Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni') (SOLD)

[Ken Smith]

Hi, after considerable thought on the matter I have decided to go ahead and have the Riccardi 'Storioni' (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/) copied. We don't really know what makes this bass sound so good even after taking it apart but if I were to have a bass made, I would want it to sound and feel like this.

This bass will start construction this Spring and be completed within 6 months or so.

Even though I have a good idea of what I want as far as the degree of the copy stage and modifications as well I thought it would be interesting to discuss it out here and see what you folks think of the idea. Also, if this were your bass being made would you copy it 100% as it is now or modify it in some way. Please share your thoughts..

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I'd put some little violin corners on it so you can pick it up, and also to increase its marketability. :D

[Ken Smith]

I'd put some little violin corners on it so you can pick it up, and also to increase its marketability. :D

That's so strange Arnold. I had a dream that I told you that EXACT thing less than a day/24 hours ago IN PERSON.. Geezz, what a freaking mind reader you are... ;)

What kind of woods should we use for this? I mean, to get close to the sound besides just the archings and measurements we should try and match species and grain widths and densities as close as possible. Right?

As to Arnold's post on the Corner issue, I always had to find a place on the stage to lay the bass down rather then lean the corner on a chair beside my stool as I usually would with any other bass. So at least upper corners were on the menu for this. As far as lower corners, they are not needed for the 'copy' part but for marketability, something small with a shallow block inside would be the least interruptve as far as vibrations go.

[Sam Sherry]

We've gone back and forth a bit about how the ribs look laminated and, lo and behold, are in fact laminated.

I suspect that has a noticeable, perhaps even substantial, positive influence on the tone -- worth thinking about including in your reproduction.

Have fun and let us know what's up!

[Ken Smith]

I just had an idea that might be fun for some of you guys. If you like, post a photo-shopped image of the Bass (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/) with corners (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/martini/restore-images/corner.jpg) added. Use the Back (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_bk.jpg) so it's easier. The Top (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_fr.jpg) will be harder as the FFs are getting moved up and spread out more and the edges are quite curved and not as easy to draw over. I already submitted a basic drawing so whatever gets posted will mostly be for fun but hey, you never know. ;)

[Charles A Thomas]

why not leave it cornerless and put a wood slat on the rib so it can be picked up more easily

[Ken Smith]

why not leave it cornerless and put a wood slat on the rib so it can be picked up more easily

I have seen 'slats' before and even MY bass has a scar from something 'glued' to the rib over the varnish still shows from yesteryear. I have also seen Cornerless basses made with Top and Back Corners but without internal Blocks. They had the Blocks glued to the outer Rib attached to the Top and Back to hold and protect the Corners. I have seen two of these basses to date that I can remember. The other thing I have seen and actually own now but in restoration is an Italian bass with Top and Back Corners, Guitar one-piece Ribs, no inner Blocks being cornerless BUT, small outer 'scalloped' Blocks attached to the Ribs that the Top Corners glue to for support.
Here is a pic of the Scalloped outer Block bass we call 'Scallopini'!
http://www.uptonbass.com/images/Lod%20Parisini/bass4.jpg

Now, an important thing Arnold mentioned was marketability. For an Italian Bass over 200 years old made as it was made and with the reputation of sound being well known and rememberd by all that have heard it in the last 40 years we can accept this particular Bass for what ever venue the player brings it to. For selling it, it is a known classic Italian Bass with a sound to die for. In making a brand new Bass today and keeping the re-sale thought in mind, putting corners on the 'modified' copy along with several other changes to the original Bass to meet todays needs in both playability and marketability.

[Ken McKay]

Good for you Ken, that will turn out nice I think.

[Ken Smith]

Didn't David Wiebe copy that bass?

Good for you Ken, that will turn out nice I think.

I would measure the plate resonances of the original when it is in restoration.

I would measure the density of the plates.

I would copy the exact bass.

I would laminated the ribs just as they were originally except I might use different thickness veneers. I can explain this if you wish.

Corners will change the way the corpus vibrates.

Ken, I can have it copied 100% if I like, 44 1/2" string length and all. The facts are that I DO own the original and I want to have the copy different. I already know what the original sounds like. I also know I will not live 200+ years to hear the copy age like the original has. Also, the bass has been repaired over the centuries as well and I will not live through that either.

I have used the original in Symphony concerts so I know very well what I would like if I owned a twin with the desired modifications. This is it, the twin, modified!

You would need wood from the same boards as this to make it exact but even then, it wont be. Only the exact is the exact.

I know David's copy BUT, to my eye it is more of an inspired copy than a copy copy. It was made with Walnut, different Scroll, different FFs and, he didn't have the original apart in his hands at his disposal to copy from. Arnold has heard the Wiebe copy and it doesn't sound like the original. Perhaps nothing will. The original has been re-graduated within the last 100 years or so and we have to 'guesstimate' what the original thicknesses were. Actually, the bass is currently 'reverse-graduated' The bass is thinner now in the middle and thicker (original) around the outer edges as the center was cut up quite a bit. We will use something more traditional and maybe tap tone the Top along the way making it to the actual wood chosen. We will have to ask Arnold when all is done how he arrived at the final thicknesses. I say we but 'I' am not the maker here. Arnold Schnitzer is. The 'we' is us, maker and player/designer but without 'me' commissioning this, it would never happen.

On the Ribs, they will be solid, not laminated. We can see now how cross grain Spruce against Maple reacts after 200+ years. Not something I want to see in my lifetime. I will however have the Rib depth and top to bottom tapers copied. This will not be a very deep bass at all. It tapers 7 3/4" to 5 3/4" Block to Block.

I asked Arnold to copy as close as possible and make the same Purfling as well. I also want that Scroll/Pegbox copied. It might get slightly extended in length if it helps fitting the C-Extension as this was a 3-string. How would this maker have made the Pegbox if it was to be a 4-string originally? This is in thought for now. We can use the Original to measure from and decide from there.

Maybe we need to have a mini-convention of all the recent Cornerless Bass copies and inspired models which this one actually is. I am not all that concerned how much the corners will affect the sound. The inside lines of the Bass will flow in the manner of mainly a Guitar form.

[Ken McKay]

I am sure it will be fantastic.

I forgot about that string length. You can't really leave it that long, can you?

[Ken Smith]

I am sure it will be fantastic.

I forgot about that string length. You can't really leave it that long, can you?

Here is a little video showing how floppy the sides were on my cornerless. Originally I had braces across the sides for crack stoppers, but they felt all wrong and I removed them. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/floppy.mov I think some of the character of timbre of the cornerless bass comes from the freeness of the corpus' ability to flex.

Do you think you could talk Arnold into measuring the resonances of that plate? (as if he isn't reading :p) As well as the weight.

That link didn't open for me. What is it?

As far as measuring, I don't know what is involved there. Maybe you can ask him. I am confident with whatever he does concerning the copy-making process. By the way, this bass is #24 for Arnold. Nice even number, 2 dozen! ;)

I am sure some of the sound comes from how the Ribs are made and how free they are as well as how free they are not! My Martini (here I go again..:eek:) has less then 8" of actual Rib depth and has wide flat outer linings as well stiffening it even more. The inside Linings are about the same as the outer Linings in width. That makes the 'free' part of the Ribs just over 7". The Storioni Ribs are close to 7 5/8" or so for the most part so they have more free Rib width than the Martini. The Martini however is deep into the floor type sounding. The Ribs and Back are Oppio, soft Italian Maple. The Storioni is hard maple like Sugar Maple or Yugoslavian/Bosnian Maple. We will be using Bosnian I think for this Bass, nicely flamed. The Top wood will be fine grained light weight but strong Spruce, I forget the exact species he mentioned. The Storioni Top was made in 6 pieces, this will be two.

I don't think anything can ever be copied 100% when it comes to an instrument but all things considered, this Bass will be like "what if the original was made like this?" kinda thing. So an inspired copy with a 'wish list' of modifications. Arnold will try staining the figure like this one was done to bring out the flames. I remember a few years back playing a bass he had just made while my Martini was there in the shop and comparing them. I was quite impressed how well his brand new bass held its own beside my nearlky 90 year old (at the time) Martini as far as tone and power. I think that bass of his after 90 years will at least as good if not better than the Martini, maybe sooner and maybe not! You never know but it's worth a chance to try. All basses were once new!

[Ken Smith]

Ok, I opened it in Windows Media but there was no sound. What do you suggest?

