"To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question"

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by arnoldschnitzer

Real world: A bass must be playable to have value as an instrument. An unplayable bass is essentially worthless. Do what you must to make it a playable (and therefore valuable) bass. Most of the top-tier basses in the world today were cut down at one point, and their value is intact. Witness the ex-Homer Mensch Gofriller, which would have caused a bidding war in the $200,000+ range, had it not ended up with his favored student.

Yup, my point exactly. By the way, that Bass of Homer still went for close to the 200k mark even though it WAS his student. It was NOT given to him for free at all. Maybe you can say, he got the Bass less the commission had it been publically sold. Homers' Gagliano is for sale and it was Cut too as well. That is going for 200k. By the way, Biase IS the one that cut Homers' Gofriller. Paul has a similar near identical one at the shop un-cut for comparison. Even the Scrolls match not to mention the wood. On the Gagliano, it's cut all around upper and lower from what I understand. I don't know who cut the Gagliano or when but I figure if Paul can cut a Gofriller for Homer, then my Bass is just a walk in the park.

[D McCartney]

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

How is preserving history and being part of it mutually exclusive?

Well, if you wish to preserve the bass, then you will want to leave as little indication as possible that you ever worked on it. If you cut it, then you become an obvious part of the history of it, and your work will be judged. I don't see one way as better than the other, just different approaches. To me, what matters more is the quality of work and end results.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

Well, if you wish to preserve the bass, then you will want to leave as little indication as possible that you ever worked on it. If you cut it, then you become an obvious part of the history of it, and your work will be judged. I don't see one way as better than the other, just different approaches. To me, what matters more is the quality of work and end results.

The History IS the work that has beed performed on the Bass throughout its life. I can already see 3 different crossbar patterns on the back. The Top has its original shape and no cracks in the center of the Breast, Sound Post or Bass Bar areas. This shows the makers work and wood choice was complentry to itself despite the usage of the Bass over the centuries. The Ribs have plenty of splits which shows that the Top was stronger when the Back shrunk each season and let the Ribs take the hit. The Bass has many many mars and scratches on the Back which shows it didn't always have a Case and may have been on top of a Carriage cross-town. The Bass was restored in USA around the 1840s but was reported to have been brought to the USA around 1908 by the previous user/owner. This means it was probably played by a Musician on the Great Ships from Europe to USA as it was here before and maybe brought back after it was repaired. The Scroll was 3-strings and then converted to 4-strings. The Neck has a Carpentry splice in the center. The back Button had a plate of wood and under it, 2 huge Screws into the neck showing signs that it had taken a hit or fall at sometime. This may explain the new White Bros. Scroll of Boston, 1840. The Neck Splice may be from later damage. I have a black stained maple Tailpiece that was made for 3-string but 2 holes were drilled thru it later for 4-strings. The 4 Gears that were on the Bass date from Germany about 1800 or so. The Gears were exactly like these but without the Plates; http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrume...itz/scroll.jpg

These are just some of the parts of its past history. This Bass is no Virgin by any means. Making it work in a respectful manner for todays playing is just another step in preserving the makers intentions. A playable workable Bass for a deserving player.

I want to point out one other thing here. I have bought 4 English Basses in the last 3 years. One is gone but I will still refer to it. Three of them have tight flamed Sycamore Backs and ribs of local English growth. Three of the Tops are medium-fine grained Spruce BUT one of them has grain I have never seen except in sections here and there. This Top has some special wood. Grain tighter than the naked eye can count the growth rings. The Bass also shows signs or triimming the bouts about 1/4 -1/2" all around as the Purfling on the Top runs off the Bass but is evident in the corners, c-bouts and upper and lower portions of the Bass. It looks as if the Bouts was more of a squarer shape originally and maybe trimmed when the highly figured ribs first shrunk OR the Top was made first and the Back wasn't wide enough so it was trimmed after it was Purfled and then assembled. A composite was once considered but the C-bouts line up perfectly and they are unusual as it is and the Varnish matches from Top to Back as well. So, the Mystery of this Bass is more than just the Maker or Origin.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Ok, after all this chatter about if or how to do this Bass, I finally spoke with Biase who was out of town for these rounds and totally unaware of the public forum and polled opinion on this project.

A Block cut it will be. Some trim around the upper edges, a new Block lowered down slightly and the Bridge cheated about 1/2" or so. this should get me close to 42" and be able to reach the F# which is a goal in all set-ups.

Thanks to all that threw in their $.02 and more. Please feel free to continue on the topic if so desierd. This thread remains open for this subject as long as TB stays around.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

I know this Thread stopped suddenly a few days after its start over a year ago but if anyone is interested, I have a slight update. The current Neck Block will remain in the Bass. Biase added a piece to the bottom of the Block to make it deeper in the the upper Bouts. This way, when he cuts the upper Block area, there will be a big enough Block to set the new Neck in.

He will cut about 1" off the Top of the Bass and leave the Block area wider around the Neck and trim the side platforms with Ebony. As you can see from these two pictures, when the Top area is cut, the platform area wont be all the wide.



As far as that raised plate goes on the Back Button, we have already made a new one as well as a matching plate to go across the bottom of the Back. A graft repair was done on the inside as the lower Block area of the Back was messed up. Both plates have a strip running down the center, with the plates book matched to match up with the Back as it has a half inlaid center strip as well.



So, as far as 'The Cut' goes, we have gone with option #3, the Block area only. Originally, we were thinking of cutting the Shoulders and re-shaping them with some slope added. Next, Biase mentioned we should only cut about 2" off the upper Ribs at the Corner Block, lower the upper Rib assembly to the Corner Blocks and then just trim the Top and Back to conform to the Ribs with just a slight lip. Only the Top is purfled so restoring the Purfling is not as much as would be if both plates were purfled. With the Block cut, mainly only the Tips of the Top and a small area below the current neck-set will be removed. The original Purfling will just end at the Block platform. Setting the New neck into the modified Block about an inch deep and with a lower heel will help get the String length reduced to 42" or less. The Shoulders although broad (22" upper bout width), they do have a gentle slope with only 5 3/4" Rib depth at the Neck. After the Block-cut it will be closer to 6 or 6 1/2 wide, still fairly narrow and accessible.



I refer to 'we' only because I have selected some matching wood for the plates, cut them and sent them to Biase. I have also worked closely with him for over 3 years on all the planning of this restoration. However, he is the actual Restorer and not me. It's not business, it's just personal.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

If you have followed the Mystery Bass Thread "Name That Bass" (post #138, page 7) you would have read that we were able to avoid the Cut altogether by making a few modifications.

It might be easier now to update the progress if this was only one combined Thread but the subjects are different. One is the ID process to find out what kind of Bass it is or a possible maker and period and this one to discuss the alteration of an old classic instrument being brought back from the dead.

In brief I will say (which can be read on the other Thread as well) that we avoided the Cut by putting the new grafted Neck deeper into the modified Block, moving the Bridge forward from the notches like the wear marks indicated it was played that way before and by moving the Neck out from the Body as far as possible to make the reach over the shoulders a painless journey.

As I mentioned earlier today on the other Thread, until the Restoration is actually completed and all things finalized, the numbers estimated for the Set-up, Neckstand and Bridge height are only that, an estimate.

Please follow the link above to catch up if this at all interests you.