PDA

View Full Version : " Name That Bass " aka "This OLD Bass"


Ken Smith
07-18-2007, 12:34 AM
Hi guys, this is a thread I started on TB back in 2004 (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118707). Since I am here now, I thought I would copy my own basic text of it over to here and if anyone feels up to it, continue on. If not, at least we have it here for reference. I have brought the text up to present time as many did make guesses in this 6 page thread but I don't think I am allowed to copy anyone else's replies over to here. I will sum up the findings so we can go on from there if you're in the mood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got this Bass back in Feb, 2004. It has many flavors from all that have touched it. In March of '04 it went out for a full restoration and reconstruction. I am expecting it some time this year (2007)

Members are welcome to post their ideas as well.
Ask questions if you like as to what I might have seen inside that I can't show here or whatever.

Here is the the link posted on my 'site; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass2.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html) ('Before' pics linked from there as well)

Let's have some fun with this old relic......

A major restoration was done around 1850 or so give or take 25 years. The Bass was old then !

The angle taper of the Back may not be original and could have been done later. This Bass was also slightly bigger from what I can see.
The Purfling on the Top runs out on each of the 6 Bouts as if it was 'greatly' worn from use and abuse or was slightly cut or trimmed about 5mm or less on each Bout.

Maybe the Back shrunk and the Ribs were shortened. The extreme curl of the Sycamore could have made the Bass shrink more than usual.
The Back however is not Purfled on the edges but rather has a faint hint of painted Purfling around all edges which runs out as well. The Back also has a thin Ebony strip inlaid down the center Seam which leads me to believe it was added later to fill the gap from shrinkage.

Who might have used such fine grade flamed sycamore for the back (28" wide,2 piece) and ribs or the tight grained Quartersawn Spruce with 350 growth rings within 14" of width (x2=28"wide) ?? Who could have demanded this top grade of wood way back then for a Bass when it could have made at least 6 fine Violins?

This Bass has had many repairs and modifications over it's long life.

The Varnish is original under the repairs except for some
touch-up with a reddish tint. The F holes are original and the Neck Block taper seems to be original as the Purfling is still there on the Top. The gentle lower Bout cut is original as well and this and the other features might help find it's origin.

Of course when the Top came off and we examined the Blocks, old Cross Bar Scars and Linings, we were able to figure out some additional possibilities. By the way, the flames of the Back and Ribs are twice as intense from the inside where there is no Varnish obscuring the figure. The wood is very dark on the inside indicating the Bass is quite old. I can pick it up easily in one hand despite its size as the old dry wood is beyond seasoned!

The total height of the actual Bass (without endpin) is 77" tall (6ft.5in.). It was probably an 'Eb' Neck and will be reduced to a 'D' Neck ending up around 76" or so after the new Neck graft.

It is more likely we will find the period and origin before the maker, if at all.

It would be great if we can always find the maker but with Basses not always being the main product of the shop as well as the Master/Apprentice situations in many shops, it is often that the Bass was made by other than the 'head honcho'. Therefore the makers hand is not always evident.

Just to clarify things, the work is being done by my long time friend and Luthier Paul Biase in NY. Other than Peter Eibert, he is my oldest acquaintance in this field and from the old school. I had just met Arnold and Jeff on line at TB shortly before I bought this Bass. Had it been a year later, I might have given the Job to one of them if they would have accepted it. I am glad Paul is taking his time on this. The buckled Ribs are very flat now in comparison as he has spent a lot of time fixing them.

Here are the pics of the Cheeks (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/MysteryUpright/afterphotos.htm) I made 3 years ago. The Cheeks will get thinned down slightly before the Varnish touch-up.

Ken Smith
07-18-2007, 12:53 AM
Several TB members made guesses on this bass when I started the thread. Thanks to those that have so far. For interest, I have made a tally of countries mentioned as the possibilities. I will leave out the Makers names and just list the countries for now. The period from your guesses seem to be between c.1750 and c.1850 according to the makers that were mentioned. Again, the internal examination will tell us more (pre-restoration comment). Here's the tally in no particular order.

French - 3
English - 3
Tirol - 1
Yankee - 2
Bohemia - 2
Italian - 2

Some people made more than one guess and that's fine as we need to think out loud a bit here.
It would be nice to hear from all the luthiers out here tell us what points of a Bass helps them determine or guess the maker or school of making.

When I first showed the Bass to Paul Biase back in Marck of 2004 he used a 'black light'/ultra violet to check the Varnish. The Bass has an 'extra' coat of Varnish over the original Varnish completely over the entire Bass.
The top layer of Varnish seems to be Spirit based. Originally I gave the 'go-ahead' for Paul to take off the junk on top and let the original lighter golden Oil Varnish see the light of day again but after 3 years in restoration I have decided to leave it as-is and touch it up to match the Red-over-Gold as it does look beautiful.
Paul seemed at first glance to think it was from Northern Europe and not Italy as guessed by some. Most likely it's believed to be from England or France as they are just across the channel from each other.