[Pino Cazzaniga]

Ken,
As you have the "real thing" open for restoration, I would trace the outlines of the plates on the same sheet of paper.
Then I would draw a centre line, and the perpendicular lines at the upper and lower width, at the C width, at the stop, at the eyes of the F holes,etc. I would also trace the given back braces.
Then I would play a bit with numbers, looking for proportions among the given measurements.
I don't pretend that this is a way to know the original maker ideas about the design, but it may be helpful to get one's own insight of a given object, and sometimes it's funny (sometimes it's frustrating too).
The danger is to cut the foot to fit the shoe...
Anyway, if something is to modify, I would do it thinking of the founded proportions (if any!)

[Ken McKay]

sorry I changed my mind.

[Ken Smith]

Ok guys, A few current facts about the bass and the changes need to be spelled out.

On the original, the Top was thinned out to the danger point in the middle and lower bouts. The Top has 'sunk' in these areas as well.

On the original in repair it is obvious it will need some breast patching to bring 'up' the thickness in spots and then, level the graduations to the norm, what ever that is. So, tapping a tone now may give a false read as to what to make on the Copy bass because we are changing it from the start.

The Back is flat on the original with a center brace and 3 very shallow cross braces about the depth of a patch or cleat. The Copy bass will be round, not flat and will have a center brace as well.

The Top will have a similar arching system to the 'restored' original. The upper F-eyes and the F's all together are spaced too close. The original should have a 145mm bridge at the most but had a 170mm or bigger when I got it. The bridge foot on the 'G' side was crushing the Top inwards. The first night I had the Bass I cut about 5mm off the outer leg of each foot of the bridge and moved it up about 1/4" and this not only relieved some of the pressure, it made it sound deeper.

The Copy bass will have the F's moved up to match the desired string length within the same size body as the original and the F's moved outwards as well. It will get at least a 165mm bridge and the bar like on my Mystery bass was, might be in a bit from the upper F-eyes due to their wider width spacing.

So, we are copying the outline and Top archings (the way we think it was) and making the graduations the way we think is best. The Back is being changed from flat to round/carved but following the Top. The Ribs will be the same widths and taper as the original but in 6 solid pieces with small corners instead of two 2-ply continuous pieces without corners.

The Purfling and Scroll will be copied from as well but the pegbox might need to be longer for the 4-Gears to fit comfortably and the C-extension to fit without too much length protruding over the head. The original was a 3-stringer and the current gears are tight in there.

So, not an exact copy but a basis in which to center the design from.

Questions that arise in all of our minds might be;

1- how will the sound be at 41.5" from 44.5" if all else was left alone? Well, we are shortening the original so I will know somewhat the effect. Also, I had in the past stopped the string to 42" and re-tuned it to check the depth and if it was still there. It was and with even more focus so I know it's ok.

2- going round from flatback, how much change in sound or rather departure from the original sound characteristics will there be? Who knows? But, I am doing it. Flatbacks are just too much trouble to deal with. Round with a center brace is the way to go in my mind. The best combination.

3- how will the bass sound with the corner design change and with solid maple vs. 2-ply opposing grain ribs of maple and spruce? Well, in looking at the totally blistered 'blistered flatsawn maple' outer veneer, I hope structurally it will not be an issue or ever come to the condition the original has. As far as the sound goes, I have played many old bass with Organ like tone that were made like this, flat or round back so I am not worried.

The original Ribs will be repaired as best they can be but some restorers I am sure would opt for new Ribs entirely. The Copy should not have to go thru this split decision 200 years from now when it goes under the knife for a restoration IF it does!

Since the original is under a massive restoration at the same time the Copy is being made, it's not the same way other copies in the past have been made. Usually they get made from an 'in-tact' original with little or no modifications done to it and not taken apart either for corrective repairs.

Looking 2 and 5 years down the road, the restored original will be breaking back in from its massive surgery and the copy will be just spreading its wings. THEN, and only then will we know how well we did on both the restoration and the copy attempt. I know the sound of the bass from before and so do many others so I will not be alone in judging the repairs and modifications to the original. Making a Copy to the modified and repaired original before it's repaired is a big challenge in itself.

Maybe making the Copy now which will completed before the restoration of the original might help the actual restoration/modification as far as insight goes to what changes are in mind to clean up the original.

[Nathan Parker]

I look forward to hearing more about this, Ken, as it progresses. Of all the basses in stables, this is the one that I enjoy looking at the most. I don't know all the technical terms to describe it's features, I just know that it moves me every time I look at it. And good call on copying the scroll. Of all the scrolls I've seen on the interwebs, this is my favorite.

[Ken Smith]

I look forward to hearing more about this, Ken, as it progresses. Of all the basses in stables, this is the one that I enjoy looking at the most. I don't know all the technical terms to describe it's features, I just know that it moves me every time I look at it. And good call on copying the scroll. Of all the scrolls I've seen on the interwebs, this is my favorite.

The Scroll in my opinion is one of simple beauty. It has had at least one Neck graft that I know of and probably had at least one more in the past. That being said we don't know for sure the true original shape of the bottom and bottom rear of the pegbox. Wood taken off can never be put back. The next graft of the original for this restoration will disturb little more than the finish around it. The Copy Scroll will be as close to the original as far as we know it.

The Copy Bass will not start for a few months. Other than a few drawings there wont be much in reality to report on for at least 6-8 months. The original bass restoration will not be completed until next year sometime.

For now, we just sit and wait and talk about it!;)

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

[Ken Smith]

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

Better said than I could Maestro!

The sound of the Bass it-self before restoration is breadth taking. The Ribs have multiple splits, partly due to its construction. The new Ribs will be solid and 6-pc in total instead of 3. The Back has several splits/cracks as well. Partly from being a typical Flatback and partly from being used in the N.E. USA. The modified Roundback planned for the new bass will hopefully fix both of these issues in the long run.

All of this will be a change from the original and the sound difference will take 200 years to compare. Volunteers?:eek::confused::D:p:rolleyes: .. Gee, I hope my cell phone number still works in the 23rd century...:cool:

I have played several of Arnold's handmade basses. I am confident that between his workmanship, build style, model to copy and my personal design requests this will be his masterpiece to date. I would also like to mention if I may that this will be the most expensive Bass Arnold has custom made to date. I am totally ok with that because I know very well what is going into it. I am happy that Arnold has accepted the project.

Now, would someone PLEASE Photoshop a demo of this? I will tell you what corrections to make as we go. Ofcourse Arnold's drawings will be final as we deciede together what it will be but having a little fun on-line along the way seems like fun..;)

[Ken Smith]

We've gone back and forth a bit about how the ribs look laminated and, lo and behold, are in fact laminated.

I suspect that has a noticeable, perhaps even substantial, positive influence on the tone -- worth thinking about including in your reproduction.

Have fun and let us know what's up!

I think we posted at the same time and just missed this. I have mentioned the Ribs of the original and my plans for the new Bass.

I was always able to hear the sound loud and clear (I think) thru the Ribs as I played. It's hard to tell where all the sound came from. Also, it is impossible to know how the sound would be with solid Ribs in Guitar form rather than the 2-pc laminated.

Still, to avoid problems in the build and in the future, we will go with traditional Ribs. With so much surface area to glue, laminating or rather 'doubling' the Ribs leaves room for hidden voids. That is definitely something I don't want to run into, new or old. The original will be restored as it is but the new model will be modified.

[Pino Cazzaniga]

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

Arnold, sorry, I did not mean to teach you how to work, was just curious about the design of that old beautiful instrument.
Any luck for your "Storioni" times!

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Pino, absolutely no offense taken. It's just that too many cooks can spoil the stew!

[Ken Smith]

Pino, absolutely no offense taken. It's just that too many cooks can spoil the stew!

We're having Stew for dinner? .. gee.. thanks for the heads up.. I just ordered Chinese!:(

[Ken Smith]

... but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. ...

Arnold, I thought it important at least from my point of view to bring up the subject of experience gained from working on and restoring old classic basses from the Italian, French, English, German and other schools that might be guiding you towards or away from some of the things you do in making your own bass.

So, what are these things that you go for and stay away from. Also, besides the generic factory basses of the last century, can you estimate the number of Symphony grade classics you have worked on in the last say, 20 years?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Ken, I appreciate you stroking my ever-expanding ego, though my wife would disapprove. :o

The main thing I try to stay away from in my building is introducing tension into a bass' corpus. All my basses are a little asymmetrical because after I build the rib structure, I let it relax, and then match the top and back plates to it, rather than doing the opposite, which is more common. I look for good, stable, well-seasoned wood. I stay away from common blunders I see in basses I repair, such as ill-fitting or crooked neck joints, and plates that don't meet the blocks. The workmanship you don't see is more important than what you do see.

To answer your second question, I would say a few hundred.

