Gagliano

I'm working on a Plowden del Gesu. It is the first violin with a low arch that I've tried. It's coming along good. I am also fixing up the purfling on the Gagliano viola I drew up. I really like the shape of it. I like the shape of the Gagliano cello and violin too. I've been working on Guadagnini viola, and the purfling is way off from even around the top of the back. I have no idea how that happened. I found out that the slab back should have been set up heart side up. That just seems weird to me, but I've read it from several sources lately.

Besides that: I just don't like the big chunky look of the beast. It is close to being hideous.

So I was trying to make up a viola shape that was a mix of the older, slimmer Guadagnini violins and cellos, and morph them into a viola, like I did the Gagliano. It just wasn't working. I had a dream that night of throwing all the papers in the trash. So that's what I did. I'm going to stick with what I like and make a family of instruments that I drew up from the photos of the Gagliano cello and violin. They only showed the backs so I used photos of other Gaglianos to get the f holes designed.

The shape of the violin is very much like the early Guadagnini violins. The holes aren't cool oval ones, but then the corners don't poke out like sore thumbs either. Even the arching seems to have the fullness of the Guadagnini. He made high arched, and low arched violins, so there is room to play around. The viola has a 19 mm or so arch. I picked that because it looks like a Grancino viola of about the same size (420 mm), so it isn't unduly high.

I thought of getting the poster for the Gaglino violin, and cello. The cello is by Allisandro? and not Nicolo. Did they work in the same style? Maybe I can just come up with my own. Right now I'm happy with the outlines, and can get back to work. I will redraw the cello, the wone I have is a little messy, and have it blown up double size to make a pattern. Then I can make a mold and start on a cello too.

Too Weird - What's Next?

That is pretty much the syopsis of the judge at the VSA yesterday. She didn't like the varnish (no one did). I don't even like it completely, I LIKE that it is BOTH gold and red, but it needs to be smoother, and not texture on steroids. But at least it isn't boring. Weird is better than boring, isn't it? She didn't like the long corners (no one did). But that is what Montagnana put on it, just like on his cellos. She didn't know what a Montagnana model was. (Maybe I said it wrong, is it pronounced Mon' ta na' na?) Really? Are you serious?

I am just a bull in a China Shop.



I look for the instruments that have something different. Bigger f holes. More slanted f holes. F holes that have big gaps when looking at it from the side. Cool maple wood that isn't just evenly spaced stripes; sorry, I really don't like that at all. Some of the pegboxes were wide, some where narrow, some were tapered. I hope there isn't a standard for that too. If so, the tapered ones I like are probably held in least regard. Big fat ones are probably the favorites. There weren't many that differed by more than 1 millimeter.

I think that is a shame. Yawn.

Let's look at the violas, they will be different. Well, a little bit. There were a few that had a different outline; but nothing with wicked deSalo f holes that say, "Outa my way sucker." There were a few with high arches. One had double purfling, but I don't think it had the lily embelishment.



The cellos are very hard to see. Laying down on a table is a terrible way to view them. They need stands; that would be much better.

All in all, there were a lot of beautiful instruments. The Peter of Mantua for 1708 was the best I saw, but then again it is worth way more than anything else. But the arching of it was not typical of anything else I saw in there. It had more deeply cut edgework, and a higher arch besides.

Will I succomb to the norm. No, I don't do normal. But I HAVE to do WAY better. I bought some brushing solution from Joe, so that should help. I found a great method for applying the varnish; on the last coat; so that should help. I don't plan on being rushed, so that should help. My next violins seem to be much simpler: the Plowden and the latest Strad poster, the Beta, or something like that. Both of them have much different archings than the Montagnana did. And I still have the two violas to finish, and they are both different from anything I saw at the show.

Maybe a Gagliano cello? Who knows?

Ahh, diversity.

Ready? or Not?

Well, the violin is done. Am I happy with it? No, not entirely. Some parts I like. My fittings are decent, I think. It could be a dumb thing to make ones own fittings, but if you can do it with finess, you might be able to pull it off; otherwise it is a distraction. My archings are decent. I think that is one thing that I can actually do right. The wood looks cool, but even though some parts of the varnish look cool, I'm not entirely pleased. Maybe the varnish needs to be just a tiny bit more flowing? Maybe I'll see Joe, he says he has a new flow enhancer.



The sound seems good. I don't play, I really should learn, at least a little. I can make lots of noise, and I get a feel for the instrument that way. The other Montagnana I have strung up with Dominant lights. It has a reliable, clear, simple sound. To me it sounds like a student violin; no surprises. It does still sound a little woody on the G, especially higher up; (it was worse with the regulars, the lights were a Godsend for it) but nothing outrageous. This one is different. It seems more like a caged animal. Is that a good thing? I would think so. Who wants a plane Jane? The sound is much more complex, and both darker, and more brilliant.



I have Warchal Brilliants on it; maybe they are. I put Karneols on first, and the G seemed too flabby. Moving the soundpost in where it belongs (I just popped it in because I was anxious to string it up, and it was about a MM too long) helped a bit, and I was going to decide between the two; but the E loop on the Karneols broke. My choice was easy.

