BUTTON!  My plate templates all have the button outline, and I always leave a button on all of the plates, even the top, so that I don't forget.  I only cut off the spruce button after the body is glued up.  And (at least for maple), the board has to be longer than the "back length" because of the button.  Simple, yeah... but the consequences of forgetting can be a pain.

Other than that, beginning making instructions leave out most of the wide variations in designs, arching, wood properties, and methods... of necessity... in order to stick to a single reasonable way to make an instrument.  The rest of the learning takes decades.

[Davide Sora]

10 hours ago, Riccardo964 said:

Hello,

As some of you may know by now, I am making my first build, finally, after 3y in the forum learning from you - it has been a gratifying experience.

I have looked for this in the forum, on books (I have Johnson & Courtnall's, Juliet Barker's, Henry Strobel's, and Bruce Ossman's books) and I couldn't (easily) find this information:

1. It gets mentioned to allow 16mm of height for the boards (right before arching), however, what should be the height of the board before start to hollow it out in violin making? Is there a difference for the top and for the back? I read that Guarneri experimented with higher options whereas old Amatis and Strads would be more conservative (14-15.5mm) - Does 1mm or 1.5mm make that much difference here? I wonder.
2. I noticed my back and top plates have 357mm in length (I'm not too worried about it, as I don't plan to sell this), and I was shooting for 351mm (I am using Kochanski's templates). I was then wondering that I used the Herdim's template for creating my own template for glueing the blocks, without accounting for the extra 3mm washer (line) that gets drawn from the garland. That would account for the extra 6mm I have ended up. So, should I have created my template 3mm less than Herdim's template?

Thanks in advance, this forum has been very fruitful and a true learning experience for me. I have contacted people privately and they've always answered back in due time and with the utmost respect - you know who you are! thank you again!

Best, and cheerios.

Riccardo964

 

1. As Don Noon already mentioned, there's no single arching height that works, but saying that you can go from 13 mm to 20 mm might leave a beginner completely confused. Especially for the top plate, sticking to medium values helps keep things simple; the further you go toward the extremes, the greater the implications will be for other aspects of construction related to the instrument's sound and playability, which require experience and a comprehensive understanding of the various aspects to manage. The back is less critical, as the height of the arching isn't directly related to the violin's playability and will "only" influence the sound. But it's far from obvious, even for an expert luthier, to determine how it affects the sound, especially since finding correlations with sound based on just one aspect (the height of the arching) would be downright silly. For example, varying the height by 1-1.5 mm could change the M5 (and therefore the longitudinal stiffness) by as much as a semitone, which is no small amount. However, this would also be due to the variation in transverse curvature caused by the height variation. And this is a simplification, as many other factors come into play (curvature and width of the fluting channel, thickness distribution, material properties, etc.), making the situation rather complicated to predict.

2. The Herdim set (which I haven't had a chance to verify for accuracy) includes two templates, one for the form and one for the outline of the plates, so it depends on which one you use. For the latter, you'll need to subtract about 7 mm (edge+rib x 2) to obtain the form, but the former should be used as is. However, it's a common mistake among beginners to not check the final measurements of their finished forms against those of the template. For example, if you don't remove the markings you've made, you'll end up with a larger form, even if you used the correct template, because the marking line is outside the template and therefore needs to be removed.

[Shunyata]

What Don Noon said: don’t cut off the the button.  Seems obvious, but…

Go slow.  You are anxious to see the step completed and the violin come together.  But don’t give into it.  

Closely related to: good enough is never good enough.  Good enough just makes problems later in the build.

Don’t leave anything out.  You will anyway, despite your best effort.  Don’t do it on purpose.

 

[Violadamore]

4 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

 .......I've never been able to reproduce the feel of that first one..............

 

 

 

"Non fui mai capaci di riprudùciri la sensazzioni di chiḍḍa prima."  -Gasparo Duiffopruggar, Gasparo da Salò, or Andrea Amati, depending on who you ask.    

[Riccardo964]

Thank you for all your answers, you've given me some serious thinking to do!