[Ken Smith]

Ken, I appreciate you stroking my ever-expanding ego, though my wife would disapprove. :o

The main thing I try to stay away from in my building is introducing tension into a bass' corpus. All my basses are a little asymmetrical because after I build the rib structure, I let it relax, and then match the top and back plates to it, rather than doing the opposite, which is more common. I look for good, stable, well-seasoned wood. I stay away from common blunders I see in basses I repair, such as ill-fitting or crooked neck joints, and plates that don't meet the blocks. The workmanship you don't see is more important than what you do see.

To answer your second question, I would say a few hundred.

Thanks for the answers. I never noticed the ego thing. Please tell you wife Barbara you're safe with me when we hang out in the shop or out to lunch..;)

I believe too in the relaxed theory. Wood itself releases tension every time it's cut. I agree that building slow allows the release of the tension as it happens allowing all things to settle down along the way.

[Ken Smith]

I know you are not in favor of Eb Necks but playing my Hart mainly for the last few weeks as well as every other time I can see the advantage personally of the Eb over the D.

I looked over at my stand partner the other day at rehearsal and asked if his was D or Eb? He showed me as we discussed it and he has an Eb as well and does not like the D-necks. I have spoken to other players who feel the same.

With my thumb on the Heel my 1st finger plays D (on the G) and my 2nd plays the Eb. I can easily play a C on the E with the 1st and D with the 4th and the same across the Neck. On a D-neck I cant do that without a fairly uncomfortable stretch.

Now, on the 'copy' bass the shoulders will be sloped quite a bit more so maybe it wont be as important but I recall the original bass being more of an Eb as well. You can see here the difference in shoulders between the two.
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_fr.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/hart/hart-restore-images/hart4.jpg

Also, the distance from the top of the Heel to the root of the Neck in the block is much less making the transition into TP so much easier. Look here between the Hart and Martini to see what I am talking about.
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/hart/hart-restore-images/hart7.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/martini/restore-images/fullL.jpg

Playing the Bass for just a few minutes testing it you will notice other 'feel' issues than the Heel depth but playing 2-3 hour long rehearsals and concerts is another story. I end up thinking about these details on the drive home almost every time.

For those of you with experience on both, which do you prefer? We talked about it awhile ago here but the Thread (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=878) has all but died out..

[Arnold Schnitzer]

My preference is for a D neck, because it's the standard on all string instruments, and because it's stronger. An Eb neck should be installed with less overstand because the heel is much weaker. Also, to do the Eb neck right, you either need a long string length, or you need to build the bass with a short stop. Neither is a good idea, IMHO.

[Adrian Juras]

I also feel more comfortable on the Eb neck. Maybe its because I learned on one, but when ever I play a D neck I need to check my intonation going into TP. Eb its considerably easier.

[Ken Smith]

My preference is for a D neck, because it's the standard on all string instruments, and because it's stronger. An Eb neck should be installed with less overstand because the heel is much weaker. Also, to do the Eb neck right, you either need a long string length, or you need to build the bass with a short stop. Neither is a good idea, IMHO.

The Hart has a good overstand but a shallow pitch as compared to the Martini and a slightly lower Bridge. Also, the Top arch is lower on the Hart. Would you say that the Hart Neck and 'set' is an accident or better yet, due to coming in as an Eb you set it the best you could considering all things?

The Hart if it's overall done unintentionally just happens to be super comfortable and so easy to play up and down and across the strings. The Arch of the Fingerboard (and matching bridge) is also slightly less than the Martini and the flatter arch makes string crossings as well as left hand finger crossings a bit easier once you get used to it.

The Martini is such a comfortable bass to play on as it is with the D-Neck. I can only imagine how it would feel with the same Neck and Heel as the Hart. One thing I have noticed is that the Martini has this tall Back Button that is original to the Bass and beautifully carved. The Hart has a tiny Button which helps to allow the smaller Heel. That being said, the Martini Heel at best can only be shaved down to be slightly between a D and an Eb if it were to be altered.

I agree the amount of wood and neckstand of the Hart makes it weaker. I look at the bass and I can't figure out how long that Neck has been there. It also looks like the Heel was cut lower at some point but the last repair inscription before I got it was in 1944. The 3-to-4-string conversion must have been sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century or how ever old those Gears are.

Like I said, the Shoulder slope is a big part of it. Maybe this new bass will transition just as easy between positions with a D-Neck as does the broader shouldered Hart with the Eb. Comparing the Hart to the Martini (my two favorite basses) you can see as well the shoulder differences. The Martini being smaller but still broad in comparison to the Bass to be copied.
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/hart/hart-restore-images/hart3.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/martini/restore-images/back.jpg

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/martini/restore-images/back.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_bk.jpg

[Arnold Schnitzer]

All good points. Everything depends on the string length, and where the f-holes lay. On some basses, to create an Eb neck, you would have to make the string length 45"!

[Ken Smith]

I mentioned before that the original bass may of had one other neck graft besides the current one BUT, looking closer at the rounded button area recently we counted about 4 graft like pieces showing, maybe 5 in total. At that point we both agreed that the rounded button is more probable than not, a modification to the bass at some point in its life.

NEW: After prepping the Peg Box for the New Graft it was discovered that the latest Graft had several Shims in it that from the outside looked like other previous Grafts. This may have been done due to an ill-fitted Graft attempt or, the Graft was prepared too short and shimmed up to fill the gaps. Also, it's possible that after cutting the graft block some 30-40 years ago it was decided after to pull out some older graft pieces that were maybe not going to hold. Since no one is alive that I know of to shed light on this we can only assume. The Shims which are solid were left in and all other areas in question repaired within the pegbox.

On the Purfling I have decided that copying the original Purfling in the original may not look as good on the modified copy so we will look into that when the time comes.

On the original bass called a 'Storioni' I have made an announcement on my website as well as the two 'cornerless' threads that the suspected age of the original may pre-date Storioni's work period. It is now called an 18th century Italian Cornerless bass, 'ex-Riccardi' by description.

One other thing that will be different between the copy and the original is the matching of the hardwoods. The original has a flamed back, burled ribs and a plain scroll, all in hard maple. The Copy will be fairly well matched flamed hard maple, Back, Ribs and Neck/Scroll alike.

[Ken Smith]

Arnold and I have talked briefly about Tuners for the new Bass and to date we have not made a decision. We have considered several of the current high end tuners as well as some custom made Gears.

I would like to hear what the members here think and view your suggestions. Please be prepared on some of your choices to be 'shot down'. This is because I don't want anything too commercial looking regardles of the quality or price. Some of the gears on the market are easy to install relatively and some are very difficult to install successfully. I am confident that Arnold can tackle any type of Gear installation new or old. Some are described as PITA (pain in the A--).

That being said, I want what will look best on a high class custom made modern/vintage Double bass. Installation difficulties are way down the list..

Your thoughts please?

P.S.: I will be kind to those I decline and let you down easy.;)

These Older Gears on or off plates look and work beautifully. Since all the makers of these gears died 100-150 years ago, I would have to strip them from an existing bass. These by the way are not the easiest kind to install.
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/hart/hart-restore-images/hart10.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/panormo-school/images/scroll-left.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/scroll_L.jpg

The last pic are the ones on the original bass. They are not at all original to the bass being about a century or so old and German in origin. The others are English from the 19th century.

[Ken Smith]

Guys, here are some of the Gears I am looking at. Anyone out there have a preference?

http://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk4large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk11large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk9large.jpg

The Scroll/Pegbox is a copy of this one but slightly lengthened to handle 4 gears comfortably as this was a 3-stringer at birth..
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/scroll_L.jpg

[Adam Linz]

Hey Ken. I think all three of those would go amazing with that bass. I was wondering if you were getting these gears from some one else other than Gallery Strings. I recently looked into trying to get one of those same sets for my bass and was told that the only set available any more was the Baker. Which I thought was a shame since they offered such great variety and quality. Now I'm to the point of having a friend of mine who is a master, clock restorer to come up with some designs of classic sets of tuners and make them ourselves. Any feedback on this would be great. I know Arnold and Nick Lloyd have some one custom making sets for them, but they are a little out of my price range. I'm sure whatever goes on there will just add to the greatness of that beauty. Best, Adam Linz

[Ken Smith]

Hey Ken. I think all three of those would go amazing with that bass. I was wondering if you were getting these gears from some one else other than Gallery Strings. I recently looked into trying to get one of those same sets for my bass and was told that the only set available any more was the Baker. Which I thought was a shame since they offered such great variety and quality. Now I'm to the point of having a friend of mine who is a master, clock restorer to come up with some designs of classic sets of tuners and make them ourselves. Any feedback on this would be great. I know Arnold and Nick Lloyd have some one custom making sets for them, but they are a little out of my price range. I'm sure whatever goes on there will just add to the greatness of that beauty. Best, Adam Linz

Well, I was not aware about that from Gallery. I guess Arnold will talk to him about it and get conformation. After talking to Arnold today, the one we will probably need are the Cole (#2) model Gears. The Bakers (#3) go thru both cheeks and need that screw. The other two don't but the Healey (#1) Gears have shorter shafts which may be a problem considering the width of the Pegbox sides matching the original bass. The Gears on the original have long shafts so that might be the way to go. That's IF we can get them. Let's just wait and see what Arnold comes up with.