The Purfling in the Top is European and so is the Back 'n' Rib wood. USA is most likely ruled out except for the 19th century repairs in New England with the Yankee X-Brace in the Back.
The Period of this Bass is estimated to be between the latter 18th century and early 19th century by Biase as well.

The Bass was about a 44'' String Length with its current neck. The Top Bout being 22in. across and with only about a 15mm neck-stand makes it extremely hard to play as well. This is maybe why the Bass was put aside for the last 80-100 years and not touched...... It's just too BIG! It is a very large 7/8 or small 4/4 Bass a.k.a. 'Full Sized'. You Guys can tell me from the measurements posted on my website just what it is. Originally I thought a 42" String length could not be achieved unless the Bass was "CUT" from the shoulders. Oops...... I said a 'No No' word... Sorry guys.... BUT, After Arnold restored both my Prescott and Morelli (two HUGE Basses) and was able to reduce those lengths, I took my newly acquired knowledge I picked up from Arnold and told Paul we can do just a Block-cut and get the job done.

Ken Smith
07-18-2007, 01:03 AM
Origin/size English had been considered almost immediately by many. The Purfling on the top has beed identified as "Northern Europe". That leaves France and England. As you may or may not know, many French makers worked in England and visa versa in the early 19th century and maybe earlier.

Some English Violins were acutally made by French makers working in English shops. Some other English Violins were actually made in France but completed and Labeled in England to fill demand.
My refrence: "250 Years of Violin Craft in Soho" by Adam Whone.

It pays to study! You can never read or see to much. We have a short life in which to learn about the 400+ year history of our Instruments, their creators and makers.

Pre-Panormo We were looking at early English from 1750 or after and maybe as new as 1825-1850 but until the top was off, the Mystery continued. One interesting thing is the Back repairs. The original Cross bars were replaced with an X-Brace system. Scars from the old Bars are visible. This Bass came here at least 100 years ago if not more but the X-Brace looks very old and from about 1850 if not earlier. This Repair of course was done in 19th century New England by followers of the Prescott School. The Maple Scroll, although varnished over in dark red is most likely original to the Bass as it matches in character as well.

Ruled out! Prescott was ruled out because it looks nothing like a Prescott. The Top has northern Europe style purfling. The back is un-purfled but has some faint spots of painted purfling. This has been identified as "English Ink".

The Wood is Extremely Fine grained Spruce of some sort. 350 growth rings within 14" at the lower bout. A bit too fine for North American Wood I believe. This is "Ice Age" type growth rings from Europe. The Back and sides are beautifully Quartered English Sycamore with Spaghetti type Flames.

I believe Prescott and his followers mainly used Wood from the New England area as he and Dearborn had their own lumber business.

This wood appears to have been expensive by comparison at the time this Bass was probably made. The Bass is also very big and may have been a special order. I can't imagine a maker building a Bass like this with near "full sized" measurements and such high quality wood usually found only on the best Violins and 'Cellos.

For these reasons, I don't think it was made in America but was brought here on a ship at least once if not twice possibly by a Musician playing on the Trans-Atlantic Ships as the previous owner came over later with the Bass "as-is". The Ship Musician may have had it repaired here on one of his journeys and took it back on his next trip after being fixed and then maybe sold to the Man that brought it over for the last time.

I speculate that due to a combination of being so big n difficult to play, being in dis-repair and it being cheaper and easier to get a regular sized easier playing Bass in good condition in those days. Maybe that's why the Bass has beed un-touched for the last 100 years or so.

This is all just a guess but a very possible situation or maybe just a fictional story...... Gee.."If this Bass could only talk" !! Oops....... sorry Stanley....lol

Ken Smith
07-18-2007, 01:15 AM
Scroll/Varnish The Maple Scroll, although varnished over in dark red is most likely original to the Bass as it matches in character as well. I noticed that when leveling it for the new Cheeks I added.
The Varnish on the Scroll also looks different.

The Red in the Varnish is not original either. The Original Varnish looks to be a Golden Brown. The rest of the color is age and oxidation.

I think this Bass traveled across the Ocean a few times on the Great Ships of the 19th century. The Back and Scroll repairs look to be mid 19th century but the Bass is reported to have come over from Europe from the previous owner b4 me around 1908. We have a Yankee style X-Brace dated c.1840 to c.1880. I have the 3-string Tailpiece as well. The 4 Gears that came with this Bass looked to be early to mid 19th century with one of them just slightly different as if to have been added later on that Scroll. The holes from the 3 and 4-string are all the same size as if they did the conversion, moved two of the gears and added a forth leaving the lowest gear (E) in it's original spot.

Old Neck Repair It had one of those ugly neck splices in a 'u' shape after carving somewhere in the middle of the neck. Maybe the heel of the neck is original to that neck block but I doubt that as well as being original. They must have spliced the neck/scroll on when the old one broke off and was un-repairable. Much easier than a neck/scroll graft for sure.

Previous update When the Mystery Bass was first opened in Jan. '05 Paul called me at my Shop. When I said hello to Paul on the phone that very day, I heard some screams like Tarzan was having a bad day.. I asked "what was that"? He replied "your Bass, I just opened it up". He mentioned he was thinking for weeks which way to attack this Bass as the Ribs have to be fixed first along with either the top or back so the other plate can come off and have something to go back to.

