Violin Forum/Message Board Forum Index Violin Forum/Message Board
Provided by Violin Vision
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Neck thickness for a late baroque/early classical setup

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Violin Forum/Message Board Forum Index -> Violin Making and Restoration Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KenN
Member


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Goodrich, MI

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Neck thickness for a late baroque/early classical setup Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Andres Sender
Super Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 275
Location: N. CA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the angle of the top plane of your neck (not fingerboard) vs. the plane of the ribs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KenN
Member


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Goodrich, MI

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not going to be straight, but it's not on yet. I have it planned for about 3 degrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Darnton
Moderator


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1281
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
KenN
Member


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Goodrich, MI

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Darnton
Moderator


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1281
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
KenN
Member


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Goodrich, MI

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Violin Forum/Message Board Forum Index -> Violin Making and Restoration Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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