Wood Shinkage

[Martin Sheridan]

Wood shrinks quite a bit cross wise over the years. It hardly seems to shrink at all length wise, but my esteemed colleaques, my question is how much does it shrink in thinkness?

I was in another shop sometime back when the owner told me that cellos should be made around 7mm thick to allow for shrinkage and that she would not accept a cello made thinner, because it wouldn't hold up very long and develop into a good cello.
Most makers, as far as I am aware make there cellos in the center around 4mm thick. My counter argument was that if making them 7mm or so thick was a good idea, all of those 50 year old E.R. Pfretzschners would now sound like Strads.
In fact Strad Magazine published the measurements of the Stradivari "Davidov" cello owned by YoYo Ma and it is mostly in the 3.5 range in the center with some areas being as thin as 2.2-2.7! Did it begin life at 7mm?

I've been at this for decades and I'm ashamed to say that I have to ask the question. Your opinions and knowledge, please.

[Matthew Tucker]

For a 7mm top to shrink to 3.5mm over a coupla hundred years that means 50% shrinkage. I find it hard to believe that that sort of shrinkage is possible in ANY direction! Otherwise the Messiah would have started out the size of a small cello. they must have had big chins in those days ...

More likely, a 7mm centre joint will be a stronger glue join, and thus likely to last longer. But what do I know?

[arnoldschnitzer]

The thickness will barely change if the wood was properly dried before use. By properly dried, I mean brought to a drier state than it is likely to encounter in the real world as an instrument. This over-drying stabilizes the wood and reduces the amount of future expansion and contraction (moisture hysteresis). The amount of change in thickness is also related to whether the wood is quarter-sawn or slab cut. Quarter-sawn is most stable across its width, so I would expect a little more thichness change. Maybe 1% instead of 1/2%. As a maker, this is not something I pay any attention to, and I have never heard of anyone else doing so.

[Martin Sheridan]

Thank you Arnold for that information. and for teaching me the term "moisture hysteresis". It was worth asking just for that.
And Mathew thank you for pointing out the obvious. Maybe Strads cellos were originally basses?

[arnoldschnitzer]

I just spoke with my friend Robbie McIntosh, who made me aware of the science behind wood drying. He says it is best to overdry instrument wood, then bring it back up to a moisture level that is in harmony with the area in which the instrument will be built. My technique is to let it age in a place where it is subject to seasonal fluctuations (attic, covered outdoor storage, etc.), then bring the wood into my shop for about a year before I use it. I think the initial exposure to extremes "tortures" the wood, and if it survives you know that's a good piece with little internal tension.

[mojoluthier]

If the wood was as dry as I use, there will be negligable shrinking in the long run, by which I mean none. In fact, I build in a relatively dry area and it should be the opposite, there should be slight expansion.

All woods expand and contract with moisture fluctuation, even when they are as dry as they can and should be for musical instrument building. Different species (and examples from within species) fluctuate at different rates, but there are some generallities that apply. Length wise there is about 1/100th the fluctuation of crosswise, and radially about 1/3 the fluctuation of circumferentially. These ratios are closer to true with spruce than with many of the hardwoods I use, which can be closer in the second two directions. This is a very deep subject, actually, and separates the "men from the boys" (no offense, girls, it's a generalization) in the woodworking world. There are other measures of woodworking accumen such as how sharp the chisels are, but you may get my drift.

[Bob Branstetter]

Originally Posted by Martin Sheridan

In fact Strad Magazine published the measurements of the Stradivari "Davidov" cello owned by YoYo Ma and it is mostly in the 3.5 range in the center with some areas being as thin as 2.2-2.7! Did it begin life at 7mm?.

My late mentor, once told me that he believed that the great majority of the worlds Cremona era instruments had been deliberately thinned by well intentioned, but mislead, restorers in the belief that making them thinner would make them sound better and in turn more valuable. Since basses, until recent times, have not held the value to collectors that the smaller violin family instruments have, the chances are better than they would not have been modified in this manner. I really think this is a better explaination thickness shrinkage.

Perhaps Arnold could tell us if he has noticed anything unusual about the thicknesses of the fine old basses that he has restored for Ken Smith and others.