I have a thing for breaking the little piece that hangs down in the top cut out of a bridge. I have no idea what it is called, but for some reason I have broken 3 of them off! I've only cut six! What gives! I take the pragmatic approach, and turn it into a heart and call it good. Now don't get me started on bridge blanks. Why do they give you 8 mm or more on the top, but there is barely enough to sneak up on the bottom fitting so the inside foot is still there. This one barely made it, and I didn't have another. Come on guys are you kidding me? Why is the bottom cut flat instead of with an arch? I haven't seen any flat top violins. It just doesn't make any sense. Are there any brands that have a decent amount of stock on the feet? I should buy a bunch so I have them around. How about ones with a reinforced thingy that hangs down in the center cut out? No?



All in all, at least it is the best I've done. I need to find out how to make better scrolls. I've never really looked at one in person; I mean really examined it. And I don't have any around; except mine! I get the basics done, but something is missing. What is it?

Fingerboard Shaping

Whenever people talk about shaping a fingerboard they invariably mention the specific block plane that they like to use. I haven't found one. My tool of choice is a scraper; more specifically an old plane blade.

To make a fingerboard I cut the wedge first from a 2" X 2" block of ebony a foot long. You can figure out how high each end should be by using some geometry and a calculator. It comes out to about 8 mm at the top and about 11.5 mm at the bottom. That is with a 5.5 mm edge, and a 42 mm radius, and a little extra. I cut it wide of the line and plane both sides flat; with my big jointer plane. Then I cut the edges; that is straightforward enough; and plane them straight.

The only step you need to carve the top is a pencil line on the sides 5-5.5 mm up from the bottom. Hold the blank in your left hand, and with your right hand start planing off big slivers of wood off with the scraper. Hold the scraper at an angle to the blank, and move it generally in a straight line, concentrating on getting it to the scribed line. Ever once in a while check with your fingers to see if the top curve seems right, and that there are no high spots. If there are smooth them out with your angled scraper.

Use a straight edge to see if the middle has some undercut in it, a little more on the bass side. I have to be sure the ends aren't high or low; I've managed to get them both ways, so now I leave the ends long, and saw it to length when it is roughed close to size.

In an hour you will be done.

The blank is now still a blank. I won't finish it until I can work out the projection. That way if I have to keep it thick I can, and if it can go thinner, or needs to be moved around some I have a mm or so leeway on each end for tipping. That is the time you can work on getting the relief just right, the edges even, and that sort of thing.

Try a scraper, it is easy.

Color under the ground

The other day before starting to glue (I"m still at it, I've been busy) I sealed the wood with some resin in alcohol, and tried to color it a green/gold. I used a tiny bit of Azo Green on a toothpick, and some tannin in alcohol and tried to point it until it was even. Originally the back is quite white, and the belly is quite red.

Now they are closer to the same color, and it does have the green/gold look I was going for. It seemed a little bright at first, but either it grows on you after a while, or it dulls up a little.

After I get it glued up I can but the ground on it, and then start the varnish. While waiting for varnish to dry I have a fingerboard, pegs, tailpiece, saddle and nut to make. I have a hunk of ebony that isn't all black. Hope it works.

Tap Tones

Well, I am gluing up the instrument. I decided to check the tap tones and weight of the plates beforehand. I used to use a great program for fft analysis called Sakuro8, or something like that. It doesn't work on Apple. I've tried to use Audacity because it will supposedly work on Apple, but I don't see how to get it to do anything. There is a panel, but nothing is active on it. It is merely an exercise in futility. I used my electronic keyboard instead. Anyone know how to get it to work? It isn't user friendly like the Japanese flute program. That one was great.

The back is about 102 grams, and the tap tones are fairly close to each other. The lowest is E3 then C4 and the ring note is Eb4. Almost an octave, with the the fifth a little high, and the octave a little low. The belly is harder to find the notes for. The low note is low; Bb2. Then the next note comes slightly more than an octave up at B3, so it is a semitone lower than the back there. The ring tone is elusive. I hear different notes depending on where I hold it. I hear a cluster of notes: E4, F#4 and A4. None of them particularly ring like the other two do. The belly is 75 grams.

Using the formula to gage stiffness we have 294 squared times 102 = 11.1 and, 370 (I used the F# a fifth up from the B) squared times 75 = 10.3.

They both seem to flex about the same to me. The edges are quite flexible, but the center is quite stiff. Maybe I could have gone thinner on the belly. Let's see what really stiff can do.

Edge Method

I generally use the edge method given by Roger Hargrave in his article on the Working Methods of Del Gesu. I found it originally here: http://www.vsa.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:classical-edgework-by-roger-hargrave&catid=20:selected-articles&Itemid=140
That is what I used for this one. It would have worked if the purfling was 2.5-3 mm tall, and if my platform was flat; but it wasn't, and the purfling is only 1.8 mm. After fixing it up, I have come up with some alterations to the method if you are making a model with thin edges. Here is the plan:

What this does is make the platform lower, while keeping the edge at about 4.5 or so. Here is what I was dealing with:

And this is how it ends up. I still need a little work on the edges, but it looks much better than it did.