Last weekend, I had the opportunity to go and meet Lou DiLeone at his workshop in a nearby town. While he is retired, he is still working on a few select basses to keep active.

He has recently completed a restoration of a Prescott bass. Originally a 3-string bass, he converted it to a 4-string. The flat-back body and headstock/scrollwork are original, while he has replaced the neck. He still has the original neck and tailpiece in his possession.

The interesting thing to see with the bass is the way he covered the original 3 peg holes with wood inserts that are flush with the headstock instead of using metal plates.

The bass sounds as good as it looks. He is selling the bass through his friend David Mix out of Branford, CT.

Here is a link for pictures I took of Lou and the Prescott bass:

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/w_keith_henderson@sbcglobal.net/album/576460762386543575


He has several other bass restorations at his workshop. He has completed an Austrian Lemböck along with a Juzek. On two work tables, he had two Italian basses that are in different stages of repair. I think he mentioned that one of them was a Palotta (sp?). I took pictures of the Lemböck that I will post when I get a chance.

The scroll on that sucker is huge, how heavy is the bass?

The scroll on that sucker is huge, how heavy is the bass?

Not sure. It was heavier than my Engelhardt which weighs about 40 pounds.

I would love to see the Lembock pics, My bass has a Lembock label (A photocopy) and I would like to see what a real one looks like.

Also did he revarnish the Prescott? I can see no marks of age, or is that just the photos?

Also did he revarnish the Prescott? I can see no marks of age, or is that just the photos?

Yes, he did revarnish the bass. He told me about how he makes his own varnishes. I did notice a few age spots on the scroll. But, the body of the bass looks as good as the photos. He is very meticulous in his workmanship.

Wow--that's beautiful--thanks for posting it.

When was that Prescott made?

That bass looks so much like mine which is a relief because I get a lot of detractors that think it's not a prescott. The arching is of particular interest as they are both so high. The f holes on mine dont connect but the shape is identical. My scroll is enormous as well. Thanks for posting that, I'll pass it on when someone asserts that I have a "blockless wonder".

The interesting thing to see with the bass is the way he covered the original 3 peg holes with wood inserts that are flush with the headstock instead of using metal plates.



I can't see the headstock, where is it?;)

I'm surprised he revarnished it. Doesn't that automatically devalue the bass to a fraction of what it would have been with the original varnish? Were there extreme problems with the original finish?

I'm surprised he revarnished it. Doesn't that automatically devalue the bass to a fraction of what it would have been with the original varnish? Were there extreme problems with the original finish?

+1
same with the lemböck in the other thread.
i cant understand this, what a pity.:crying:

I've heard that Lou does this to most of the basses that he restores. I've heard (and yes this is a rumor) that he believes his varnish will improve the sound of the instrument. I suppose that is up for debate but I don't think you can debate that it affects the value of the instrument negatively. I've watched antiques roadshow enough times :hiding: to know that when you strip and revarnish antique furniture, the value is greatly affected. It's kind of like Thomas Kinkade painting one of his (way too popular) winter scenes over a Van Gogt. Sure it looks okay but you've ruined a masterpiece! Look, don't get me wrong, I've heard that Lou is a legendary restorer and trust that his expertise is second to none but I just don't understand why he does it.

I've heard that Lou does this to most of the basses that he restores. I've heard (and yes this is a rumor) that he believes his varnish will improve the sound of the instrument. I suppose that is up for debate but I don't think you can debate that it affects the value of the instrument negatively. I've watched antiques roadshow enough times :hiding: to know that when you strip and revarnish antique furniture, the value is greatly affected. It's kind of like Thomas Kinkade painting one of his (way too popular) winter scenes over a Van Gogt. Sure it looks okay but you've ruined a masterpiece! Look, don't get me wrong, I've heard that Lou is a legendary restorer and trust that his expertise is second to none but I just don't understand why he does it.