[arnoldschnitzer]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

Perhaps Arnold could tell us if he has noticed anything unusual about the thicknesses of the fine old basses that he has restored

Only this: There is absolutely no standard for bass plate graduation/thickness. I have encountered standard graduation, reverse graduation, no graduation, haphazard graduation, and "perfect" graduation. I have seen tops that measured 15mm thick in the center, and one that measured 4mm. In my own making, I use a pretty standard graduating scheme, leaving perhaps an extra mm in case I want to go back in later and remove a little more wood.

[Bob Branstetter]

Originally Posted by arnoldschnitzer

Only this: There is absolutely no standard for bass plate graduation/thickness. I have encountered standard graduation, reverse graduation, no graduation, haphazard graduation, and "perfect" graduation. I have seen tops that measured 15mm thick in the center, and one that measured 4mm. In my own making, I use a pretty standard graduating scheme, leaving perhaps an extra mm in case I want to go back in later and remove a little more wood.

So I assume that means that you have not seen the "thinning" that Martin was talking about on basses as a whole. I think we can safely speculate that the makers of old did not use their best quality wood for basses simply because they could make much more money by making a dozen violins out of a piece of prime quality piece of wood instead of just one bass. Perhaps they also did not consider it worth their time to carefully graduate a bass to the degree that they would have on a more profitable violins and even cellos.

[arnoldschnitzer]

I think you are on the money. Probably many "name" basses were made by the apprentices, and made in a rush with marginal-quality wood. There are however many, many examples of finely-made master basses in which the workmanship is superb and the wood quality is excellent. We are in a market situation now, though, where anything Italian or English is worth a small fortune whether of high quality or not. Also, with basses, sound quality is almost everything, whereas with violins the provenance is the most important factor governing price.

[Uncletoad]

This is good stuff. Thanks a bunch.

[Steve Swan]

When I first started acquiring guitar tonewoods over 20 years ago, I found Bruce Hoadley's Book "Understanding Wood" really helpful in understanding what to expect in air drying and seasoning woods. There is probably a lot of good information available in a current web search as well, but Hoadley's book was a fine introduction to the subject.

[Martin Sheridan]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

So I assume that means that you have not seen the "thinning" that Martin was talking about on basses as a whole. I think we can safely speculate that the makers of old did not use their best quality wood for basses simply because they could make much more money by making a dozen violins out of a piece of prime quality piece of wood instead of just one bass. Perhaps they also did not consider it worth their time to carefully graduate a bass to the degree that they would have on a more profitable violins and even cellos.

Actually, I was not referring to basses, but to a specific cello that I had made. I was showing it to an owner of an "important" shop. She loved the instrument, but then asked her repair guy to check the thicknesses. That's when she told me mine was too thin and suggested the 7mm mark. She might have even mentioned as high as 9mm!

Regarding the regraduation of old violins and making them too thin; Sacconi said in his book that when he first started making violins he was taught to make them about 5mm thick.
When he examined his first two or three Stradivari violins he assumed they had been regraduated down to under 3mm. But he said that after seeing dozens, and by his own count, working on some 350 of them during his lifetime, he concluded that Stradivari had indeed made them to those thicknesses and they had generally not been altered in their thicknesses.

Count Cozio Salabue is noted for being the first great violin collector and he kept copious notes on his violins. Much of his work has been published in a book. He says something to the effect that in Cremona there is another violin maker, though not so good, who worked along the lines of Stradivari; one of the Guarneris, the one they call Del Gesu. And then goes on to say that the Montegaza brothers who were working for him had successfully improved the tone of the Guarneris by reducing the thicknesses of the tops.

I'm skeptical about the idea of thinning out tops to help them now but ruin them later. Dozens of pictures and drawings of great old violins have been published in the Strad Magazine and elswhere and I am continually amazed at the thinness and inconsistencies in the thicknesses. I also own a copy of the Gurarneri book that has detailed pictures, drawings and thickness of some 28 Guarneri del Gesu violins. The vast majority having tops some would say have been regraduated and ruined, yet they are still the preferred instruments of some of the greatest musicians in the world.