[Ken Smith]

The Scroll in my opinion is one of simple beauty. It has had at least one Neck graft that I know of and probably had at least one more in the past. That being said we don't know for sure the true original shape of the bottom and bottom rear of the pegbox. Wood taken off can never be put back. The next graft of the original for this restoration will disturb little more than the finish around it. The Copy Scroll will be as close to the original as far as we know it.

I mentioned before that the original bass may of had one other neck graft besides the current one BUT, looking closer at the rounded button area recently we counted about 4 graft like pieces showing, maybe 5 in total. At that point we both agreed that the rounded button is more probable than not, a modification to the bass at some point in its life.

I spoke earlier today with Bob Riccardi Jr. and asked if he had any pics of the original Button area before Bob Sr. did that last graft. He said it was copied 100% as best as possible. He sent me the pics and it IS the same rounded Button area now as it was before. That being said, the same will be done with the current graft keeping it like it was as far back as we know. The Neck break back then took out the bottom of the pegbox with the rounded button all in one and I have the pics to prove it! If not for needing an extension we could have left the neck BUT, it was also a bit too long so we fixed two things in one repair. String length and Scroll angle to handle an extension without cutting the Scroll ever again.

As I mentioned before, the Copy bass will have more of a standard type Button which might keep that area a bit stronger from breaks in the future.

[Eric Swanson]

Well, since you asked, I would choose the option on the far top/left, based on appearance only.

I might also consider mass, as part of the decision. Do they all weigh the same?

Guys, here are some of the Gears I am looking at. Anyone out there have a preference?

http://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk4large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk11large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk9large.jpg

The Scroll/Pegbox is a copy of this one but slightly lengthened to handle 4 gears comfortably as this was a 3-stringer at birth..
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/scroll_L.jpg

[Ken Smith]

Well, so it turns out, the ones in the middle were not available so far left is what Arnold ordered for me which by the way was my first choice anyway. ;)
http://www.gallerystrings.com/accessories/machine_heads/mk4large.jpg

The concern was the shorter handle because of the width of the pegbox walls but they will work just fine. The original has longer handles so I was trying to go that route.

[Ken Smith]

I just got some pics from Arnold. The Bass is ready now for varnishing. It's all together and looks fantastic. If not for the upcoming VSA competition, it would not have been this far along considering the other work he has on the bench which includes restoring the original.

Because the bass is being entered in the competition anonymously, I can't show these in-progress pics. The label will be covered up during the judging and only uncovered afterwards. Any foreknowledge of who made what is a possible disqualification. In fact, the rules state this clearly and it's the makers responsibility to mark his work and cover his name for the judging. I do not want to be the person that let the cat out of the bag so to speak on this one.

I promise that when it's all over-with, I will post all the pictures approved by both Arnold and myself. Actually, he has not had much time in the process to take pictures. He spent his time with tools in hand, not a camera. He has been going back and forth between two basses on his personal bench, the copy and the original.

I will say that in advance, I am quite excited about both basses being completed. Stay tuned as this bass will be one to remember for years to come.

[Eric Swanson]

Good luck to you, to Arnold, and to your new bass in the competition. I look forward to seeing the photos and to hearing your impressions when you can play your new bass.

[Thomas Erickson]

Sounds like the bass is coming along; I'm looking forward to seeing it completed.

I missed the initial discussion, but on the subject of the D vs. Eb neck - personally I can go either way; I think that because of the "standardness" and construction aspects the "D" neck is understandable. But - in terms of which one I'd rather play, aside from the fact that I find it annoying switching between the two, I'd rather play the Eb neck and were I to have a bass made (that was to be my primary instrument) I'd want it made that way.

That said, I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it... ;)

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. :p )

[Ken Smith]

Sounds like the bass is coming along; I'm looking forward to seeing it completed.

I missed the initial discussion, but on the subject of the D vs. Eb neck - personally I can go either way; I think that because of the "standardness" and construction aspects the "D" neck is understandable. But - in terms of which one I'd rather play, aside from the fact that I find it annoying switching between the two, I'd rather play the Eb neck and were I to have a bass made (that was to be my primary instrument) I'd want it made that way.

That said, I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it... ;)

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. :p )

Thomas, I would like to inform you that 150 -200 years ago, many basses in England or most of them were under 42" string length originally. My Hart with a replaced neck at an Eb-neck is under 42". A Fendt I recently played is under 42". My Dodd was under 42". Also many Italian basses built on the smaller side are under 41". Just because we see some 44s floating around doesn't mean they were all made that big.

As far as pro orchestra bass sections go, you might find a few 43s in the group but most players I know want 42" or less. On sound, I see no problem as my former Dodd was one of the loudest and deepest sounding basses I've ever played.

That being said, the copy bass will start out with a D-neck heel but with enough room to carve down to almost a full Eb. I will try it first at a D'. The access to the upper register of this bass is so easy (as it is on the original) that the Eb may not be necessary but it's still an option for after the competition. The string length I think will be just under 42".

[Ken Smith]

.... I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it... ;)

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. :p )

When I first read your post I thought you were just referring to the copy bass but reading it once again I think you are referring to the original which is in the process over being shortened, correct?

I don't know what kind of experience you have playing bass professionally but large basses are tiring to play on and difficult to play in tune as well. This is not about building chops. It's about playing music that was written after these big basses were made.

I can tell you this, give me a dozen or a hundred basses like this and I will shorten every one of them to 42" string length or less. The bass will be easier to play, the sound more focused and the bass itself more desirable to everyone.

I don't know of a single bass in modern times that was lengthened to over 42" but many that were shortened down to it.

Go buy a 44" length bass and try playing in an Orchestra. Let me know how you do.

[Thomas Erickson]

My post was not really in reference to any particular bass, I just wanted to comment on the discussion of D vs. Eb necks.

The bass will be easier to play, the sound more focused and the bass itself more desirable to everyone.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the first two points -

How does shortening the string length "focus" the sound of the instrument?

And, how does the shorter string length really make the bass easier to play? The way I see it, the issue is with players using a rigid technique of left hand positions that forces stretching over the lower intervals - the shorter string length reduces the intervals making the stretches easier - but it still is more of a technique issue, no?

[Ken Smith]

My post was not really in reference to any particular bass, I just wanted to comment on the discussion of D vs. Eb necks.



Perhaps you can elaborate on the first two points -

How does shortening the string length "focus" the sound of the instrument?

And, how does the shorter string length really make the bass easier to play? The way I see it, the issue is with players using a rigid technique of left hand positions that forces stretching over the lower intervals - the shorter string length reduces the intervals making the stretches easier - but it still is more of a technique issue, no?

You almost have me confused here. Please, go out and play in an Orchestra for a few years. A community orchestra, for free most likely. Get some real experience with the music. Play all the Rep. and then we can talk. Your comments on playing make no sense to me.

On the bass itself, the shorter the length on a note, the more direct focus it has. Longer = looser in my book.

On the technique comment, I have no idea where you got that concept from. Position playing is very important. Shifting is very important. Intonation is very important. Free hand playing is not very reliable. Playing alone in your house is not the same as playing in a bass section. You need to play in tune, in unison together, in tempo and sound even if possible.

Discuss this with your teacher. If he is a professional orchestra player, he will explain it to you in your next lesson perhaps.

This thread is about the restoration of a nearly 300 year old cornerless bass with a fantastic sound. It was probably made by an Italian Luthier that made Guitar and Lute type instruments as well as Violin family instruments as we see influences of both styles of construction here. The placement of the F-holes shows it was a 3-string gut instrument as suggested as well by the period and the gear box. The shape is graceful and long. The string length is quite long for the bass as it fits a 3/4 bag and has a 5/4 length of vibrating string. This is not something you see on modern instruments. There was no Beethoven or even Mozart being played when this was made. Vivaldi yes, as well as Italian opera and other Chamber and Church music. As a matter of fact, the owner before the last told his son he found it in a Church in Italy. That was before all of us reading this were born. Guitar shaped basses like this were used in the Monasteries back then. The kind of music they played was only a fraction in demand of what is required today. The length back then was not important for the few notes it put out. Perhaps you are in the wrong century and need to go back!..:eek: .. Then you can enjoy a 44.5" string length and tell all the others playing 40" how wimpy they are.:rolleyes: .. Regardless, this one's getting shortened, like it or not.;)

[Eric Swanson]

Thomas,

Longer string length also generally creates more tension, at the same pitch, as a shorter string length.