I made sure not to cut the button!  I read somewhere that it was really hard to re-attach it later

About the arching: I'll work with the 16mm I have as of now, and see what happens and how it looks after the hollowing, which I have to study how to accomplish it.

On the issue of the main template for the garland, I attach here some photos of what I have (Herdim templates):

The image shows the size of the template I used to create my 'form', it is about 340mm. It is on top of it, so it gives the impression that it is much bigger, which is not, it is the same size. I am still thinking how the form is 340mm and how I ended up with 356mm in length on the top and back, looking at this. I should have deducted 7mm overall, as suggested by @Davide Sora. I have to think about that for next time.

This is "template1", I also used another template ("template2") for seeing the final size of the Kochanski:

This is the one with the 351mm in length that I should have had after the garland+washer.

Now I will stick with my 356mm, but I must tackle this for next builds.

 

Thank you again for your words, they resonate with my tasks ahead 

16 hours ago, MikeC said:

I'll tell you what I do but I'm only working on my second one.  For plate height, I got measurements from Davide Sora's videos.  Don't recall the numbers off hand though,  I would have to look them up or go watch the videos again.  

Best of luck! Second of many, I suppose!

14 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

Entirely by accident because I had no real idea what I was doing

I know this feeling!!

13 hours ago, Don Noon said:

DON'T CUT OFF THE BUTTON!

That's solid advice

12 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

but saying that you can go from 13 mm to 20 mm might leave a beginner completely confused

Indeed! Thank you for the explanations.

9 hours ago, Shunyata said:

Go slow

I have been re-learning and "having" to slow down a few times now. Perhaps this is the main thing here and the most valuable advice altogether - nice things take time! Thanks.

9 hours ago, Violadamore said:

"Non fui mai capaci di riprudùciri la sensazzioni di chiḍḍa prima."  -Gasparo Duiffopruggar, Gasparo da Salò, or Andrea Amati, depending on who you ask. 

Beautiful quote

Cheerios,

Riccardo964

[Christine Meyer]

1 hour ago, Riccardo964 said:

which is not, it is the same size

I really get the impression that your form is smaller that the inside template. They really should mach. This template is the most helpful one.

Your plates are then best built from the resulting ribs, maybe in combination with template #2, the one of the plate outline. You can verify the rough size, maybe take the corner design from it, but the general dimensions are better taken via ribs plus some mm for ribs and overhang.

[HoGo]

I see the template be 345mm which is without ribs and overhang which is on generic models 1.3+2.5mm that would add 7.6 mm to final length that agrees with approx. 353 mm measurement of the larger template I see in your pic.

If you traced the larger template with additional 3 mm washer than you ened up with not only longer fiddle but also wider and with HUGE corners and smallish C bouts space between them.

The size (length) of the wooden form below the template appears way smaller than the template to me. How did you come up with that?

 

[Riccardo964]

3 hours ago, Christine Meyer said:

They really should mach.

They should!  

1 hour ago, HoGo said:

The size (length) of the wooden form below the template appears way smaller than the template to me

 

I am just remembering one mistake I've made (among MANY): I've (unfortunately and to my chagrin) prematurelly removed the ribs from the mould to make the linings (up and down) - I was thinking that I wouldn't be able to do it otherwise, then, perhaps because of its flumsiness (the garland's), it got 'skewed' on the end - I agree I should have something near 351mm give or take a few mm.

Thank you @Christine Meyer and @HoGo!

Cheerios,

Riccardo964

[MikeC]

I just noticed what HoGo said, the wood form under the template in your photo looks quite a bit smaller than the template.

Obviously I'm a beginner but managed to avoid some common mistakes that I see on some.

  Corners way too long and arching too bowl shaped with no recurve along the edges.

  Also not enough recurve over the end blocks, which causes a steep dropoff on the inside from the block gluing surface to the inner arched surface.  

Your templates should help avoid the 'too bowl shaped' arch.   

[Riccardo964]

36 minutes ago, MikeC said:

I just noticed what HoGo said, the wood form under the template in your photo looks quite a bit smaller than the template.

I will send some photos later about this - I have a jig built on top of the template so I mark the blocks accordingly - in the photo it does looks quite smaller.

