Violin Forum/Message Board

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

A curious, random observation...I was looking over the Kreisler and Ole Bull violins, and it seems that these two instruments have very similar outlines and cross-arches. The similarity between these two instruments, in this regard, is nothing short of striking, spanning as they do almost the entire length of del Gesu's career. The stop length may be different, the long arches are different and of course the f-holes are very different (!), but that the cross arches are so alike lends as strong evidence as any I have ever seen that there may have existed templates in the workshop. Furthermore, seeing how the outlines of these two violins (made some 14 years apart) so match one another, lends weight to the argument as well, as the cross arch templates would have most likely been positioned relative to the outline. (Similarity in outline obviously implies a common form as well.)

Anyway, as mentioned this was a completely random observation (as I just happened to be looking these two instruments over). Further study would reveal more of the same, I am sure, but what makes this most curious is the time spanned. One might expect this of two violins made at more or less the same point in time, but that two made so far apart share such an important trait is curious indeed!

Andres Sender · Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:18 am Post subject:

There are some differences, but you make an interesting observation.

I think it's too much of a leap though to assume that the means for the similarity had to be templates, or that they were used the way we use them. Yes there's a very strong circumstantial case for templates, but there's just not enough evidence to be conclusive.

I think it is reasonable to guess that this type of arch was conceptually separated in Del Gesu's mind from other types of arch that he created. So it was probably executed with a specific intention. I also think it is fair to assume that the similarity of result implies some sort of method which is both specific enough to result in the same character across a long span of time, and also flexible enough to allow the creation of different types of arch. Yes templates are the one thing we know fills the bill very well--but what else might do the same thing? For that matter what might even better explain the very similar character of these arches as well as the small differences found in them?

I don't have even a hint of an idea what such a method might be, but I want to avoid closing the door on finding it.

Yes, I am the same guy who will argue that one cannot conclude that they did not use templates. Wink

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

Truth be told, I don't want to believe in templates. I'd much rather believe in something more elegant. But I was looking at the arching profiles for these two instruments this last weekend, and I was just struck by the similarity. There are differences, as you suggest, but the similarities are far more striking than the differences. The main difference I recall having seen (they're not before me now) is the cross-arch of the c-bout (top), the Ole Bull being taller in this regard, however that would makes sense, given the long arch of the top. And there are other, more subtle differences, but given the time span and some VERY obvious differences in conception (the f-holes, the head, etc.), the similarities evident in something as fundamental as the cross arches is shocking.

So, I saw this, and then in my mind's eye I saw del Gesu take those very templates he used back in the early '30's and apply them once again. However, when I look at almost any of del Gesu's arches I see something very characteristic, so perhaps the same set was used to some extent all along, as Roger Hargrave has suggested. Or, perhaps none were used and templates are merely a product of our myopic reverse engineering. Who am I to know?

Michael Darnton · Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:05 am Post subject:

If you don't want to believe in templates, here's a challenge for you: make 150 nearly-identical violins without using any templates or forms for outlines, f-holes, etc. Then explain to me why arching should be a special case.

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

Yes, excellent point (of which I have become all the more aware, in my studies). While I don't want to believe in templates, I am perfectly willing to accept that they may have existed, and looking over the work of this one, lone maker is a great opportunity for study, as his shop was not cluttered with a network of apprentices (his wife aside?). Anyway, these two violins are as concise a proof as any I have seen that they may have existed. And, I should mention that I don't have any real hang-ups with templates, I just find it curious that none have survived within the relics of Stradivari, that's all.

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

However, like Sam Z says, cutting is physical, not mental, right?

Andres Sender · Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject:

CTD I’m not sure what you or Sam meant by that, but I am sure we would all agree that no cut is worth anything if it is not addressed by the mind before the physical work takes place.

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

In particular, Sam's comment was made in regard to the difference between the Kreisler bass and treble f holes, the treble one being different from the bass (more open and rough) due to the manner in which it was cut (pushing rather than pulling on the knife, or vice versa...I forget). I was simply extending this observation to other aspects of the making process, as a reminder that no matter the "tools" employed (templates, or other) hands must perform the task, so some variability is to be expected.

Michael Darnton · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:44 am Post subject:

When I look at the pix, there's an inside line in the top half to follow that hasn't been battered by the post setter as the surface obviously has, and the rest is quite obviously beat up. When you fill in the missing discontinuity, I don't see any real difference between the two, and the treble might even be a bit smaller. I'm surprised if the implication is that Sam didn't recognize and consider the soundpost damage that's common to all old violins.

Roger Hill · Junior Member Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 18

did GdG use the same thicknessing concept as well as similar arches for the Kreisler and Ole Bull? Has either been regraduated? Thanks

CT Dolan · Member Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 143

Michael, Sam just referred to the right f-hole as being more rough than the left, and suggested that it may be simply due to the manner of cutting (the "push vs. pull" thing). No mention was made of damage over time, and I have not looked into it in the detail you have (but I will tonight).

Roger, as for re-graduation I am not sure, but the Ole Bull is quite thick in the back (up to 6.5 mm in places), however as I recall the top is more normal, and to my recollection the Kreisler is more normal all around (top and back).

Michael Darnton · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject:

If you look at ANY violin, that side always is more banged up from the post setter. I don't have any problem cutting that side from the perspective of tool use--think about it a while--the problems are not different, really, since the hole twists in all directions, especially if you cut from above, holding the knife like a pencil.