For example, on my (former) 44" bass, Spiro Weichs felt sort of like Mittels would have on a 41 1/2" or 42" bass.

So, the longer scale, in addition to making open-handed playing harder, makes general left hand tension/effort greater, in general.

[Ken Smith]

Getting back on topic here I would like to mention that Arnold sent me a few pics yesterday of the bass after he applied the golden yellow ground. Wow, the flames of the maple are just popping out all over. I would say the figure looks 2-3x stronger now than when the wood was just in the white. The flames of the original back are much broader in width and oxidized about 300 years. Not much we can do about that but this will be a close second if not right up there.

Sorry, I cannot share these pics due to circumstances beyond my control but, I can tell you about it. Arnold was telling me on the phone and I begged him practically to stop teasing me and send me some pictures.. Ok, I have a few pics now. That should hold me for a day of two..;)

Oh, and string length for the 'inspired copy bass' (the un-official description for accuracy) is planned for about 41 3/4" length.

[Eric Swanson]

What color finish are you and Arnold planning, once all the finish layers are applied?

[Ken Smith]

What color finish are you and Arnold planning, once all the finish layers are applied?

I can't say for sure but not as dark as the original because age and oxidation has contributed to that. Also, since this is a publicly read Forum and the bass is being entered into a competition I would not reveal the color IF I knew it. No one should know who the maker of this bass is until after the judging. I will post pictures before xmas.;)

She will be pretty..:cool:

[Craig Regan]

Will this Bass be entered in the VSA?

[Ken Smith]

Will this Bass be entered in the VSA?

Can't say. You gotta ask Arnold..;)

[Thomas Erickson]

You almost have me confused here. Please, go out and play in an Orchestra for a few years. A community orchestra, for free most likely. Get some real experience with the music. Play all the Rep. and then we can talk. Your comments on playing make no sense to me.

Been there, done that, years ago - played the "rep" and a lot of basses too. Sorry if I don't make sense, I admit to having developed an unorthodox approach to technique and instruments both. ;)

Longer string length also generally creates more tension, at the same pitch, as a shorter string length.

Well... sort of. I think it is here that we get into the issue of "string length (mensure)" vs. overall string length of the instrument.

Sorry to further derail the thread.

Ken - want to copy some of these posts over to the current thread on string length modifications? I certainly don't mean to be negative or argumentative on the subject, or to hijack the thread about your new bass!

[Ken Smith]

Been there, done that, years ago - played the "rep" and a lot of basses too. Sorry if I don't make sense, I admit to having developed an unorthodox approach to technique and instruments both. ;)



Well... sort of. I think it is here that we get into the issue of "string length (mensure)" vs. overall string length of the instrument.

Sorry to further derail the thread.

Ken - want to copy some of these posts over to the current thread on string length modifications? I certainly don't mean to be negative or argumentative on the subject, or to hijack the thread about your new bass!

No, I don't need to copy it. Feel free to copy and post your ideas where applicable. If the subject turns to the side a bit it's ok by me to air out the thoughts on it and then get back to the mainstream topic.

On your 'been there done that' comment about playing in an Orchester I gotta ask you this. You were born in 1982. You have a Shen made in 1997. You were 15 when the bass was made and and you are 28 now. Is the Shen the bass you played in the 'been there done that' statement?

I once asked a retired player who played without a C-extension for 15 years in a Pro Orchestra but had a converted 5er a question about the Storm 6th part. I wanted to know if he played all the low individual 16ths on the 5er or on the 4 an octave up? He replied, 'we never played the 6th!'

So Thomas, how do you approach that part on the 6th?

I know this is off topic but you made the comment about length and if I read you correctly it was a bit condescending to todays players in the 41-42" string length range. If you were referring to beginners and jazz players trying to go shorter than 41" for whatever reason then please say so.

For the record, I subscribe to the 41-42" length for everything I play, buy or modify. Sometimes the bass is just too small or too big or too long or the FFs too low or close together to modify but, I do have these numbers in mind as a goal and for a very good reason.

Back on topic, the Varnish is in the final coatings. The last round of pics Arnold sent me look stunning. In order to keen the strong maple flames showing, the varnish cannot get too dark. The oxidation of the wood on the original is something we cannot buy in a jar and put on a bass so we will just have to wait a few centuries for that..;)

[Thomas Erickson]

No, I don't need to copy it. Feel free to copy and post your ideas where applicable. If the subject turns to the side a bit it's ok by me to air out the thoughts on it and then get back to the mainstream topic.

On your 'been there done that' comment about playing in an Orchester I gotta ask you this. You were born in 1982. You have a Shen made in 1997. You were 15 when the bass was made and and you are 28 now. Is the Shen the bass you played in the 'been there done that' statement?

I once asked a retired player who played without a C-extension for 15 years in a Pro Orchestra but had a converted 5er a question about the Storm 6th part. I wanted to know if he played all the low individual 16ths on the 5er or on the 4 an octave up? He replied, 'we never played the 6th!'

So Thomas, how do you approach that part on the 6th?

I know this is off topic but you made the comment about length and if I read you correctly it was a bit condescending to todays players in the 41-42" string length range. If you were referring to beginners and jazz players trying to go shorter than 41" for whatever reason then please say so.

For the record, I subscribe to the 41-42" length for everything I play, buy or modify. Sometimes the bass is just too small or too big or too long or the FFs too low or close together to modify but, I do have these numbers in mind as a goal and for a very good reason.

Back on topic, the Varnish is in the final coatings. The last round of pics Arnold sent me look stunning. In order to keen the strong maple flames showing, the varnish cannot get too dark. The oxidation of the wood on the original is something we cannot buy in a jar and put on a bass so we will just have to wait a few centuries for that..;)

I don't mean to condescend at all - I think that discussion of topics like this can't help but benefit all of us! I admit that I tend to push buttons though - but only in a good way. :D

Sure, I'm not the oldest guy around, and while I do have a fair bit of experience playing in orchestras, I'm not currently a pro orchestra player. The Shen is my current instrument due to circumstance but believe me, I'm not proud of it. ;) It is an appliance at best; a questionable appliance at that (I'm sure that will offend someone)...

Really, my only point is just that people seem to see *string length* (often not knowing what it actually is) as some magic factor to making a bass playable, when the reality is that there are so many small factors that all add up to make a musical instrument.

[Ken Smith]

Back on topic, I visited Arnold yesterday afternoon and got a good look at the bass all varnished and awaiting its final rubout. Arnold marked the fingerboard (unstrung) where the octave G is and the D near the neck heel. Boy is that G easy to reach. With the palm of my hand on the shoulder, the G is right there under my fingers without any reach at all. The D is perfect, just a smudge above the center of my thumb.

All I can say is the bass looks and feels sweet. I have owned more basses than I can count and some of them were fairly new (not counting basses I buy for stock). This however is the first Bass I have ever commissioned to be made from scratch. I was able to select the wood with Arnold in his shop and was involved in the design as well.

The bass was in a stand along side of the back/rib assembly of the original it was copied from.

I will probably have the bass a few weeks before Christmas as it has to go first to the VSA to be judged and then when it returns I will find a day to drive up and get it. That will be my first time playing it as well.

[Ken Smith]

I just got back from Arnold's and got to play the new Bass. I actually went up to show the Malvolti labeled bass and get a game plan to clean it up soon as well as pick up my Lombardi roundback that just got a tweak and clean-up as well. Arnold mentioned on the phone that the bass is ready to play so, I did.

I was surprised how deep and smooth it was. It did not sound new. The bass is so accessible with the Storioni shoulders that with my arm/wrist resting on the shoulder, I can play the 2nd octave C on the G in thumb position without actually going to TP.. lol :eek: :D

It was a treat to play. The workmanship is beautiful and all the materials top-notch. It will go soon out to the VSA show for the competition. When it comes back, the C-Extension will be made and fit. Then some final set-up tweaking when we meet on that final day when the bass comes home. This is my first double bass commission. A Grand Slam. Bravo Maestro Arnoldo.

[Eric Swanson]

Congratulations to both you and Arnold! It sounds as if another great bass has come into the world...

[Craig Regan]

........ Pictures?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I have some preliminary pics up on my Facebook page. The bass is being delivered to Ken on 12/17, and I'm sure there will be a beautiful layout on the KSB site within hours. I've just finished the C extension and the instrument really likes it.