When do you reach a point w/ an instrument where the original varnish is so trashed that the refinish , if done expertly, would not harm the value and maybe actually enhance it?

I pose this question because I own a Prescott that is very similar to the Gamba model that Lou restored in those pics.

My bass has, over it's long years, been repaired extensively. So many of it's repaired cracks have been overvarnished to the extent that there is not much of the original finish that is not covered w/ layers of dark varnish, slopily applied. However, this has aged into a patina and along w/ it's incredible sound, the bass has alot of great Mojo to be sure. But under intense light you can see all the layers of heavy handed repair varnish and I can't help but wonder what it would be like to rescue the orig. varnish out from under those layers. Marty Confurius said I could have it "wet sanded". I'd probably never touch it, but this thread has maid me curious about this question of original, but damaged vs. re-varnish (or wet sanding off overvarnish) issue and where exactly is that devalue/enhance value (or sound FTM) threashhold is.

BG

I'm not a fan of that varnish color.

When do you reach a point w/ an instrument where the original varnish is so trashed that the refinish , if done expertly, would not harm the value and maybe actually enhance it?BGIt's always preferable to have original varnish, but having been trained by a master violin maker, I've had a chance to examine some fine old instruments that have been re-varnished by some of the best. I've been told by master violin makers that the majority of the classic period instruments have either been totally re-varnished or because of many past repairs have little if any of the original varnish left on them. I do not believe that these instruments have lost any significant value because of this. IMO, the Prescott bass that Lou DiLeone restored most likely gained value rather than lost value. Unrestored instruments may have potential value, but only a few player/collectors like Ken Smith are willing to buy an instrument in unrestored condition.

However, there is no question that instruments that are re-varnished by non-expert, DIYers usually do lose significant value and many are in fact permanently damaged to the point that even an expert can not erase the damage. I don't even want to think about how many otherwise nice old basses I've had come into my shop that have been "restored" by amateur "luthiers" that made me want to cry.

IMO, the Prescott bass that Lou DiLeone restored most likely gained value rather than lost value.

I think this is valid assuming that the original varnish was in bad shape. Unfortunately, we can no longer tell unless we ask Lou. On the other hand, I've heard that Lou revarnishes as a general rule (as a final step in his restorations). If that is true, then there must have been plenty of occasions where the varnish could have/should have been left alone. Oh well. Just some speculations on my part.

It's always preferable to have original varnish, but having been trained by a master violin maker, I've had a chance to examine some fine old instruments that have been re-varnished by some of the best. I've been told by master violin makers that the majority of the classic period instruments have either been totally re-varnished or because of many past repairs have little if any of the original varnish left on them. I do not believe that these instruments have lost any significant value because of this.So how do you make those kind of choices? What criteria do you apply or what circumstances have to be present to go one way or another?

Just my two cents on the subject, but I personally would never buy an insturment like that if it had been re-varnished. (if I ever had that kind of money...) To me, it completely devalues the bass. So what if it has tons of repairs and "touch ups", that's just the history of the bass. IMO, it's better to leave the instrument alone and have it look "ugly" than to to strip it and re-finish it.

So how do you make those kind of choices? What criteria do you apply or what circumstances have to be present to go one way or another?

Take a look- http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4364097&a=32068858&f=
Whataya think, would you;

re-varnish completely

wet sand and try to get down to "original" varnish

leave it alone!

(how do I put up one of those poll thingies?)

Just my two cents on the subject, but I personally would never buy an insturment like that if it had been re-varnished. (if I ever had that kind of money...) To me, it completely devalues the bass. You might not even suspect that it had been refinished. I've had some come into my shop that I didn't even suspect refinishing until I had the top off and found remnants of the original varnish.

So how do you make those kind of choices? What criteria do you apply or what circumstances have to be present to go one way or another?Refinishing would always be a last resort situation. If french polishing or touchup won't give you the desired results, there may be no other choice. I can't imagine a situation where I would refinish a customers instrument, but if I (or rather my shop) owned it, I might consider refinishing if it would increase the sales potential. It would have to be an unusual case since to do the job right, it is a very time consuming operation and like any other business, time is money.

