Instead of real numbers of thicknesses, I chart relative thickness to the rest of the top (or back). I find some sort of calculation that will change a low of 2.2 and a high of 3.4 into a 1-10 range. I assign a color for each number and I have my graph. It is more telling than the thickness graph, but I need a box of crayons! My markers are only 6 colors.
Here are the two violins I am starting on. You can see that the Montagnana is much thinner all around than the del Gesu. But it has a central area from head to toe that is thicker. The average thickness for the del Gesu is about 65% of the range, and the range is quite small; the thickest part is only 50% higher than the thinest. The Montagnana has an average thickness of about 40% of the range, but the range is 2:1. The del Gesu is quite a bit thicker on the upper than the lower bouts, the lower bout is a lot thinner on the treble side, and the upper bout is a fair amount thinker on the treble side.
The Montagnana, besides the thick ridge in the middle, differs mostly in the thin channel. Where the del Gesu channel is about 60% (40-75%) of the range, the Montagnana is only 40% (30-50%) of the range. Ubviolusly they are working with two different concepts. The average thickness of the del Gesu is 3 mm, the Motagnana only 2.1 mm, so that thick ridge must really work.
I did the Montagnana cello as well, to see if it is something that he always did. The thicknesses in the middle by the fingerboard and tailpiece aren't given, but their could be a thicker central band. He uses an even thinner channel (relative to the thickness) and the only difference seems to be the much thicker ceter bout area. But the general thicknessing pattern seems to be the same.
It appears to me Montagnana took his time on the cello as compared to the violin. The thickness/thinning pattern just looks like they blend together better. The impression I get from the violin is like "alright. I've got it hollowed out now, let's smooth it some, then I'll glue the bass bar and call it good after I thin the inside a little bit more. Maybe some one else made that top. It just doesn't look/feel the same to me by looking at the patterns presented here. It could be Mr. Montagnana was just good regardless of what he did. Which instrument was made first? The violin or the cello.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right. The violin was from 1717, the cello was 23 years later. The cello is more even. I wonder if he was chasing after some ideal on the violin; certain tap tones, or a certain amount of flex, and instead of thinning the center strip a little in the bouts for more flexibility, or smoothing out the transitions from one are to the next, he was just a little haphazard. It does seem to have a plan, it just wasn't as well executed as it could have been done. Notice that the del Gesu seems to have bands, or patches of thick, and really only one thin area, and three thinner areas to open up the upper bout some. But by then, just like the Domenicos Cello, he was a master.
ReplyDelete