Violin Forum/Message Board

[actonern]

Within the last few years there was an article in the STRAD magazine by a luthier expounding the theory that Cremonese plates were first hollowed out, basically according to a long arch catenary as well as cross arch catenary (arc of a thin chain suspended over the plate, naturally falling to the appropriate centre depth defines the curve of the arch.)

The arch so hollowed was then blended in the bouts to form a smooth contour into the edge.

According to this theory, the plate was then flipped over and thicknessed appropriately.

I've seen no discussion about this idea in the various forums... any reaction to this theory?

[violinarius]

Great article!
The Strad has it as a free download now.
It's under Ventral Pins, July 08, but is the Aug 2006 article that is related to the newer Ventral Pin article.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Page with all the free downloads at The Strad magazine:

http://www.thestrad.com/hdownloads.asp
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The actual pdf file:

http://www.thestrad.com/images/ArchingAug06.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Andre Paul]

Hi!

This article was in the August 2006 The Strad and I posted at that time.
I tried the method and made a violin using the technique and it worked pretty good, not a time saving thing but not bad. I am just ready to assemble the instrument now, for I was working few instruments at the same time and this one kept on falling back. I like the flow of the inside arch and it forces you to commit to the inside before the outside and it is a good thing. Also the plates are solid at the time you do the hollowing and you can really go at it not fearing to bust the plates.

I will use the method again, for I like it, the inside gouging use to stress me but no more with this method.

I will post some pictures once I am done with this instrument.
Try it it works.
Andre Paul

[M.Lange]

Very interesting article. It may be worth a try.
However, it does not explain the dents on the outside of this stradivari cello, which are probably from the supporting peg of the graduation punch, as Michael Darnton mentions on his website.



I linked this image from Michael Darnton's website - I hope that is okay.

Matthias

[Michael Darnton]

Yes, that's a photo from my site. Here's a close-up of a couple of the marks:



I also have a photo of the inside of a golden period Strad violin which is thicker than they usually are (apparently he stopped graduating early for some reason) which is loaded with pinpricks on the inside:

[Andres Sender]

The idea was discussed in detail at Maestronet in a thread called "inside first?"

It contradicts the interior shape of at least some Stradivari instrument backs (i.e. the Milanollo), although author Torbjörn Zethelius maintains that the 'hump' shape his theory contradicts is rare.

[actonern]

Fascinating pictures all...

Michael:

The Stradivari inside photo with all the pinpricks seems in places wildly over done... pricks millimeters apart... as if Omobono was "pissed" at the old man...

[Michael Darnton]

If you'd used the machine you'd get it. The objective isn't to punch a nice pattern--it's to get a whole lot of pricks in as quickly as possible. That's just how it looks when it's done that way.

[Oded Kishony]

Hi Michael,

Interesting fiddle and great to see such a fine example of the use of the 'woodpecker' tool

I noticed the cleats on the reapirs were at a 45 degree angle. Do you where this repairworks was done and is this commonly done now?

Thanks,
Oded

[Michael Darnton]

The violin was in the middle of a restoration at Bein & Fushi, and that's the way they were doing cleats at the time. The bevels haven't been cut on the ends yet, in the photos.

[Wolfjk]

[MANFIO]

The inside arching method was first described by Euro Pelluzzi in a book called "Tecnica Costrutiva degli Antichi Liutai Italiani" (sold out, just in Italian).

Pelluzzi mentions a Cremonese manuscript in support to his theory that is called "LIBRUM SEGRETI DE BUTTEGHA - Regule et Formule Phoniche per Liutaro et Violinaro", once in the library of the Schollar Patetta Federico and now in the Vatican Library. This book is mentioned also in the last VSA Journal.

This manuscript is dated 1795 (when the golden period was over... ...), I think a more serious study about this manuscript should be done. For the measures it uses the "braccio Cremonese", mentioned by Sacconi.