[Ken Smith]

The Scroll pics. The original and 300 years later, a modified copy;
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs327.ash2/60716_1614099806183_1646963864_1464195_740827_n.jp ghttp://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1200.snc4/155206_1614100006188_1646963864_1464197_7846955_n. jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/scroll_L.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/scroll_bk.jpg

Back Button area;
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs327.ash2/60780_1614099726181_1646963864_1464194_212180_n.jp ghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/heel_detail.jpg

Rib/profile;
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1218.snc4/157089_1614099886185_1646963864_1464196_1360164_n. jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/full_R.jpg

The F holes;
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs570.ash2/149243_1614099486175_1646963864_1464192_4654851_n. jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/L_Fhole.jpg

These pics were copied by permission from Arnold's facebook page. When the Bass gets here later this month, we will take a full set of pics and post a full page on the website. When the original 'Storioni' (as it was known as) comes out of restoration, I will again make a new page on that bass as well as a side-by-side page of the original and the inspired copy.

[Ken Smith]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs069.snc4/34831_1614099366172_1646963864_1464191_2005612_n.j pghttp://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1120.snc4/148256_1614099606178_1646963864_1464193_1304783_n. jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_fr.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/imageshttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/storioni/images/body_bk.jpg

With no two shoulders being exactly identical, we picked one of the Shoulders and use that for all 4 of them, top and back.

[Eric Swanson]

Congratulations, to both of you!

A lovely concept, and so beautifully made...

Thank you for sharing these photos.

[Pino Cazzaniga]

Neat work, powerful design... and he is making some friends there!

[Ken Smith]

Neat work, powerful design... and he is making some friends there!

Yes, all who have played the bass, love the feel and sound. A few have commented on how deep it is as well. Like almost an ocatave below to my ears. Nothing harsh or new sounding at all. For me, it's like putting one old bass down and picking up another. With my love for old smooth sounded deep orchestra type basses and owning quite a few of them now and before, the last thing I wanted would have been a bright sounding new bass. The only thing bright about this one is the smiles and open eyes it puts on those that have played and heard it. We had no idea it was going to come out this good but I had to insist on copying the original as close as possible to capture as much of its tone as possible. Luck was on our side I guess..

[Craig Regan]

Beautiful piece of spruce on the top!

[Ken Smith]

Beautiful piece of spruce on the top!

The Top was finished/varnished with a special 'corduroy' effect to bring out the grain!

Also, it was a nice piece of wood as well..:)

[Eric Swanson]

Is today still the day you get the new bass, Ken? I am excited enough, vicariously, that I remembered...

[Ken Smith]

Is today still the day you get the new bass, Ken? I am excited enough, vicariously, that I remembered...

Arnold is on the way as we speak.. First, we will go out for Lunch. Priorities..lol

[Ken Smith]

Is today still the day you get the new bass, Ken? I am excited enough, vicariously, that I remembered...

The Bass is here.
It's amazing.
Made from well aged wood and to a very old design model.
The results were beyond prediction in the tone department.

It will now become my main bass. Being it's so pretty, I may need to use one of the others as a back-up so this one doesn't get scratched or banged up. Maybe I'll use the Hart as a back-up bass. Good choice you think?;)

Now I need a place to hide it..:eek:

[Geoff Chalmers]

Hi Ken.
Congratulations! I've really enjoyed the thread. you are a lucky guy owning such a quality bass.
Cheers Geoff

[Adrian Levi]

When do we get to see a whole LOT of pics of this bass ???

[Eric Swanson]

The Hart as a "backup" bass?! :D

This new instrument must simply be incredible. Many happy congratulations to both you and Arnold.

[Ken Smith]

Thanks guys. Yes, the bass is very special and it is not a design or pattern one would just make from thought. Having the original side by side was the key to success along with Arnold's hands. It was an experimental risk doing it to begin with as it's so different than any other bass as far as the dimensions are. I just had to see if it was possible to copy the pattern and modify it with corners, move the Fs up and out and still get at least a good sounding bass if not something close to the original. What we don't have is the 'exact' wood and species of the original, the age of it and the repairs as well as the centuries or settlement of the sum of its experiences.

That was a long sentence.. lol..

My point is that I was willing to take a chance and commission something that I thought would work. Arnold put his own work experience into it as well as far as the archings and graduations go so it IS a Schnitzer Bass but made off of a pattern he's never tried.

Now that it's here, I just have to play it and get over the anticipation from the building of it. Time to do some serious practicing now that I have no excuses at all.:D:eek:

[Adrian Juras]

Wow! That is great to hear Ken. The bass looks gorgeous. I'd love to hear it one day. It will be nice to hear your thoughts when the original is complete comparing both basses. When do you anticipate the restoration will be done?

[Ken Smith]

Wow! That is great to hear Ken. The bass looks gorgeous. I'd love to hear it one day. It will be nice to hear your thoughts when the original is complete comparing both basses. When do you anticipate the restoration will be done?

You have to ask Arnold. It's hard to say. The Top is done and on the Ribs but the Ribs are not started yet. The Back is in progress and going smooth. The Scroll is repaired and grafted into a its new Neck but will go in last. I would guess way before Summer 2011.

[Ken Smith]

I took the new bass out for a rehearsal today. It plays easy but it feels new. Duh..:confused::p

I experimented playing some things in higher positions on lower strings like up most of the first octave of the E string and threw in some extension notes/8VL just to see how the bass responded.

It bows easy on all strings. Playing in an Orchestra is different than practicing at home. I cannot stress enough about practicing to know your bass as I had some intonation problems tonight. I played sharp and flat up and down the bass (only on occasion) as I was just 'going for it' and not worrying about where the notes were just to see how well the bass fit ME right out of the gate.

I think sticking with just ONE bass for now (harder for me than sticking to a diet.. lol) would be a good plan to play better in tune.

The bass seemed to be fairly loud, deep and smooth but had punch as well. I think the volume and presence brought out the intonation partly as well as adjusting to the height and feel of the overall bass. When playing it alone (no Orchestra) I can concentrate and play much better in tune. Once you throw new music in front of me, my attention is on the music and the bass needs to automatic under my fingers.

I remember playing the Riccardi bass and feeling how comfortable it was in my hands and against my body. Playing with the exact same Stool tonight I felt that same or rather similar comfort. The Riccardi was over a 44" string length and this one is under 42". Moving up the neck I was usually sharp possibly because of my muscle memory on the original needing more stretch to reach the notes. I am sure that in time I will get used to the modified length of this Copy bass as well as the original once it comes out of restoration at a similar length to what this one is now.

[Eric Swanson]

Good to hear that I am not alone. My old bass had a 44" string length. Now that I am playing on something with a 41 5/8" string length, I have had to spend a bunch of time doing double stops and shifting exercises to get my intonation back to an acceptable place.

It does take some time to retrain the muscles, but it seems to be improving. I still notice my inaccuracy most around the octave transition area, moving in thumb position...

What a beautiful bass, you have; sounds as if it will be worth the (nearly) monogamous relationship. Congratulations, again...

[Ken Smith]

Good to hear that I am not alone. My old bass had a 44" string length. Now that I am playing on something with a 41 5/8" string length, I have had to spend a bunch of time doing double stops and shifting exercises to get my intonation back to an acceptable place.

It does take some time to retrain the muscles, but it seems to be improving. I still notice my inaccuracy most around the octave transition area, moving in thumb position...

What a beautiful bass, you have; sounds as if it will be worth the (nearly) monogamous relationship. Congratulations, again...

Thanks.. Normally I play basses that are from 41-42" and have been doing so all along. The Riccardi was the only long one I had but being that this is almost the same feel to my body, my hands seem to go places they are not invited.. lol... Time to re-train.. :eek:

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Thanks.. being that this is almost the same feel to my body, my hands seem to go places they are not invited.. Ken, have you switched teams? :D

[Ken Smith]

Ken, have you switched teams? :D

Ok, I get it now. So when you retire from Bass making you will move down to Florida and do Stand-up in the southern Borscht belt?:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Don't expect that many laughs..:rolleyes:

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Not quitting my day job. :(

[Ken Smith]

Not quitting my day job. :(

Smart move!:D

[Eric Swanson]

Ken,

Any sound or video clips of the new bass?

[Ken Smith]

Ken,

Any sound or video clips of the new bass?

No, but come over and make some for me. I have no clue how to post them. My son would but he's away for now. How can you hear a DB on little speakers? You need to feel the walls shaking in the room. It is just about as loud and full sounding as any bass and the G and D strings are deep sounding as well. No harsh new type sounds anywhere. I can feel it's new and that's about all.