I agree that generally either assistants or others made many of the great Italian basses that are attributed to the big name makers. Generally I have specialized in basses but I have examined enough violins by noted makers to say that I see no similarity between the work done on their violins and those of the basses even when they bear original labels. In fact, I can only think of one possible exception. Even back to Salabue's day (early 19th century), there were already people collecting labels, and some of those labels ended up in other's instruments. Also, many of the makers of that period didn't feel compelled to label their instruments at all, but aquired "name labels" later on either by those who were misinformed or misguided by greed.
One of the earliest court records on date involving violin fraud was filed by the buyer of a violin he thought was an Amati, but as it turned out it was a Rogeri "a maker of much less repute". Even today most collectors would rather own a violin from any of the makers of the Amati family, but Rogeri's fetch very high prices indeed.

I think the reason many of the early and great Italian basses were made from slab cut wood instead of quarter cut spruce simply had to do with what the player could afford, so generally the early Italian basses have slab cut tops and backs and sides of plain maple, willow or even mahogany. The workmanship by today's standards is not very good, but they have an incredible beauty just the same.
I have personally not seen an early bass that had been regraduated, although I worked on one that had wood added in the top bout!

[arnoldschnitzer]

Great stuff, Martin! This subject bears the asking of two important questions:

1) What good is an overly thick bass (violin, cello, etc.) that will last forever, but does not work as an expressive musical instrument?

2) How long are these things really supposed to last, anyway?

The craft of violin-family restoration is really just a response to the market. When string instruments became valuable, people learned how to make them last virtually for centuries. Before they were so pricey, a broken fiddle would be tossed, or salvaged for useable parts. That's why there are so many instruments around which are composites of several others.

[Heifetzbass]

Originally Posted by arnoldschnitzer

Great stuff, Martin! This subject bears the asking of two important questions:

1) What good is an overly thick bass (violin, cello, etc.) that will last forever, but does not work as an expressive musical instrument?

2) How long are these things really supposed to last, anyway?

What about restoration... I would think every couple hundred years that could be addressed? It is still better life expectancy than a car or any other appliance that is in use. I play an old bass that I will be doing a restoration on soon.
I have had a new bass that wasn't nearly as responsive. I would rather pay to have my old one treated and streeted to make music with.
Brian

[Martin Sheridan]

Originally Posted by arnoldschnitzer

Before they were so pricey, a broken fiddle would be tossed, or salvaged for useable parts. That's why there are so many instruments around which are composites of several others.

This reminds me of two true stories. One is about "The Bass of Spain" a Stradivari cello that I believe was found by Tarisio in Spain that did not have its original top. Apparently it was common in the 18th and 19th centuries to simply replace a top if it had a crack in it with a new one. Time and labor, I suppose being less valuable in those days? I think I first read this story in the mid seventies, finally about ten years ago someone found the original top! The two have since been reunited.
The other is about the Voller brothers of London who worked in the late 1800s and early 19 hundreds. Apparently they, and for that matter others at that time, would take a Strad or other valuable Italian instrument apart and make several. In other words they would take an original top and then make new sides, neck and back for it. Take the back and make new top, sides and neck. In that way they could sell two or three strads instead of just one. They also were uncanningly able to make new" Strads and Guarneries. Their copies so fathful looking to the originals that not even experts could tell.Their are several other makers who have alledgedly been able to pull this off including Thomas Dodd and Jack Lott. It is said that some of these instruments are still around masquerading as the real thing.

You may recall that about ten or 15 years ago an auction house announced the sale of a J B Guadanini violin that when it was put on view before the sale was identified by a maker as being the work of Roger Hargrove who had made the violin as a copy and had placed his own label in it. His label was removed and a false label inserted. Only the chance identification of the violin by a friend of his saved an unwary buyer from spending in the six figures for a violin he could have bought from Hargrove for ?$.

