Violin Forum/Message Board

Michael Darnton · Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:06 pm Post subject:

I don't know from tests whether the idea is good, but I do know that Strad tops and backs are usually somewhat in proportion to each other, as are del Gesus, even with very thick grads, and that the rib thicknesses track VERY roughly as well. Which is logical in any structure, that you wouldn't want to let any part get out of scale with the others. But I don't know if I would call that concept magical as much as just logical, and I doubt that they were doing a lot of measurement on it (for instance, the ribs don't track grads strictly, only generally), and the Cremonese weren't the only ones in Italy keeping roughly to that idea, either.

A different data point is that the Venetians habitually made backs proportionally thinner than the tops, relative to the the Cremonese standard. They were really the ONLY school of making doing this, and it's notable that many people consider the Venetians second only to the Cremonese, tonally, in spite of this, and that in that they push the Milanese and Neapolitans and Mantuans and Romans and all of the others that kept more or less to something similar to what the Cremonese were doing back out of consideration.

So is the Cremonese habit on this that important, given that #2 place is held by someone who doesn't do it, followed by a bunch of makers in #3 through #infinity place doing what the Cremonese did? I'm inclined to say the practice is practical and logical but not inevitably superior, and not a secret bullet for success.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

John Schmidt · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:43 am Post subject:

Michael,

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and insight. So let me re-phrase what I think I am hearing. Cremonese with top and back plates matched in the sense that stiffer backs require stiffer tops, with backs stiffer than tops.

Then the Venetians, with less stiff backs.

Then the "othes" who follow the Cremonese idea.

Can you characterize the sound of the Venetians as a group? Compared to the Cremonese?

I have read in several places that stiffer tops, paired with less-stiff backs can work. I have never tried it.

Michael Darnton · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:55 am Post subject:

I hear the Venetians described as "almost Cremonese", and that's about as descriptive as I can be. I would say that they really are. Generally, they're a bit darker sounding, maybe warmer, but not a lot, and not consistently. . . . not a really huge difference, really.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the warmth/darkness comes from backs being thinner in general, not from their relationship to the tops.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

ctviolin · Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:32 am Post subject:

John Schmidt · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:56 am Post subject:

thought it over.

ctviolin · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:25 am Post subject:

John Schmidt · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:32 pm Post subject:

kjb · Super Member Joined: 06 Feb 2013 Posts: 385

that's an admirable to help other people. thats how I learned, and a number of well knows also

terryc · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:17 pm Post subject:

DonLeister · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:45 pm Post subject:

Don't let Michael's quick reply mean too much, I think what he meant to say was 'it looks great, what's next?'.

I thought your graduations looked spot on btw. I hope you are moving along nicely with it.

Making a violin is one of those things that can take a week or a year to do, and so naturally you have different things to think and share about if you do the former or latter. I don't mean that as criticism at all, that is what I have experienced.
As much as I try to be consistent from one to the next they have differences and the (insert long ramble here)...

terryc · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:37 pm Post subject:

Don,
Thanks for reaching out. I especially apprecate it, coming from someone who I know to be respected in the trade.
Not having the experience that some of you have gained over the years, I am relying on printed media with sometimes conflicted info. Hard to sort it out while trying so hard, NOT to screw things up beyond recovery. I am encouraged none the less.
Again, I do appreciate your acknowledgement.
Terry

MANFIO · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:46 am Post subject:

Michael, you wrote "Strad tops and backs are usually somewhat in proportion to each other, as are del Gesus". What proportions is this? In weight? About tops 1 and backs 1.5?

I am not a science guy but I started also weighting and taking notes of tap tones of the top and back prior to be graduated.
_________________
www.manfio.com

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7875988@N02/with/464604020/

Michael Darnton · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:37 pm Post subject:

terryc · Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:21 pm Post subject:

Michael,
Thanks for getting back with more specifics which relate to your first hand experience and that is far more productive than saying, 'Move On'. Thank you!

Your remarks today were the first mention of arching so far. I have gone back to my arching templates and remembered that the height measurements between long arch and laterals was not consistent at the time, so I increased the arch slightly to make it work.

When I place the laterals on the c bouts I have about 2 mm space under the ends of the template. When measuring the plate height from a flat surface, it rises 16mm, so from the inside it would be 12mm, given the plate thickness is 4mm.

If this is considered excessive then it is indeed, 'Other one down the rabbit hole'.

You comments will be appreciated.
Terry
[/quote]