View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
KenN Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Goodrich, MI
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: Neck thickness for a late baroque/early classical setup |
|
|
I have a Bergonzi copy almost ready to glue up. I made a 3 piece fingerboard and an inlaid tailstock to make it somewhat the way it was originally in 1736, or maybe was, who knows. The other instrument I made has the neck thickness about 17.5/20.5mm like the Johnson &Courtnall book says. I'm no violinist but the neck seems awfull thin like that! Are those dimensions in the ballpark?
Now for the late baroque neck, since my fingerboard is 5mm thicker on the edge at the end of the neck that at the nut the 20.5 number would naturally be higher. Would the 17.5 number be higher too? I read that the neck is somwhat bigger since they used it more to hold the instrument since they didn't have a chin rest. What are good numbers to shoot for? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andres Sender Super Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 275 Location: N. CA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is the angle of the top plane of your neck (not fingerboard) vs. the plane of the ribs? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KenN Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Goodrich, MI
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not going to be straight, but it's not on yet. I have it planned for about 3 degrees. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 1281 Location: Chicago
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The basic concept is that the back, maple part of the neck, itself, remains essentially the same thickness from top to bottom, in ALL setups, but the wedge-shaped fingerboard increases the overall thickness of the neck+board according to the period. The taper of the total neck thickness is completely dependent of the angle of the underlying neck, combined with the amount of taper in the board consequently necessary to achieve the desired bridge height. The only other consideration is the curves into the pegbox and heel, which are generally softer with older necking versions, becoming progressively tighter up to the present.
For older models, I start with about 19mm total thickness at the top, and then eyeball the neck carving to keep the back of the neck parallel with the gluing surface under the board. The resulting neck thickness at the bottom is then. . . . whatever it is. If the neck tilts slightly forward, as with some models, the total thickness at the bottom necessary to achieve bridge height is very thick.
With a modern neck, the same principle applies, but because the board becomes very little thicker at the bottom of the neck, the growth in neck thickness is consequently less. For transitional necks, with a slight back tilt plus a slightly wedged board, the same principle still applies, and neck "growth" is between ancient and modern.
You can see these situations, side-by-side, in the Hill Stradivari book, in the illustration facing page 202, here:
http://www.cello.org/heaven/hill/pix/images/twonecks.jpg
Here's a Stainer with a very forward-tilted neck, and consequently, a very thick board at the heel, but note that the maple part of the neck is essentially parallel, top to bottom:
http://www.usd.edu/smm/Violins/Before1800/Stainerviolin.html
Here's a transitional model with quite a bit of back tilt (though I wish I'd left the bottom a bit thicker--the maple part of the neck tapers just a bit towards the heel)
http://darntonviolins.com/images/instrument_gallery/transitional_violin.jpg
and a full baroque version with a more "normal" angle, tilted only slightly back from the plane of the body:
http://darntonviolins.com/images/instrument_gallery/Amatibody.jpg
If you make the board thickness at the top thinner than a modern board, the main part of the neck will consequently be a bit thicker than for a violin with a modern board, but the general range is around 13-15mm thickness for the back of the neck, parallel, top to bottom.
By the way, my measurements for a modern neck are 18.5mm and 20.5mm. I think 17.5mm is too thin. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KenN Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Goodrich, MI
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Michael, the first photo showing two necks side by side pretty much tells it all. You can see the difference, especially in the radius by the button. You see that in the others too, but side by side points them out better. After thirty years as a machinist it takes a while to get used to using pictures and the way it looks and feels, and not a +-.001 dimension on a print. I wonder if the baroque player was more flexible as far as set up than modern players, or was each player used to the set up on his own particular instrument and didn't care for any other! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 1281 Location: Chicago
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I meant to add, but somehow it didn't happen, that my copy of J&C gives 18.5mm for the upper neck thickness, not 17.5mm. Are you sure you read correctly? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KenN Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 89 Location: Goodrich, MI
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just checked and it does say 18.5. I don't know where I came up with 17.5. The one I made came in at 18 so it is a little small. That still seems small to me, but I like big fat handles on tools too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|