Now for the discovery, The Bass currently has an 'X' Brace which we know was a 19th century repair in Mass or New Hampshire. We also know there is a set of scars from earlier cross bars that were the original, so we thought... BUT........ There is a "third" set of scars from even earlier Bars in this Bass that is quite unusual. Mainly the Bottom, widest point (originally about 29" wide) had a pair of thin TWIN Bars running across the Bass. This he said is OLDE English as in English Gambas.... The English made Gambas as far back as the 16th century. This Bass however is most likely no earlier that the mid 18th century as far as we can see for now..

Does any one here have any experience with these olde Gambas with Twin Cross bars at the Bottom?

>> More info to come if and when it develops.......

Ken Smith
07-18-2007, 01:29 AM
Today I went into NY to go over the measurements and set-up specs for the completion of this Bass. The lower and middle Ribs are glued to the Blocks and the back lightly 'tacked on'. The Upper Ribs still attached to the old Neck Heel/Block. Another piece was added to this old Block to give room to lower the Neck-set. This will bring the Bridge up about 1" closer. We measured several ways including where the hand hits the Shoulder so we have the notes in the right place like hitting the F# before the octave G. The average 42" String length 'D' neck Bass has a measurement from the Nut to the base of the Neck of 18" or so. Mine was at 19" and was closer to an Eb neck I would imagine. With an 18" measurement and the Neck down 1" or so in the Block, we will have a 42" String length without cutting the shoulders at all. Just the tips of the Top by the Block will be cut. Also, the FFs are almost 190mm wide at the upper Eyes. The Bar is set in a bit but after measuring everything today, it looks like the Bridge used will be about a 165mm width at the feet. This means I can cheat the bridge easily if I want to adjust/fine tune the String length or stop positions of the notes around the neck/shoulder area.

Conclusions to date (we think!).. Bass is English c.1800 or so and we will not be cutting the Shoulders..

Of course when this Bass is done, I will update the final specs. I hope as well that one day I will know who actually made it if that is at all possible. To date from all the people around the world I have consulted, not a single person has seen anything like this Bas as far as the shape, bouts and FFs combined.

Ken Smith
07-19-2007, 06:34 PM
I know we did this to death a couple of years ago on TB but to date we are no closer to finding a maker than we were then.

In closing there I posted pics of my Top and another one that I think is similar. Also, both Basses have similar large type dimensions. I will now post both Top and Back shots side by side and just ask all of you to point out "How close they to look in style and features as well as the differences they appear to have"?

Please don't be so shy. This is not a test to retain your Forum membership..;)

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.contrabass.co.uk/images/instruments/2488/front.jpg

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpghttp://www.contrabass.co.uk/images/instruments/2488/back.jpg

Brian Glassman
07-19-2007, 10:58 PM
I know we did this to death a couple of years ago on TB but to date we are no closer to finding a maker than we were then.

In closing there I posted pics of my Top and another one that I think is similar. Also, both Basses have similar large type dimensions. I will now post both Top and Back shots side by side and just ask all of you to point out "How close they to look in style and features as well as the differences they appear to have"?

Please don't be so shy. This is not a test to retain your Forum membership..;)


Well, I don't know. The shape of the upper and lower bouts look completely different to me. Somehow the shape of your mystery bass reminded me of that Houska article on the Prokap bass. http://www.contrabass.co.uk/spring98.htm I know you don't think it is related to the Prokap bass, but something about the way the c bouts flow into the lower bouts seem more similar than this bass. I get a Bohemian vibe anyway.

BG

Ken Smith
07-20-2007, 06:28 AM
Well, I don't know. The shape of the upper and lower bouts look completely different to me. Somehow the shape of your mystery bass reminded me of that Houska article on the Prokap bass. http://www.contrabass.co.uk/spring98.htm I know you don't think it is related to the Prokap bass, but something about the way the c bouts flow into the lower bouts seem more similar than this bass. I get a Bohemian vibe anyway.

BG

Brian, I agree with you partially on that Prokop Bass (http://www.contrabass.co.uk/spring98.htm) but that is the only Bohemian Bass I have ever seen with soft Gamba Corners. On the subject of 'Gamba', in the 19th century book by Sandy's & Forster(S.A., pupil of Gilkes) titled 'History of the Violin' there is a picture of an old English Viol d'Gamba with tons of inlay decorations etc and the exact soft Gamba corners as the Prokop Bass and this Bass of mine as well as far as the lower bout corner goes.

On the Gamba thing, my Bass has many scars from previous cross bars in the Back. Currently it has an X-Brace in 3 pieces with the lap-joint broken and not connected under the longer piece. It also has Scars from some standard type System and older Scars of Gamba type Bars with 2 or 3 below the center Bar and 2 or 3 more above it. This is typical for old English Gambas more so that any Flat back Bass I have ever seen. With the lower corner almost a Guitar and the Neck Block area Gamba construction as well, I can only guess that this was made by a Gamba maker rather than a Violin maker or one that did both. The fine grade of wood on the Top used is rarely seen on a Bass and especially on English Basses.