Best,

Riccardo964

[Dr. Mark]

18 hours ago, Violadamore said:

"Non fui mai capaci di riprudùciri la sensazzioni di chiḍḍa prima."  -Gasparo Duiffopruggar, Gasparo da Salò, or Andrea Amati, depending on who you ask.

Lol in my case I'd been binge-watching The Story of Yanxi Palace and got a bit overwhelmed and depressed. Whoever it was earlier probably had had an equally mind-numbing experience.  A warning to the curious.

[Shunyata]

@Riccardo964  Use the Herdim templates cautiously.  

The rib template is the OUTSIDE of the ribs, and just a stylized guide for the corners.  You won’t be making corners that come to a sharp point, so that throws everything off.

I recommend that you formally draft your own outside rib template and a template to make the mold/corner blocks.  Take rib thickness and shaping into account.  Draw it out exactly.  Then copy and transfer to templates.

You will also need to take care using the arching templates.

 

[Riccardo964]

2 hours ago, Shunyata said:

Use the Herdim templates cautiously.

Yes, I know what you mean about the two templates - one is used just for the blocks, the other for the rest.

I do have the arching templates for the back and for the top.

I will post something really "peculiar" later (a photo) of the top's main arching that's asymmetrical (contrary to the back), so, one must "pick a side" to do the 'proper' main arching. I kinda made a fast decision, which could have been wrong - I will send it later for you to comment on.

Cheerios,

Riccardo964

[Riccardo964]

1 hour ago, Riccardo964 said:

I will post something really "peculiar" later (a photo) of the top's main arching that's asymmetrical (contrary to the back)

As promissed:

Please, don't evaluate my hideous purfling or my "still have some way to go on the arching" - pay attention on the template - it's different on each side. Perhaps this is common knowledge, however, because I started with the back, and haven't noticed this, I just assumed it to be symmetric. 

Well, living and learning.

Cheerios,

Riccardo964

 

[Sean Couch]

The long arch templates I designed for my 4th violin are different between the top and back plates. The back plate is basically a constant radius arch between the widest part of the upper bout and the widest part of the lower bout. The top arch is much flatter between the widest points of the upper and lower bouts and then “dive down” to meet the top and bottom blocks.

Here is a picture of my templates. Please ignore the ugly corner blocks that are attached to the mold. They are a failed experiment of trying to use a router bit in my mill at 3000 rpm. Hehe.

In my mind, arching templates should be different for different arching heights. I know you can change the arching shape/height by how you position the templates, well, you can with half templates, but I am not confident enough in my building abilities to do that.

For the templates you have, I would measure the height of the arching templates and then add what you want for your edge height (before the purfling channel is fluted). This will give you your arching height numbers for those template locations. For example, if you measure the center template height at 12mm and you have an edge height of 4.2mm, then your total arch height would be 16.2mm, for that location.

[Shunyata]

What Sean said:

The tighter radius of curvature (more bend) goes to the top and the flatter curvature goes to the bottom.

Compare against the templates in the Strobel book and you will see what mean.

[Don Noon]

Willemotte:

[Shunyata]

41 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

Willemotte:

I have a hard time telling anything from that picture.  :-)

[Don Noon]

Is it not clear that there is a difference in the long arch between the top and the back?  And that the top graduations get thicker significantly as they approach the endblocks?

[Shunyata]

52 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

Is it not clear that there is a difference in the long arch between the top and the back?  And that the top graduations get thicker significantly as they approach the endblocks?

Yes… that is clear.  :-)

[Riccardo964]

4 hours ago, Sean Couch said:

For example, if you measure the center template height at 12mm and you have an edge height of 4.2mm, then your total arch height would be 16.2mm, for that location.

Yes, that's an interesting way of measuring it, thank you.

 

3 hours ago, Don Noon said:

 

That's indeed quite interesting, I wonder the designers of the Herdim's templates just assume that as common knowledge, as there's no indication on it as to where to put it when doing the main arching.

Well, that figure is quite revealing and explanatory about this issue.

Riccardo964

[Don Noon]

There's always the question of how much of the arching we see today was made that way, and how much is due to distortion of bridge pressure flattening the middle of the top and bulging out the back.