Refinishing would always be a last resort situation. If french polishing or touchup won't give you the desired results, there may be no other choice. I can't imagine a situation where I would refinish a customers instrument, but if I (or rather my shop) owned it, I might consider refinishing if it would increase the sales potential. It would have to be an unusual case since to do the job right, it is a very time consuming operation and like any other business, time is money.So in the case of the bass we are regarding here can we assume Mr. DiLeone made similar considerations?

Take a look- http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4364097&a=32068858&f=
Whataya think, would you;
re-varnish completely
wet sand and try to get down to "original" varnish
leave it alone!

(how do I put up one of those poll thingies?)Personally I LOVE the look of that bass. The restoration finish of the one in this thread is not my cup of tea at all. I would never touch a hair on that fabulous looking Prescott finish you have. I love how the history of the bass unfolds as you consider each funky spot. To me it's a roadmap of it's time on the planet as a bass. Each ding, bang, crack, repair and the finish that goes with it has a story associated with it. To me refinishing it erases much of the residue of the players, music, and situations it's encountered on it's journey.

So in the case of the bass we are regarding here can we assume Mr. DiLeone made similar considerations?You can not assume anything about Mr. DiLeone. I can only speak for myself.

I recently restored and revarnished an Italian bass c. 1870. I consider revarnishing of a maker's bass an absolute last resort. In this case, the bass had already been revarnished horribly about 15-20 years ago. The original varnish was gone, and the replaced varnish was amateurish, uneven, and overly thick. The new varnish is in the realm of what you would expect to find on an Italian bass of its period (minus a lot of dings, scratches,etc). I was straight with the buyer and reduced the asking price by about 15% or so of what I would have asked had the varnish been original. Lou DiLeone revarnishes most of his restored instruments, and has done so for decades. No one can question his skill, but the practice is certainly controversial.

You can not assume anything about Mr. DiLeone. I can only speak for myself.Dooh. :o Of course.Lou DiLeone revarnishes most of his restored instruments, and has done so for decades. No one can question his skill, but the practice is certainly controversial.I get it.

I was straight with the buyer and reduced the asking price by about 15% or so of what I would have asked had the varnish been original. I assume that you knew about a similar bass in original condition in order to come up with the price (less 15%). My question is: can you give us a ball park idea of how much more you were able to charge for the bass after you revarnished it as compared to the amount the bass would have sold for with the previous bad revarnish job unchanged?

Personally I LOVE the look of that bass. The restoration finish of the one in this thread is not my cup of tea at all. I would never touch a hair on that fabulous looking Prescott finish you have. I love how the history of the bass unfolds as you consider each funky spot. To me it's a roadmap of it's time on the planet as a bass. Each ding, bang, crack, repair and the finish that goes with it has a story associated with it. To me refinishing it erases much of the residue of the players, music, and situations it's encountered on it's journey.

+ a bunch of ones. :D

Bribass:

I can get an impression from your pics that some of the coloration appears very different than other basses I have seen from Prescott. By that I mean that there are some places where I would consider asking some shops what they could do to restore it in a way that would be true to the instrument, maybe touching up or cleaning up the varnish.

Was there a time when some of these Prescotts were not thought of as really high end basses, does anyone have any thoughts of how they compare with average Italian stuff from the same time period?

The only reason I say that is I played one once that I thought was a real dog, maybe it was just in poor upkeep.

" leave it alone!"

Patina is priceless to me, whether on old basses and guitars or antique furniture.
You can read the story of the object's long and varied life in its cuts & scrapes, its cleats & splints.