With a combination of English Gamba style making, English Sycamore wood, old English style Purfling on the Top and English Ink on the Back, one must conclude that this is none other than an *early English Bass (*pre-Panormo/Brescian influenced design). The Prokop Bass is a 'fluke' if you ask me and not typical at all of the Bohemian School. That Bass had 'Guitar' written all over it! George Chanot (worked in France and England) made some Guitar form Violins and some patents as well prior to that Prokop. Perhaps Chanot was the inspiration combined with Stauffer who was his teacher and a Guitar maker.

On the Pics above and the similarities I see it in the FFs a bit along with their low placement, the size which is very close to my Bass and the Back construction with the half-inlay rubbing down the center joint to used to aide in shrinkage and expansion as the Bass moves. My Bass measures slightly bigger but the size is along the same idea. That Bass by the way is by George Corsby, 1800 London from Contrabass Shoppe (http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2488.htm). There is another older Corsby in the books from Northampton c'1770-1780 as G.Corsby appears in London from 1785. These two are speculated by some to be Brothers but no first name is known for the earlier maker who was known as a Bass maker. The London Corsby was a Bass and Violin maker as well as a Dealer. Becoming a dealer in London was the normal trait for makers in their later years when it was learned they could earn more money than by just making. Makers that turned to dealers include Dodd, Forster, Betts, Davis, Hart and Hill. Everyone mentioned was a maker first. I suspect that both Corsby's are possibly one and the same. While up in Northampton he made chiefly Basses and then moved to London making some more and then turned Dealer.

I have been told by many that my Bass is made in Northern England but I have yet to find a single maker with FFs like mine and the balanced Gamba Form as well. London Makers made this more balanced form than those in the northern areas and most of them date much later. The fact that my Bass has Yankee repairs from the mid 19th century indicates that it was an old Bass already by then. This Bass was used very little in the 20th century with some old C-extension scars as the only evidence. The Coal dust in the cracks indicates it was out of use for a very long time as well as the ribs peeling off the blocks. There were even patched floating around inside that just 'fell off' as the Bass was drying out.

I am not conclusive that Corsby (London or Northampton) is the maker but that London did have Gamba form Basses as well as the later makers up north including Tarr. Before Panormo and the Strad influence in London Stainer and makers of the Tirol were the biggest influence in London. This is why we see that Germanic flavor in many English Basses because that's what they had seen to go on. at the turn of the 19th Century we have Panormo who was big on Strad as well as Dragonetti with his d'Salo and at least one Maggini Bass floating around in town. I see Maggini as the main model that many used including Dodd, Lott, Fendt, Kennedy, *J.Hart and Wlm.Gilkes from 1800 -1840 (later Hart Basses were made by William Vallentine who became his son-in-law). Earlier London Basses included the Cello shape and some other ideas for a Gamba shape like those used by the Hills of the late 18th century. The more rounded Gamba design is mostly Germanic but the softer corners and the sloped shoulders are straight from the viol d'gamba form.

On my Bass it also has some old style French flavour in the upper back in both shape and bend style. The Back bends gently from the corner block to the neck block which is French in tradition. The Ribs are 8.5" from the lower block (endpin) to the upper bout corner and then tapers to 5.75" at the neck. The French and some English moved back and forth learning from and working with each other. That is fact and not speculation. Germany was also a big trade partner with England as well. Many visiting Orchestras and Musicians came to London as well as several from Italy. It is this 'visiting' factor from France, Germany and Italy that gave London its flavor more so than any Londoner traveling thru the continent which was not the case at all.

If you look closely at my Bass you will see French, Italian, Germanic and English flavors all rolled up in one Bass (the Yankee flavor being only later modifications and not in the making). You almost never see any English flavor in the other countries mentioned. Why is that? Because they had their own recipe and English was never a flavor in the continent with the exception of New England Yankee Basses which were a mix or English and German mainly. The English were mainly Copyists, period! Makers often copied Stainer and Amati in the same shop with the occasional Strad. The French thing is not that common with the exception of a few that may have worked there or with someone from France in the UK. This Bass is somewhat of a 'melting pot' example with the 'gamba flavor added both inside and out. When I showed the C-bout corner blocks (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/repair3.jpg) to Jeff Bollbach up at 'Biasie's, he mentioned he has seen this style only in old French and English Basses and furniture as well.

So, with that 'brief' explanation, how does London/Corsby style sit now in your mind? :confused:

Brian Glassman
07-20-2007, 10:20 AM
On my Bass it also has some old style French flavour in the upper back in both shape and bend style. The Back bends gently from the corner block to the neck block which is French in tradition. The Ribs are 8.5" from the lower block (endpin) to the upper bout corner and then tapers to 5.75" at the neck. The French and some English moved back and forth learning from and working with each other. That is fact and not speculation. Germany was also a big trade partner with England as well. Many visiting Orchestras and Musicians came to London as well as several from Italy. It is this 'visiting' factor from France, Germany and Italy that gave London its flavor more so than any Londoner traveling thru the continent which was not the case at all.