One of the problems with bass identifications is this: even if a maker only makes basses and no other instruments, he can not make nearly the number that his violin making colleagues can make. Let's say for most of us an average of two a year.
Over a working lifetime that might only be 60 basses. Now, separate our time by two or three hundred years, spread the basses we made over the entire world and tell me how many bass players, let alone experts are going to see an example of one of our instruments. How then can anyone successfully identify a bass as being that of a particular maker? The answer: not many. And that's why we still talk about basses by makers who never made basses and misidentify instruments, or merely have to shrug and say, it's German, or Italian of such and such period. Most of the old basses don't even have a label, let along an accurate one.
Last year I saw a bass that is the only bass I've ever seen that I felt was most likely a bass from Cremona, Italy during the golden period, in fact the only bass I've ever seen that I thought possibly could have come from the Amati workshop.
I have seen, measured and handled the Rogeri of 1690 and my gut is that it is authentic, but what bothers me about that bass is that the ground coat does not look right. In fact that is also what astounds me about "fakes" that pass as the real thing. The Italian ground of the golden period is obvious to the eye and no one that I know of has been able to duplicate it, unless Hargrove and the Voller brothers and a few others have. I haven't seen their instruments so I don't know, but none of the claims of the last 20 years or so look anything like it.

I just finished a Testore model bass, it looks pretty authentic. Anyone want to give me 100 grand for it? I'll throw in an authentic looking Antonio Carlo Testore label and a few extra scratches for free.

[Psychicpet]

absolutely a fascinating read, but right now I'm in the middle of doing some double shifting, no not Simandl, but doulbe duty at two day gigs and hence some sleep deprivation, but the title of the thread did make me chuckle this morning so thank-you for that on top of the great info that is here....

[Martin Sheridan]

Originally Posted by Heifetzbass

What about restoration... I would think every couple hundred years that could be addressed? It is still better life expectancy than a car or any other appliance that is in use. I play an old bass that I will be doing a restoration on soon.
I have had a new bass that wasn't nearly as responsive. I would rather pay to have my old one treated and streeted to make music with.
Brian

Perhaps someone else can give a better definition, but I think of repair as a minor fix like repairing a crack or an open seem, and a restoration as being from the bottom up. Taking a look at everything on the bass and putting it right again. This could include removing the top and possibly even the back and neck, repairing all cracks and hiding them as well as possible, doing extensive varnish touchup, replacing bass bar etc. Whatever the bass needs.
And that is the main thing: what the bass needs. So there is no time period necessarily involved at all. A bass could last 200 years between restorations or it could last two days.
Some years back I did a complete restoration on a bass that the well known player and pedagogue Jack Budrow referred to as "pre-bass". In other words it was made at a time when the idea of a bass was still being developed(and it still is!). There were quite large basses, and what we would today consider undersized basses. Anyway this was the oldest bass I have ever worked on. The unvarnished wood on the inside was nearly black with age.

After the complete restoration which included fixing numerous cracks, replacing missing wood, varnish touch up and additions were done the bass was returned to the owner, a woman in a nearby symphony. She loved the bass because she and it were a bit undersized and it was easy for her to play. A few months later after giving a Christmas concert a man drove over it in his truck! That's what I mean about time between restorations not being the real factor.

If you don't lay your bass down in front of a parked truck, you have a better chance of going a long time between restorations.

[Heifetzbass]

Originally Posted by Martin Sheridan

If you don't lay your bass down in front of a parked truck, you have a better chance of going a long time between restorations.

I think that is good rule in life, in general!

You could also total the car you just spent $2000.00 to replace the transmission on when you pull out of the garage! Everything in life is a gamble, but I still think that on average string instruments (If they are properly cared for) will last longer than you or I. All things being equal- the amount of money that you drop in all the other appliances and vehicles in your life will add up to be much more than the bass you play. In the long run- a much better investment to do the work on the bass.

Just think, how many cars will you own compared to basses?
Brian

[Martin Sheridan]

A bass is a much better investment that a car assuming you get a good one to begin with. A friend of mine bought a Panormo bass shortly after becoming a professional some 30 years ago. He paid about 7 grand for the bass and sold it 10 years ago for 90. That's a good investment. I'd hate to think how much more it has gone up in the last ten years, but a present day value of 150 gees wouldn't surprise me.

When I bought my old French bass it was in a box and in pieces. My wife thought I was nuts to have spend $60, that's right 60 dollars on it. That was in l974. It has recently been evaluated by an independent third party expert at $30,000.

If I hold on to my Fort Explorer a little while longer it won't be worth zip, and that I'm told is not much.