[Bin Hire]

Ken, how is that new bass playing?

[Ken Smith]

Ken, how is that new bass playing?

Not very well at all on its own unless, I am playing it! :D

Seriously, it plays like butter and all the notes are just where you expect them to be. If this bass was 200-300 years old, there would be very little to compete with it anywhere. Wait.. Ok, yes, I have that bass too, the original..;)

Arnold did a great job on the bass and instead of a flatback like the original, we went with a roundback. Arnold carved the Back arch more like a Panormo but graduated in thickness as Panormo used a 6mm thickness all around on both plates on many basses.

My next upcoming Orchestra concert requires a pickup/amp on one tune, Theme from Rocky as I also have the Electric part for that piece. I don't feel like cutting the wings of this Bridge just yet for my pickup because I already have another bass that is. Also, the stage is quite cramped at this place so I think I will just use the other bass this time.

So, the new bass is doing fine and I practice on it everyday regardless of the other basses I doodle with as well. Thank's for asking..

[Richard Prowse]

Not very well at all on its own unless, I am playing it! :D
There's always one joker in the pack.
Seriously, it plays like butter and all the notes are just where you expect them to be. If this bass was 200-300 years old, there would be very little to compete with it anywhere. Wait.. Ok, yes, I have that bass too, the original..;)
So, the aging process is the biggy? This might sound like a dumb question but, in your opinion, say a bass played at 50% of its potential, what do you think that 200 years would add - bearing in mind that it was a fully carved, well designed/built bass?

[Ken Smith]

There's always one joker in the pack.

So, the aging process is the biggy? This might sound like a dumb question but, in your opinion, say a bass played at 50% of its potential, what do you think that 200 years would add - bearing in mind that it was a fully carved, well designed/built bass?

Ok, the last bass I had for 200 years went from new to 200 years and sounded like.. ah, :confused: I can't remember that far back..:D

[Ken Smith]

Ok, here is the link to the new page we just put up. http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/

Here's a preview from my Link;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/images/scroll-button.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/images/back.jpg

[Ken McKay]

Beautiful workmanship and design. The varnish is superb and the best of all of Schnitzer's that I have seen. The scroll is slightly quirky and that adds a lot of interest to the clean workmanship in that area.

I would be pretty proud of that one Ken!

[Eric Hochberg]

Just too gorgeous!

[Ken Smith]

Beautiful workmanship and design. The varnish is superb and the best of all of Schnitzer's that I have seen. The scroll is slightly quirky and that adds a lot of interest to the clean workmanship in that area.

I would be pretty proud of that one Ken!

If you guys only knew what went in to this bass!..:eek:

The Varnishing was something special and the wood all over has some tiny flaws and nothing was done to cover them up. The Scroll on the original is simplistically beautiful. The Copy is more elaborate but hey, she's mine so I get what I want. I loved the Teardrop on the Martini which was off center but the Candi Teardrop is perfect. Some natural flaws here and there in the wood and how the wood took the varnish in my opinion just adds to its natural beauty. It IS tempting to smooth everything out but I was not looking for 'plastic' and nor would Arnold (I assume) go that route either. The Top is done in a way that you can feel all the fibers across the grain known as Corduroy. Like the pants!.. ;)

Ground coloring was applied to the Back and Ribs and then sanded out leaving the darker flames highlighted. Then it was varnished over. This was done to add a natural look to the aging without using chains or tools. The Ribs themselves show some natural rippling which I have seen on a few newer basses as well as many old ones.

Yes guys, it's a beautiful bass and I thank you all for your compliments. The tone is so pleasing that playing Pizz with Belcantos, it pumps out air like Gut strings and they feel thicker under my fingers. Switching to the Hart back to back with the same strings on feels completely different so I know it's the bass and not the strings doing that. Although I was going for an Orchestra bass and it's great in that respect, it's also a fantastic thick punchy sounding Jazz bass as well. :)

Maybe Arnold will come in here and say a few words. He's a little busy trying to finish the restoration on the original. Maybe a side-by-side photo session would be in order up at his shop with both the new and old meeting for the first time all strung up.:cool:

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Maybe Arnold will come in here and say a few words.
I appreciate greatly all the kind words and support.

This was an intense project for me. I'm not accustomed to getting so much input from the person for whom the instrument is being built, especially from someone as knowledgeable and particular as Ken. At every step in the design and building process, Ken made it perfectly clear what he wanted. "Lush sounding. Deep. Easy to play and easy to get around". Every choice made regarding wood, arching, graduating, shape, etc. was done with "deep and lush" in mind as the tonal goal. Top wood: Engelmann (deep and lush). Shape: wide in the middle, like the original (deep and lush). Arching: pronounced in the back, flattish in the top center (deep and lush). Bridge width and bass bar placement: wide (deep and lush). I guess you get the picture. The bass came out as desired, deep and lush. A side benefit is that it speaks very quickly, as it is fairly light but stiff.

Ken likes a dark and complex sound because he is surrounded by a collection of ancient masterpieces. To have my creation meet with his approval, and hold its own in that company is rewarding and inspiring. And to get paid, to boot!

[Matthew Tucker]

Nice work Arnold, I DO like that head carving!

The outline is quite unique, with its small corners. The bass looks a little tubby but at the same time elegant. It isn't so much that the centre is wide as the upper bout is narrow and tall.

I am frustrated seeing only small pictures, Ken. Got any bigger ones or nice sharp closeups of the corners, the purfling and/or that show the wood textures??

How does the sound compare to the original? Are the organ pipes still there?

[Ken Smith]

Nice work Arnold, I DO like that head carving!

The outline is quite unique, with its small corners. The bass looks a little tubby but at the same time elegant. It isn't so much that the centre is wide as the upper bout is narrow and tall.

I am frustrated seeing only small pictures, Ken. Got any bigger ones or nice sharp closeups of the corners, the purfling and/or that show the wood textures??

How does the sound compare to the original? Are the organ pipes still there?

Matt, my son took these pics in a hurry the other night so I could get the page up. Arnold's facebook pics are nicer. The pics on my page are also sized a bit and it's a longer slender look in real than anything squat. They came out distorted and blurred as well. I will get new ones up one day but because it's not really a bass for sale (unless one wants to order my model made new), we didn't go crazy with the pics, yet!

The Original is about 300 years old and we can't figure a way to put that component into a new bass other than waiting 300 years! But the depth or sound is there and the low strings almost increase in volume over the D and G strings. The Original is a flatback with narrow spaced f-holes. That in itself will change the tone as well the individual exact pieces of wood. The original 2-pc laminated Spruce/Maple Burl Ribs on the original are or were very resonant but in time they blistered all over rather then cracking like with normal solid ribs. Unless we try a few more basses copying the parts we changed for longevity we will never know. We will also need 300 years of playing it in to compare but by then, the original will be 600 years old! So, WE will never know.

The original is still in restoration so after IT'S done, we can compare the modified original all repaired to the copy of the modified bass and get a 'real-time' comparison. For now, I am quite happy with the results. I can take out the new bass with as much confidence as any of the older ones. The differences are mainly the played in aged tone. Other than the aged factor, there are no more or less differences here than comparing the Gilkes, Hart, Martini, Panormo or any of the other basses I have taken to work in recent years. They are all different and all very good professional high grade basses. The new bass will sit amongst them equally in time. I am sure about that.:cool:

One thing I want to point out is that Arnold did not go for cosmetic perfection on this bass regardless of how beautiful it looks overall. It came out how it came out within the details. Older basses were often made this way as the DB was not the most important instrument of the Shop so it suffered in some areas of its cosmetics but not in tone as we now know. This is somewhat a non-deliberate way of making something with simplicity. Looks do not equal tone. I wanted tone. The original is made very simply so that's the brain you need turned on when making this. If you look at the bass close up in person at the corners, details, purfling, varnish, etc., you will see an individually handmade bass. If Arnold makes another, it will not look exactly the same no matter how hard he tries..;)

[Matthew Tucker]

One thing I want to point out is that Arnold did not go for cosmetic perfection on this bass regardless of how beautiful it looks overall. It came out how it came out within the details. Older basses were often made this way as the DB was not the most important instrument of the Shop so it suffered in some areas of its cosmetics but not in tone as we now know. This is somewhat a non-deliberate way of making something with simplicity. Looks do not equal tone. I wanted tone. The original is made very simply so that's the brain you need turned on when making this. If you look at the bass close up in person at the corners, details, purfling, varnish, etc., you will see an individually handmade bass. If Arnold makes another, it will not look exactly the same no matter how hard he tries..;)

Yes, and that is what I'm keen to see. For me, beauty is not perfect and glossy and symmetrical in every dimension. Beauty is being able to see the hand of the creator and the traces of history.