If you look closely at my Bass you will see French, Italian, Germanic and English flavors all rolled up in one Bass (the Yankee flavor being only later modifications and not in the making). You almost never see any English flavor in the other countries mentioned. Why is that? Because they had their own recipe and English was never a flavor in the continent with the exception of New England Yankee Basses which were a mix or English and German mainly. The English were mainly Copyists, period! Makers often copied Stainer and Amati in the same shop with the occasional Strad. The French thing is not that common with the exception of a few that may have worked there or with someone from France in the UK. This Bass is somewhat of a 'melting pot' example with the 'gamba flavor added both inside and out. When I showed the C-bout corner block to Jeff Bollbach up at 'Biasie's, he mentioned he has seen this style only in old French and English Basses and furniture as well.

So, with that 'brief' explanation, how does London/Corsby style sit now in your mind? :confused:

I do see what you mean about all the different influences.
I'm not so experienced w/ 'f' hole ID, but to me the upper bout shape definitely has a French feel to it. Almost "Lamy"-like http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2453.htm , although we know that this bass is earlier. How about these English guys?; http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2114.htm , http://www.contrabass.co.uk/1900.htm , http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2657.htm ,or these German guys?;
http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2657.htm , http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2579.htm

Bri

David Powell
07-20-2007, 12:24 PM
Just looking at photos and not considering the other clues that point to England, the f holes are the most similar characteristic to the G. Corsby DB. The arching also looks similar. The outline just doesn't seem the same at all. The bouts are almost taken from a perfect circle on the mystery bass. The Corsby is much more anglular in the bouts. But shape alone doesn't necessarily mean that much. Weren't the shoulders of the mystery bass altered as well?

The Prokop bass certainly has a lot of the same general shape characteristics, but the other details of making don't really match at all. The shape is definitely heading the same way, but the mystery bass has bouts that are much closer to the same size. Also, I would reason that it makes sense that outlines might be copied more frequently than construction methodology. So you see borrowed forms "by the English hand" so to speak. In any case, it has one of the most pleasing outlines that I think I have ever seen. I guess there are only a few makers that could have plausibly made that bass given the factual evidence of it's origins, the wood type, etc. So it is at least narrowed to an English maker. If not Corsby, then who? That becomes the question. So we look at the f-holes again.....

Ken Smith
07-20-2007, 10:11 PM
Brian, thanks for the links of reference. Period wise, we are near c.1800 or earlier on this Bass. As you can see, so many Bass have sloped shoulders that are actually taken from the Viol family and not the Violin. Many Northern English makers worked on German patterns while the London School favored the Italian style and often Maggini within that school. Basses from London in the Gamba form are usually closer to c.1800 or earlier. Cello form was used in both London and Germany as well but not much after 1800. When a dealer sees an English Bass with Gamba form, he cries out 'Northern England or English midlands'. When they don't see the English connection right away or at all, they usually jump to Bohemia or Germany. It is not always as simple as that all the time and the Bass of mine is a clear example of straying from the norm in every possible way!

David, the bouts were not actually Altered other that Wear or trim at the outer Purfling line of each side on the upper and lower bouts. No more than 1/4" from what I can see from where the Purfling runs off the Bass. The C-bout is warn as well but I can see all or most of the Purfling on the inner curve where mainly only the edges are worn.

One point I was trying to make is that I cannot find a single Northern Maker of Basses that made FFs like this or a bass for that matter. Not a single person in the world to date has shown me anything similar as well is a Bass inside or out.

The original internal construction, some of which only has 'scars' left in place is something else I have not seen in any other Bass or at least all of these in one single Bass. Clearly, this Maker made Viols in the olde English tradition which died out in the 18th century for the most part.

On the subject of Hill, I don't doubt him as a possibly either as well as Corsby. I just wish there were other Basses like it in some way to make better comparisons.

Brian Glassman
07-21-2007, 01:24 AM
The original internal construction, some of which only has 'scars' left in place is something else I have not seen in any other Bass or at least all of these in one single Bass. Clearly, this Maker made Viols in the olde English tradition which died out in the 18th century for the most part.

On the subject of Hill, I don't doubt him as a possibly either as well as Corsby. I just wish there were other Basses like it in some way to make better comparisons.


Well, yes. I think it's closer to that Joseph Hill bass than the Corsby. Are the F's that different? Imagine this Hill Bass w/ more rounded upper bouts..pretty close.

From the pics the back has an almost Pearwood look to it. Is it deffinately Sycamore? If so where else could there be fine Sycamore during that period?

It's shape deffinately doesn't point one way or another too clearly.
Is there anything else that points to some other early European school like Dutch or Scandinavian, Vienese? or does it only seem English or Germanic now?

Sounds like you'd need to explore that viol/gamba or bass violone transitional period a bit more, but I wouldn't leave out that same period in France either. I don't know now, the more I look at the your bass the more it's outline feels French to me.

W/ it's large dimensions and internal bracketing issues could it only be a true double bass or may it have actually been a modified later Bass Viola Da Gamba or "Bass Violone" of some type?

BG

Ken Smith
07-21-2007, 03:37 AM
Well, yes. I think it's closer to that Joseph Hill bass than the Corsby. Are the F's that different? Imagine this Hill Bass w/ more rounded upper bouts..pretty close.

