• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Matthew's Double Bass Building Project

I've been trying to get my head around this bidness of "flattening" the ffs since Matthew PM'd me a few days ago. Is this a question of, 'stretching' the f-hole shape over the arching of the top, vs cutting it as if you were cutting into a flat plane below the top? Have I got it right? Does that even make sense?

If anyone's interested I've posted some pix of my ffs, arching, and some general action shots of my bass at:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/dchokroun/bass.htm
 
Thanks Dave for posting those pics.

Have a look at the cycloid templates I just posted on my website. Imagine carving away the plate where the templates touch and imagine what that woulddo to the FFs. You'll see what I mean. If the plate is flat, the FFs will appear flat from the side. if the curve of the arch is parallel with the long axis of the bass, the FFs will still lie "flat" but the inner edge will be higher than the outer edge.

Also look at the side views of the original bass further back in the same topic. Note the long part of the FFs lie parallel with the side of the plate.

However, your FFs are looking pretty much like my FFs-to-be are right now. Whether or not i want to flatten them ... i don't know. My arching curve runs out following the curve of the lower bout edge, causing the lower part of the FF to appear to sweep upwards.

And yeah, that upper bout arching is huge! I haven't got that height at all, but I think what I do have currently is pretty OK. Just need maybe to blend in the recurve a bit better in the upper bout.
 
Dave Chokroun said:
I've been trying to get my head around this bidness of "flattening" the ffs since Matthew PM'd me a few days ago. Is this a question of, 'stretching' the f-hole shape over the arching of the top, vs cutting it as if you were cutting into a flat plane below the top? Have I got it right? Does that even make sense?

If anyone's interested I've posted some pix of my ffs, arching, and some general action shots of my bass at:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/dchokroun/bass.htm

I like the look of this bass a lot, is there anywhere I can check out some more info or photos of it?
 
Bob Branstetter said:
I was looking at your photos of the neck carving. Is that just a glob of glue near the top or did you put a dowel through it?

No dowel. The front of the scroll was cut a bit close the the edge of the plank, so yeah a blob of glue until I got around to shaping the outside curve. Now I've done more work on it and posted pics.

Its slow work but fun and I'm learning fast. What's the trick to undercutting the scroll neatly?

(I stopped work on the top arch while i read up on cycloids and stuff, and the conclusion I have come to is that while science and mathematics may play a role, no-one understands it very well and at the end of the day its a matter of feel. So back on that soon)
 
Thanks Ken yes I HAVE been looking at your gilkes scroll quite a bit!!

These are some of my the other fav scrolls pics that I have been drooling over:

90473.jpg

90474.jpg

90475.jpg
 
To me, not as nice. I like the front and side views but the rear view is a bit ... er ...bumcrack?? ("The Buttom looks Bohemian"!!!)

The first scroll in my post was from a bass in the Musee de la Musique collection attributed to Gofriller with a table by Busan.

the second button was from this lovely maggini copy

Invalid Link Removed

used to (maybe still does) belong to Adrian Cho.
 
To me, a superbly executed "ordinary" scroll is more appealing than some of these more oddball designs. If I'm going to go for something different, give me a dragon or a mermaid or something... ;) I like the scroll on [Invalid or Expired Link Removed], or at least what it looked like before someone tacked on that picolo looking thing... :D
 

Latest posts