The manuscript gives convex radius, which prompted Peluzzi to the conclusion that they were meant to be used on the inside. Pelluzzi's ideas are also based on the reflection of the light in concave mirrors. I find it a bit too complex to be feasible, but I may be wrong.
_________________
www.manfio.com

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

[CT Dolan]

My own thought on the matter is that the outside-first method developed as a result of the efforts of late 18th and early 19th Century luthiers who worked to copy (or model) the instruments of esteemed earlier makers (Stradivari, Amati, Guarneri, etc.). However, some methods they developed in the act of making copies (or of using existing instruments as models for inspiration) do not reflect the way in which the originals were made and place too much attention on the outer form, largely neglecting the inner (and perhaps more important) form. Because the instrument of interest (a Stradivari, perhaps) would have been closed and complete, it seemed a rather straightforward thing to mimic the outer form (outline and arching) in an attempt to realize the same. Thus, the template was born!

However, I have never been comfortable with the idea of arching guides or templates and have always thought of them as a crutch. For one, consider the tremendous variety, the spontaneity, present in the work of any single maker from the Cremonese school and it is apparent that, other than the outline (for which we have evidence in the form of surviving moulds) work was carried out absent a pre-conceived (or pre-made) arching guides or templates. This does not necessarily mean that they worked from the inside-out, but as I firmly believe that the inner form of an instrument is more important than the outer (and is directly responsible for the "breath" these amazing instruments are capable of producing), for this reason I believe that the inner form was considered first. The outer form was then subject to the inner, with the outer edges being given shape after the fact as well, but it all began on the inside. I also believe that an experienced maker, working with templates and such and beginning from the outside, can realize a great result. However I do not think it was the original method, nor do not think of it as superior, but rather inferior as it robs originality from the work, being a less free and therefore more "mechanical" process (one developed for the making of copies). Think of it this way, would you rather go to the local market to buy your tomatoes, or would you rather cultivate the skills required to grow them yourself? This is a crude analogy, but which is the more pure art form?

Ever since the time of the great makers of Cremona, the craft seems to have become one by and large of copyists (to use the term in a somewhat general sense), and even though every maker since the dawn of the profession has used the esteemed work of earlier (and comtemporary) peers for inspiration, I fear much of the originality present in earlier work has been lost up until our day as a result of the methods developed by the copyists of yesterday. But, I suppose improving upon perfection is not the easiest of things and we should be happy enough in our efforts to mimic that which has already been created. However, I have yet to make a single instrument and am thus far only a student of the process (and a rather fresh one at that, only having been studying violins and the making of them for about 1 year). So, those of you who have the experience, who have done the work and who know the great instruments of the past personally, if I am off my rocker let me know and set my thinking straight!

[Michael Darnton]

I think that everything needs to be considered in its proper context. We have very little surviving documentation about Cremonese violin making beyond a few surviving templates from one maker who came more than 100 years after it was developed.

Philosophically, unless we make a strong effort to disconnect from it, our entire conception of what they did is strongly connected with our own time, which is even more detached from when the instrument was designed than Stradivari was.

We know what they know, but I think we often discount it and make up things we wish they had known. Acoustics is one of those things, but math is not. I probably said it earlier in this thread, but here is goes again: don't you think it a bit strange that the entire exterior of the violin, in the finest detail, should be very carefully laid out on mathematical principles, but that some people believe that when it came to the arch they, in a sense, decided to "wing it"?

I notice an attraction of makers (who can't stand the idea that what they're doing could be simply a mechanical craft--the idea of violin maker as artist is a distinctly modern conceit) to the idea that the violin is a piece of creative art, developed by people of great intuitional artistic drive who couldn't be constrained by numbers and structure. From looking at the instruments it's evident that nothing could be farther from the truth. I'd suggest that people who follow this "creative" line of thought are basically inadequately informed about both the instruments, and the time in which they were made.

[actonern]

Michael:

Your point seems especially powerful when we consider that in virtually all other successful instrument making the best are closely modelled on solid math.

Pianos, brass instruments, pipe organs, wind instruments etc. don't make out too well on whimsy and "intuition."