I haven't seen any pics of this finished bass yet on any of Arnold's pages.

[Ken Smith]

Yes, and that is what I'm keen to see. For me, beauty is not perfect and glossy and symmetrical in every dimension. Beauty is being able to see the hand of the creator and the traces of history.

I haven't seen any pics of this finished bass yet on any of Arnold's pages.

Arnold has some in progress pics but he has to get with his web guy to put them up. Maybe when the original is done we will do a pic shoot with both of them side by side. I will also be getting together with Riccardi's Wife and son to show them the bass when it's all done along with my friend Kevin who introduced me to the Family originally and helped my to acquire the bass. They too should see the pair together if at least just for a nice afternoon.

On my pics, you can click the + and blow them up. The focus looks like you just took your glasses off. lol :eek:

[Arnold Schnitzer]

For me, beauty is not perfect and glossy and symmetrical in every dimension. Beauty is being able to see the hand of the creator and the traces of history.


Perfectly stated!

[Yeong Cham]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs327.ash2/60716_1614099806183_1646963864_1464195_740827_n.jp ghttp://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1200.snc4/155206_1614100006188_1646963864_1464197_7846955_n. jpg



Hi Ken/Arnold,

Congratulations on the great looking and sounding bass!

Are those English Baker tuning machines?

I'm asking because all the Baker style tunings machines that I've seen here in London have screws on the other side of the cheek to hold the cog in place. Would you please share how do they work (without screw) on your bass?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Are those English Baker tuning machines?

I'm asking because all the Baker style tunings machines that I've seen here in London have screws on the other side of the cheek to hold the cog in place. Would you please share how do they work (without screw) on your bass?
They are copies from Gallery Strings in England. If you look closely you'll see that the sides of the large gear are angled, which holds them in place via the pressure from the worm gear. I strongly prefer not to drill through the opposite side when installing gears. The scroll is considerably stronger this way, and less likely to break or split.

[Yeong Cham]

Hi Arnold.

Thank you for sharing. Looks like the "Healey" model. Yes?

I feel the same about not drill the opposite side. Another thing about the Baker style tuners that I don't quite like is that in most cases the gears and screws/washers (on the other side) don't sit flat on the cheeks.

[Ken Smith]

Hi Arnold.

Thank you for sharing. Looks like the "Healey" model. Yes?

I feel the same about not drill the opposite side. Another thing about the Baker style tuners that I don't quite like is that in most cases the gears and screws/washers (on the other side) don't sit flat on the cheeks.

Yes, that is usually true with most gears of that style. However, I have never heard of anyone replacing 'real' Baker gears. They seem to last for ever, about two centuries going on three! For a Gear that good, I can live with the looks of the screw.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Ken, care to share any news about this bass? ;)

[Ken Smith]

Ken, care to share any news about this bass? ;)

Yes, sure, why not.

After careful consideration and a few players falling over it emotionally, I decided to sell it to a professional Orchestra player so it could get the attention it needs.

Being that I own the original and a dozen or more other old relics, I thought it would live best in the hands of a full time player.

Had ALL of my old basses sold before hand, I would have been more than happy having this as my one and only main bass. That NOT being the case, I offered it to sale as soon as the question popped up for a new Schnitzer Bass by a person trying this out, but not right away. I did have to think about it for a week or two to ease my own mind on the subject. Either way, I think he would have ordered one just like it as both him and another Orchestra Pro with him agreed that it didn't sound like a new bass and the low end was killer. Also, it played so easy it taught me for the future what I should look for in maximum comfort.

Now that this bass has been made and tried, I am even more spoiled in playability concept than I had been in the past. :eek:

[Matthew Tucker]

Well done both of you! So is there going to be a name for that "model"?

[Ken Smith]

Well done both of you! So is there going to be a name for that "model"?

Maybe; Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni')

You think it's catchy enough or a mile and a hlaf too long maybe for Marketing purposes?:confused::eek::o:(

They can just ask Arnold, 'that model you made for Ken'!

Ask Arnold, maybe he has a name. 'Lorenzo' maybe? Yes, we will call it Lorenzo as it was copied from a bass that was known as a Storioni (Lorenzo) whether it was/is or not. Also, if I sell a few basses here, I just might have him do it again within 98% or so and play around with woods and stuff. Just something for the 'bucket list' kinda thing..;)

[Adrian Juras]

I didn't think you would sell that bass Ken, but you are definitely right. Having it in the hands of a full time orchestra bassist is a good thing. It will be great to see the original when its fully restored. I'd love to hear it!

[Ken Smith]

I didn't think you would sell that bass Ken, but you are definitely right. Having it in the hands of a full time orchestra bassist is a good thing. It will be great to see the original when its fully restored. I'd love to hear it!

I really wanted to hear them side by side but we will have to just rely on our memory. This happened before as well with my Dodd as it was sold before the Hart, Gilkes and Gamba basses were restored so I never got compare them to the Dodd either. The other 3 I did compare. All 3 were completely different sounding bass. As different as they looked, were built and as they measured.

The Original Cornerless (former Storioni Attr.) will ether be hidden away (for my use and/or break-in period) or due to its price, only be shown to buyers shopping in that range. I don't think I will have it on the rack for general visitors to play or demo.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Maybe; Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni')


Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni Currently in the Ken Smith Collection :D

[Ken Smith]

Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni Currently in the Ken Smith Collection :D

I think you left out "with Tear Drop Button added"..:eek:

Oh, and.. "Round back instead of Flat"..:eek::eek:

Or maybe just name it "Lorenzo" ?:);):cool:

Just brain storming here.:D

[Eric Hochberg]

"Freaking Awesome Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni Currently in the Ken Smith Collection" :D

[Ken Smith]

"Freaking Awesome Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni Currently in the Ken Smith Collection" :D

All true!:D

[Eric Swanson]

How about:

"Freaking Awesome Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni (currently in the Ken Smith Collection); designed by Arnold Schnitzer and Ken Smith, built so beautifully by Arnold Schnitzer that it has been deemed sinful, and/or possibly illegal, to not be played nearly continuously by a professional Orchestral Bassist"

[Ken Smith]

How about:

"Freaking Awesome Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni (currently in the Ken Smith Collection); designed by Arnold Schnitzer and Ken Smith, built so beautifully by Arnold Schnitzer that it has been deemed sinful, and/or possibly illegal, to not be played nearly continuously by a professional Orchestral Bassist"


Can you fit that on a bumper sticker? :confused:

[Arnold Schnitzer]

How about:

"Freaking Awesome Bass With Corners Inspired By the Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Formerly Attributed to Storioni (currently in the Ken Smith Collection); designed by Arnold Schnitzer and Ken Smith, built so beautifully by Arnold Schnitzer that it has been deemed sinful, and/or possibly illegal, to not be played nearly continuously by a professional Orchestral Bassist"


Lorenzo it is.

[Ken Smith]

Lorenzo it is.

Great idea Arnold.:D

[Eric Swanson]

"Figlio de Storioni" (son of Storioni)?

[Robert J Spear]

I hope this bass will find its way to the ISB Convention in Rochester in 2013. I'd love to see it. I have not closely followed the chatter on cornerless basses, but there seems to be a prevailing theory that they sound better. Of course, I ask if the sound is better because they are cornerless, because they are a few hundred years old, because they were made by guys who knew what they were doing, or because time has weeded out all the clunkers?

I can tell you that modern acoustical research has shown that there's a lot of bending going on in the center bout region of bowed string instruments. My feeling is that the presence of corner blocks acts to stiffen the center, but without any good evidence as to whether this is a good or bad thing. There's a good bit of evidence that the violin evolved from the viheula, a small Spanish guitar, which makes me wonder why we don't see more cornerless instruments. The bass, on the other hand, is perhaps a different breed. Anyway, get cracking, Arnold, and lobby Ken to let us see this puppy when it's done.

[Ken Smith]

Anyway, get cracking, Arnold, and lobby Ken to let us see this puppy when it's done.

Robert, the Bass (copy) was completed shown at the last VSA in Cleveland. Shortly after, the C-Extension was added and then delivered to me. After playing only a single rehearsal with the bass, it was Sold to a professional Orchestra player. I never got to use it on a Gig myself. By the time it was Sold, the original was restored and ready to use. It is a great bass and the sound had some age right out of the box, so to speak. I am sure it will come to develop as one of the great early 21th century basses.

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/ ..Sold..
:(

Arnold Schnitzer (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/index.html)

New York, 2010
SOLD

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/images/tn_schnitzer-smith-right.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/schnitzer-smith/index.html)