"The lines in its lacquer are like the lines upon my brow, And we both have come to know the stain of many tears"

Diamond Joe White

I assume that you knew about a similar bass in original condition in order to come up with the price (less 15%). My question is: can you give us a ball park idea of how much more you were able to charge for the bass after you revarnished it as compared to the amount the bass would have sold for with the previous bad revarnish job unchanged?
I would say there would have been no difference. I just wanted to improve the instrument.

I would say there would have been no difference. I just wanted to improve the instrument.Sorry Arnold, but I have a hard time believing that. You have so much spare time that you can afford to give it away, not to mention the varnish and other materials, for no financial gain what-so-ever? :hmm:

REFINISHED PRESCOTTS?
Here's my 1820 Prescott Busetto revarnished: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/Photos/2003PRESCOTTfHolesInchwide.jpg
Another shot of the revarnishing: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/Photos/2006Prescott.jpg
I prefer modern symphonic use as opposed to "original" condition. All Prescotts began life as 3 string necks, and mine had shoulder bouts as wide at the lower bouts! My ideal is a "restored" Prescott with a 5 string neck, 40.5 string length (instead of 42" to 46" string length and 8/8ths monsters). Over the past 186 years repairmen have "ebonized" my bass (black paint to hide bad repairs) and "painted" the back of the belly all over with Elmer's Glue! The verticle cracks are sealed but will not be "painted" closed! If the purists want only original condition, then they should be ready to surrender their Prescotts to some G** D*** museum never to be played again, except for annual freak shows. Here's another shot of my "chocolate" bass (the dark color was said to be cause by use of iron nails intended to add "rust" color to the varnish, but instead turned nearly black over the century. Here's the blackness in 1994: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/Photos/1994PRESCOTT4strDONALD.jpg
Here's another restoral for symphonic use -- not for "original" condition (Portlant Or Sym.): http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/Photos/1822PrescottOregonJason.jpg

Bribass,

I wouldn't revarnish. I think your bass looks amazing with the dark chocolate brown color and all the signs of wear. The varnish is very similar to mine so I might be biased.;)

Hey Bob and Arnold,

Maybe the bass would sell faster if it looked better, and it is nice to do something for the instrument if it truly improves it.

Having seen some ugly basses sit in shops for years because no one is willing to do the proper renovation is sad (and economically painful for the owner too)

Having seen some ugly basses sit in shops for years because no one is willing to do the proper renovation is sad (and economically painful for the owner too)Ugly basses sit in shops for years because no potential buyer is willing to pay the stated price. The seller has the option of (1) reducing the price down enough that potential buyers will be interested in the bass as is, or (2) to make physical improvements to the bass that will make it attractive enough that the potential buyers will be willing to pay your price.

Sorry Arnold, but I have a hard time believing that. You have so much spare time that you can afford to give it away, not to mention the varnish and other materials, for no financial gain what-so-ever? :hmm:
I acquired the bass on trade, in terrible condition. The restoration was done on spec, with the intention of selling the bass. Addressing the varnish was just one of many areas that needed my attention. I did everything to make the bass as good as I could. Whether or not I received more money for the bass than I would have had I not revarnished it is speculation. Most players don't seem to care much what a bass looks like as long as it plays and sounds good. To borrow a page from you, Bob; that's all I have to say about the subject. :hmm:

I would not refinish Bribass's bass, but I have zero problem if someone wants to refinish a bass. Finish is, after all, all about looks, (or what, 90% about looks?) and if you prefer a new look go for it. It's a tool, not a museum piece, to be played, not primarily looked at.

I have a lot of friends who work in museums--one of the first things gyou figure out is that "original" close to a meaningless term. Does it mean "the moment of Creation" or "the moment of retirement from use " or "the moment of greatest fame?" What if a bass is made as a three string, then turned intoa four, then played by Scott LaFaro--what would be the "original condition" then?

I say if you like 'em refinished, go for it, though I also like the look of Bribass's bass.

