New Project

I have a couple projects started. But then this year we've been working 6 and 7 days a week on my real job, and I've been writing my other blog http://kensdevotional.blogspot.com/ . I'm still writing the other blog, but I'm getting better at it, and will schedule my time to do that until no later than 11AM and then do violin stuff for the next 2-3 hours each day. I should be able to get something accomplished on violins that way.

The Guadagnini viola is further along, and the Plowden violin has hardly anything done. Everyone always asks how long it takes to make a violin, so I'm going to find out. First I'll get everything ready and see how long that takes. Truing up the wood, glueing, the form, the ribs, the neck block, linings, purfling, blocks, pegs, fingerboard, tailpiece, all that stuff. A lot of those things luthiers normally buy finished, or roughed in, but I like to have the fittings match, and make them up myself. Certainly not prudent from a cost prospective, but I think it looks cool.


I think even a 17th century maker would have contracted out some of that work, like the pegs, and maybe the fingerboard and tailpiece. A larger shop might have had apprentices that would make up the rib stock, square up stock, rough in the neck, and maybe even get the front and backs book matched and glued up. Having all the stuff ready makes it faster once you get everything ready to glue up.

I drew up a plan for a Guadagnini violin. Actually it's two violins. I want one small one (352mm) with a high arch (18.7), and one longer one (357) with a low arch (16). I drew up the plan to make it bigger on the belly than the top. That's what Guadagnini did, and I think it makes cool looking ribs. So I need a full pattern, one half front, and one half back, instead of a half pattern. I took it up to the office supply place and had it copied 100% and 101.5%. I'll glue them on to thin plywood and cut it out as my pattern. From that I can make up molds. I drill two holes on the centerline, somewhere in the upper and lower bouts, and then I use drill bits to positively locate the pattern, then I can mark the outline of the corners on each side when the blocks are on. Works great.


I'm wondering. What would be the differences in tone between them? I'm only going to build the small one for the test, so I won't know until one day I decide to build both, side by side. They have slightly different f holes (drawn up from two different Guadagnini instruments, the Maazel and the Lachmann Schwechter). The high arch one has shorter, more angled holes. The other is straighter and slightly longer. Both should give a stop at around 195mm. The high arch one comes out with about a 157 degree string angle with a 25mm projection. The low arch one can get around 158 degrees with 26.5 projection. I like doing the geometry stuff (yeah, I'm slightly crazy) but it's probably easier to just do it, and not worry about actual numbers. So the low one would have more bridge fulcrum, and possibly more power? Then again the high arch would be stronger, so maybe the rest can be "flimsier" so the sound "shimmers" off of it? I don't know. It's like a dome, or cone tweeter, which one is better?


Oh, time wise the drawing is maybe 2 hours. The thinking behind it maybe a few days. If I make sure I document everything though (neck set, arch height, saddle height, tailpeice length, tap tones, weights, thicknessing, everything), I won't have to go back over it again.

If.