From the pics the back has an almost Pearwood look to it. Is it definitely Sycamore? If so where else could there be fine Sycamore during that period?

It's shape definitely doesn't point one way or another too clearly.
Is there anything else that points to some other early European school like Dutch or Scandinavian, Viennese? or does it only seem English or Germanic now?

Sounds like you'd need to explore that viol/gamba or bass violone transitional period a bit more, but I wouldn't leave out that same period in France either. I don't know now, the more I look at the your bass the more it's outline feels French to me.

W/ it's large dimensions and internal bracketing issues could it only be a true double bass or may it have actually been a modified later Bass Viola Da Gamba or "Bass Violone" of some type?

BG

I don't know how big a Bass Violone would be. I have seen only a few and only one was DB size. Viol d'Gambas were small like Cellos I think. As far as the English thing goes and not French or otherwise the materials and Viol construction all point to England according to Biase. On the Back wood, it is the same highly flamed Sycamore as seen on the inner Ribs (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/repair2.jpg). If it is French then it would be an 18th century Bass before all the Bernadel, Gand etc type makers with that Cello outline. This Bass from LeJeune (Paris, c.1785 from World of Basses, Germany) looks slightly similar and completely different that the later French Basses we are used to seeing. Look at the LeJeune and the Mystery Bass side by side!

http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrumente_01/Le_Jeune/front.JPGhttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg

http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrumente_01/Le_Jeune/back.JPGhttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpg

On another website (Healey Violins, UK), we fine the exact Bass in different lighting and also dated c.1790.

http://www.healeyviolins.co.uk/stock/instpics/pairs/bfc209.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpg

On the LeJeune, it has a clear angle break in the upper bout and not a long gentle bend like my Bass.

David Powell
07-21-2007, 10:58 AM
Is it possible to learn anything more definitive about the age of the top, perhaps through dendrochonology (I think that's the word), you know the way they look at annual rings and match them to the pattern in instruments with known dates of make.

It is plausible from the shape that it could be a converted violone. The back construction is more like a double bass though. There were not too many standardized forms of violones and there are records of very large violones with mensurs of up to 114 cm. In Bach's time in Germany the violone grosso was a four stringed instrument tuned in 4ths from low C. These were definitely double bass size instruments. Probably the reason not too many of these large violones are still around is because most of them might now be living out their lives as double basses. But were any of these in use in England and at what period and what configuration? Isn't the first reference to the "great dooble bass" pretty early on in England?

I'm thinking if there were a way to nail down the age of the top within a few years. Attributing the bass to a "best guess" builder would be easier if we knew when the tree lived. Even then, the wood could have been seasoned for many years before use. The age, the remnants of the original methodology of construction, the origin of the wood? I guess if there is no documentation at all, this is real detective work.

Ken Smith
07-21-2007, 11:31 AM
My Bass would measure about 118-119cm or 121 or so over the buttton. The Top is over 119cm to the tip so the Back is close to that. I have heard of Violones in England as far back as the 17th Century but not much before that. I don't know what this was originally other that just 'BIG'.

On the Top age, we know it's from very old growth but being as wide as it is and relatively few cracks and no sinkage, it was something that was either well aged and/or something that came from an old Building and was cut way way before the bass was made. Luthier Peter Eibert told me the Top was so strong because or the winter growth rings combined with the species, age and grade of the Spruce combined. The 'patina' of the Top shows signs of a long life but part of it sheltered in storage. The Varnish is fantastic. Original golden Varnish under the later added red which almost looks original except for in a few spots. This Varnish has help to protect the instruments wood thus far.

I have owned many Basses in my life and have seen tons more. Nothing like this has ever crossed my path.

Arnold Schnitzer
07-31-2007, 07:37 AM
French, early 19th century.

Matthew Tucker
07-31-2007, 09:31 AM
I agree it looks french to me

OK the ffs don't match ... but the outline is close

7/8 french 1800

Ken Smith
07-31-2007, 09:49 AM
While it does have some French flavoring it also has a lot of English on the interior not to mention the wood itself being English Sycamore on the Back and Ribs. Biase thinks it could be a French 'influenced' maker or even a Frenchman itself working in London.

Arnold, for education purposes mainly, please tell us how you will inspect this Bass inside and out to take another guess at its origin once the restoration is complete. This would be your first time seeing this Bass in person unless you have the chance to see it at Biase's shop before he has it all together.

What are the points you look at both directly and indirectly as well as overall?

Ken Smith
07-31-2007, 09:53 AM
I agree it looks french to me

OK the ffs don't match ... but the outline is close

7/8 french 1800

Matthew, I would also look at the edges, arching, upper and lower corners as well as the FFs. I have yet to see a French Bass with FFs like on mine. I agree the upper bout is close but only slightly in outline. In fact, they both look sort of Germanic which was a style both the English and French worked on as far as the Gamba model Basses.

Ken Smith
08-06-2007, 05:23 PM
I agree that the Bass looks just about as French as it does English. I was reading now that one maker (Barbe Pere') gradually tapered the upper bout to the Neck without any angle bend. I have heard this trait before about the French. I am not 100% sure though that the Bend is original. Or is it?