I acquired the bass on trade, in terrible condition. The restoration was done on spec, with the intention of selling the bass. Addressing the varnish was just one of many areas that needed my attention. I did everything to make the bass as good as I could. Whether or not I received more money for the bass than I would have had I not revarnished it is speculation. Most players don't seem to care much what a bass looks like as long as it plays and sounds good. To borrow a page from you, Bob; that's all I have to say about the subject. :hmm:
Thank you for taking the time to answer the question. Of course it would be speculation, but then again, I've yet to have a customer come to me with a blindfold on so they wouldn't be influenced by the appearance.

I would not refinish Bribass's bass, ... I also like the look of Bribass's bass.

I also like the look of it and I don't think I'd ever have it "revarnished". It has a very similar dark chocolate color to Don's bass and also has had much ham-fisted repair overvarnishing to it. If you look at the pic of the back (in the flesh it's really apparant) you can see lots of streaky brush marks where they smeared it on. http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=4364097&a=32068858&p=73708854
Sometimes I just wonder about maybe having some of the thick layerage removed carefully w/ some ultra fine glass polishing procedure or wet sanding. The thick layers on the top can't be helping it vibrate any. Not that it needs any tone improvement thanks to Arnold's "like-butta" set ups :cool:.

I imagine that most people's mental picture of a refinished bass is a shiny mirror finish. They tend to forget that most basses start life looking exactly like that. (I doubt if anyone would turn their noses up at a new bass by Dan Hachez - I sure wouldn't) Given a little time, a professionally refinished bass is going to look just about the same as one that has not been refinished. I've had hundreds of basses in my shops over the years and I would venture the opinion that 1/3 have been refinished maybe 10, 30, 60 or more years ago. I didn't realize that many of them had been refinished until I had the top off for repairs. One of the main reasons for the refinishing is that the original makers frequently didn't use very good varnish on basses. Instead of using the fine oil varnish that they would put on violins, violas, or cellos, many have used a simple spirit varnish that was nothing more than common rosin dissolved in alcohol. It looked good when new, but flakes off easily when aged a few years.

History tells us that it was common practice up until the early 20th century for luthiers to re-varnish the top or other parts when there were cracks that needed repairs. Back then, they didn't want instruments to look "old". Today, there are violin makers who can fake "old" (both inside and outside) so well that no one but an expert can tell that the instrument is really 2 months old instead of 2 centuries old. I don't personally know anyone doing that with basses, but I'm sure they are out there too. Some of the Hungarian basses do that to a lesser degree.

The point I wish to make is that many players are playing basses that have been refinished and don't know it. Many sellers (unlike our friend Arnold) will not tell you that an instrument has been refinished in the past if you don't ask. In fact, they may not know it themselves. Don't confuse the work of pros with the work of the guy who strips off the old varnish and throws on something from the hardware store down the street. They aren't even in the same league.

. No one can question his skill,


:eyebrow: :rolleyes:

It is interesting;- this thread. That Prescott has a new neck;- with a new block, a new tailpiece (Lou must not have wanted to drill another set of holes in it ?), the same scroll / pegbox with an extra tuner installed. Expertly accomplished changes by the looks of the result. And we spend most of the thread talking about new varnish. I wonder what it sounds like? It looks like a Prescott.

I recently restored and revarnished an Italian bass c. 1870. I consider revarnishing of a maker's bass an absolute last resort. In this case, the bass had already been revarnished horribly about 15-20 years ago. The original varnish was gone, and the replaced varnish was amateurish, uneven, and overly thick. The new varnish is in the realm of what you would expect to find on an Italian bass of its period (minus a lot of dings, scratches,etc). I was straight with the buyer and reduced the asking price by about 15% or so of what I would have asked had the varnish been original. Lou DiLeone revarnishes most of his restored instruments, and has done so for decades. No one can question his skill, but the practice is certainly controversial.

can i just say that I tried the bass at arnold's shop. It was amazing what you did with the bass Arnold. It sounded fantastic and played so easily.