Violin Forum/Message Board

waynebergman · Junior Member Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 8

I am finding that the template drawings in my reference book for building my first violin are not very good. At least I know that parts of the violin are symetrical from left to right or should be and in my drawing are not. And also drawings are not smooth. Very jagged and lumpy not very fair. This means I have so far only used half of the drawing and faired it out and flopped it for a smoother more symetrical pleasing curve. Now I am at the stage were I want to gouge and shape my spruce top and the drawing I have in my book, I dont trust. This all might be a moot point as its my first violin and may just be a conversation piece on the wall but I might as well try and get things a close to good as I can. My question is if I fair out this template for the shape of violin say from the lower bout end half way into the violin and then flop that for the top half is this ok? I am talking about the shape running from end rest to neck running up the center of the violin. So in other words is the profile at the centerline running up the length of the violin the same shape on the upper half as the lower half(neck half compared to tail half)
Hope this makes sense and thanks sorry I am finding this hard to explain. Thanks for any help...wayne

Andres Sender · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:24 am Post subject:

Wayne it would be best if you had a Strad Magazine poster to work from. I don't remember what exactly the arches are like in the Ossman book.

Some useful info here:

http://violins.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=841&highlight=arch

and this one, although I'd recommend you ignore the last 4 posts or so:

http://violins.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=562&start=0

...and have a look at this early Del Gesu from the side, it's distorted in various ways but look for the concepts discussed in the first thread:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/loc.natlib.ihas.200154815/pageturner.html?page=3&from=contactsheet

Oded Kishony · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:01 am Post subject:

Interesting tool marks under the varnish on the top of the del Gesu around the bass side F hole in particular.

Oded

rs · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:24 am Post subject:

Hi Wayne.

In a word, No.

The reason is more aesthetic than tonal.

If you have a few profiles of some of the ancients, generally you will notice that the arch under the fingerboard tends to be more curvacious, that is, tends to assume a more convex shape than the curve of the arch under the tailpiece, which tends to be flatter. Some extants are very subtle, others, very pronounced. The Dancla Strad (1703) is very pronounced, I think, and spells out this tendency. This is a magnificent fiddle. In contrast, another magnificent fiddle, The Kreisler Del Gesu is nearly identical upper and lower. But the difference is STILL THERE. The difference is just very subtle on this Del Gesu than The Dancla.

The observation of many is this makes the shape more gracious. Symmetry from top to bottom tends towards a clunky appearance.

The lower bout is larger and its flatter transition diminishes its size and draws attention away from it towards the center. Whereas the more delicate upper bout, when gracious, immediately assumes form with slightly more aggressive arching, and draws attention to it.

Best wishes

[/i]
_________________
Randall Shenefelt

Janito · Member Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 114 Location: USA

"...and this one, although I'd recommend you ignore the last 4 posts or so:

http://violins.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=562&start=0 ..."

Perhaps it would be useful for you to explain to a beginner the basis for the 'ignore' invective.

Oded Kishony · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:52 am Post subject:

Keep in mind that the arching you're looking at on any old violin has become significantly deformed over the years. I can say with some assurance it is NOT what Del Gesu or Stradivarius originally carved.

Oded

rs · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject:

Quite possibly, Oded, but they still look nice!

Best wishes
_________________
Randall Shenefelt

Oded Kishony · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:58 pm Post subject:

rs wrote:

rs · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:12 pm Post subject:

Oded, you make a valid point.
_________________
Randall Shenefelt

Andres Sender · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject:

Janito--'invective?'? I am sorry if that's how it felt to you. I mean no offense to you or Mike M. but I think those later posts could easily give the wrong impression. I didn't want to haggle about it then since the essential point is explained and illustrated already in the thread. I'm just trying to spare Wayne some confusion. Smile

RS your esthetic theory explaining the top arch asymmetry is an interesting one given the trouble Stradivari took with such things, but it's not the simplest explanation and may partly reflect a common pattern of distortion in top arches. I think the simplest explanation can be found in the relationships between the functional concepts in the arch and the difference in widths of the upper and lower bouts.

Oded thanks for the elaboration about distortion, and the heads up about the tool marks!

Oded Kishony · Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject:

Janito · Member Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 114 Location: USA

Andres - my reaction was a little strong.

I had been watching the 3D Strad DVD on my TV and Sam Z had talked about F hole fluting, so it was fresh in my mind.

So much to learn.

waynebergman · Junior Member Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 8

Thank you all. This is a big help. Now I notice the steepness of the curve at the neck area compared to the tail. I will go with this shape. I have a violin a friend has loaned my to refer to for the building of this project but I suspect its a real cheapy so I dont want to use it as gospel but it is handy to look at from time to time. Thanks again.....wayne

Oded Kishony · Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:00 am Post subject:

.....

rs · Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:09 am Post subject:

Andres, you as well make a valid point.

Several years ago I went to the Louvre. I had a chance to see some things I only had the opportunity to read about previously.

Of course I had to see the Mona Lisa when I was there. With the masses that day, I crowded around one inch thick plexiglass to view a painting of the girl with the peculiar smile. The only problem was I wasn't viewing the Mona Lisa. I was viewing a restoration of the Mona Lisa.

I have wrestled quite a bit with what is "true form" and the original "Cremonese method" of construction. I, as the rest, appreciate the fine approach these makers used. But the reality is, when I view a Cremonese fiddle of any maker, I am almost certainly viewing a violin that has little original varnish, no original accessories, and no original neck. The top has probably been reformed at some point, and distorted at another. It has been repaired, patched, "re-bass barred" (is there such an expression?), grafted, re-glued, bushed, re-bushed, pitched, repitched and air-brushed. In short, I am looking at a silhouette of the original by the time it gets to me. And yet I still like it!

So rather than try and decipher what a Strad or Del Gesu should look like, I try to take what I see and hear at face value at present and say, "Now, How can I do the same thing?"

To me, at that point in the thinking process, it becomes virtually irrelevant what it originally looked like ten generations ago, I just like what I see now.

Best wishes, and your point is still valid. This is just the way I see it.
_________________
Randall Shenefelt