If this is a French instrument (Bass or Violone), then who were the makers c.1800 (+/- 25 years est.) that might have made large Gambas like this? I wish I had as many books on French makers as I do of the English. Probably very few were written and even less written in English!

So, broadening the search to include France adds more possibilities. Now it seems that instead of looking for a Frenchman or French influenced maker working in England we are also be looking for a Frenchman with some use of the half-Purfled style (English Ink Back/Purfled Top) that 18th Century London had occasionally produced.

Ken Smith
08-06-2007, 05:42 PM
I searched the Web for some Barbe basses and found these two of them. here they are along with my Bass for comparison;

(Barbe1/Mystery Bass)
http://www.lemur-music.com/images/BASTOCK157-ft.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg

(Barbe2/Mystery Bass)
http://www.kengonakamura.com/instrument/bass.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg

(The Trio)
http://www.lemur-music.com/images/BASTOCK157-ft.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kengonakamura.com/instrument/bass.jpg

Your thoughts please?

Charles Federle
08-06-2007, 07:23 PM
This bass is a mystery, my instinct tells me French, the body shape strongly seems French to me, but the F- holes really make it unusual. I think that I would really like to see it up close, mostly for the scroll and purfling. A friend of mine just picked a bass similar to this, in that it also has characteristics of English and French bass. The dealer was saying it was a English bass made for the French market. When I play it though and looked a bit closer it just seemed like it had to be French. Seems you might have a mystery on your hands similar to mine. Here is an Xavier Jacquet, his basses are also very similar to Barbe's, I have even compared two and they were identical almost.

http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrumente_04/J-Pillement/Pillement.html

They are different, but similar in some ways as well. Granted it could just be my eyes and digital pictures not agreeing well. Right now, just by what I can see of the purfling I think this bass might be just at the turn of the 19th century or earlier.

http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrumente_04/J-Pillement/Pillement.html

Ken Smith
08-06-2007, 09:16 PM
Are you talking about my Bass or your friends Bass? Mine has only Purfling on the top, wide Purfling. The Back has only a hint of paint. The Maple Scroll, although varnished over in dark red is most likely original to the Bass as it matches in character as well. It was a 3-string and then a 4-string.

I would like to see your friends Bass as well if possible..

David Powell
08-07-2007, 11:04 PM
It is definitely similar to the Barbe basses Ken, but not the f's. It is also a bit stouter to my eye. The Barbe basses look narrower. The French maker in England or English maker in France does seem plausible. I was trying to think of why a French maker might wind up in England and then I remembered "A Tale of Two Cities". If the bass is from the late 18th century, the maker may have been a noble expatriate. I have no idea how one could get beyond the theory to a list of noble expatriates, but the French royalty must have had luthiers in employ if not in the royal family. Those were strange times for many of the French bourgeoisie. Many did leave France if they were affiliated with the royals. Perhaps the maker was wealthy and successful and felt the need to vacate. Do you think that was the period that the bass might have been made?

Ken Smith
08-08-2007, 01:59 AM
It is definitely similar to the Barbe basses Ken, but not the f's. It is also a bit stouter to my eye. The Barbe basses look narrower. The French maker in England or English maker in France does seem plausible. I was trying to think of why a French maker might wind up in England and then I remembered "A Tale of Two Cities". If the bass is from the late 18th century, the maker may have been a noble expatriate. I have no idea how one could get beyond the theory to a list of noble expatriates, but the French royalty must have had luthiers in employ if not in the royal family. Those were strange times for many of the French bourgeoisie. Many did leave France if they were affiliated with the royals. Perhaps the maker was wealthy and successful and felt the need to vacate. Do you think that was the period that the bass might have been made?

Folks, there is very clear and documented history in the early/mid 19th century of several French Luthiers working and moving to England but very few moving 'to' France. I will try to list a few for this reference only but this Bass may easily date from an earlier period. It will show however the movement between the two countries.

Here is a short list of the French working in or moving to England;
G.A. Chanot III from Paris (and the Chanot family of makers. 7 listed in my records into the 20th century.)
Chas. Boullangier (worked for Edward Withers)
Chas. Maucotel (worked for Edward Withers)
Vincent Panormo of Italian dissent worked in Paris and then settled in London. He was back and forth a few times Paris-Dublin-London-Paris-London until he finally just stayed in London.
Bernhard Fendt Sr. was apprenticed to his uncle Francois Fent (French spelling) and remained in Paris until sometime after his death and in 1798 moved to London. The Fendts became one of the best family of makers London had ever seen ranking with makers like the Lott's (Lott Sr. trained by Fendt), Panormo's, Hill's, Forster's, Gilkes, Kennedy's and maybe a few more.

England to France;
The 2 sons of George Withers trained in Mirecourt and returned to work in Soho.
George Hart (I and/or II, son and grandson of John Hart), trained in Mirecourt and employed both French and English workman at 'Hart & Sons'.
'Jack' Lott (J.F. Lott jr.) was a good friend of J.B. Vuillaume and went back and forth for dealings in Paris and was Vuillaume's personal translator whenever he would visit London as he also spoke fluent French.

Paris and London were the two main centers for old Italian Violins in the world. John Hart of London and George Chanot I of Paris were the two best judges of old Italian fiddles in the early/mid 19th century. George Hart would follow in his fathers footsteps.

In some of my Books of British makers, the Frenchmen are not listed at all but rather mentioned only briefly under the Names/Shops they worked in. If I find any more names, I will add them to the list as well as any additional information of interest about the names already listed that worked in both England and France.

Ken Smith
08-08-2007, 02:09 AM
My point for showing pics is to see the similarities as well as differences. Here are 3 Basses side by side. One is English (Corsby), one ??, and one French (Barbe). You can see that between the 'known' English and French Basses shown there are some similarities. The Mystery Bass is a bit in the middle and then some!

http://www.contrabass.co.uk/images/instruments/2488/front.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kengonakamura.com/instrument/bass.jpg

Now, have a look at the Mystery Bass between the Barbe (19th century) and the LeJeune (18th century) Basses;

http://www.healeyviolins.co.uk/stock/instpics/s_bfc209.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kengonakamura.com/instrument/bass.jpg

(Sorry for the size differences. It's the best I can do pulling them from other websites with my limited web skills)..

So, how do they compare now?

Ken Smith
08-08-2007, 02:21 AM
Just for fun, someone with some web skills take my Top and Back and photoshop in some Violin Corners on my Bass and post it. Then, tell me what it looks like. Imagine a police sketch artist adding a mustache, beard or glasses to a face to see what the person might look like as compared to without any of those features. Adding Violin Corners makes the Bass look completely different. The focus of my eye here at home when drawing it takes me away from the shoulders and more to the overall form. The upper bout easily converts with the points added but the softer lower bouts come out kinda pointy when changing the form. Just another something to have some fun with.

Ken Smith
08-11-2007, 11:57 PM
I am having another look at this Bass as compared to mine. The Backs looks closer to each other than the Tops but it may be the FFs that are throwing me off. What do you guys think?

http://www.contrabass.co.uk/images/instruments/2114/2114back.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpg

http://www.contrabass.co.uk/images/instruments/2114/2114front.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg

David Powell
08-20-2007, 09:16 AM
About the only big difference that strikes me is the narrower waist on the other bass. It is a very similar outline and f's aren't that different. Bout proportions are somewhat different.

Ken Smith
08-20-2007, 10:03 AM
About the only big difference that strikes me is the narrower waist on the other bass. It is a very similar outline and f's aren't that different. Bout proportions are somewhat different.

The general outline is a bit similar. The slightly softer lower corners are what got my attention. Still, my Bass may be French and not English. Looking at the two Backs, mine seems to have seen more action and at least as old. The Bass next to it is listed as a Joseph Hill, London c.1765.

Brian Glassman
08-21-2007, 12:14 AM
The general outline is a bit similar. The slightly softer lower corners are what got my attention. Still, my Bass may be French and not English. Looking at the two Backs, mine seems to have seen more action and at least as old. The Bass next to it is listed as a Joseph Hill, London c.1765.


Yes, earlier in the thread I have made this comparison as well.The backs are very similar as are the soft lower bout corners. It may be just the photo, but the Hill bass top shape seems a bit more asymmetrical and "amorphous".

It's the most similar we've discussed, but even so, the shape of your bass still seems to have more of a French feel.

BG

Ken Smith
12-17-2007, 04:38 AM
Back on the ID trail here again it got me thinking about the history of France and England back 200 years ago. Could this Bass be the result of another chapter of "A Tale of Two Cities"?

With both French and English work showing, there is definitely some connection here between the two countries if not broader scoped than just Paris and London.

Ken Smith
12-18-2007, 04:13 PM
I spoke with Biase today about the Bass as he is getting ready to remove the old Neck from the Block and do the Block/Cut work and measure things up once again before doing the Neck graft. As we can't follow any of the old dimensions, shortening the String length requires precision measurements all around including the Graft length, Heel stop etc.

I mentioned to him as we have been discussing the possible French connection here and said "so I am thinking this is probably 18th century French then huh?". Paul replied "no, I don't see anything French here. The Bass is not heavy enough to be French. Let's just go with English then, ok?".

This was basically our conversation a few minutes ago on the phone. Paul has had the Bass apart for just over 3 years and has worked on every inch of the Bass. No one else other than Paul has seen the inside of the Bass other than when I brought Jeff Bollbach over there to meet Paul and show him the Lion. At that time, only the Ribs were viewable as the plates were away in the other room in storage for the summer.

So, French styling we see, at least to some degree but the wood and work all seems to be English. No less than 5 English Dealers/Makers have told me the Bass is English but can't pin a maker on it. Most think it is Northern England c.1850ish. I ask, please show me another example of any Bass from that period or region or combined if possible and I will buy the later Northern theory.

Ken Smith
01-22-2008, 05:32 PM
As I have mentioned previously while discussing the early London makers, the Hill's were at the top of the list then in making Basses.

Yesterday I photographed a beautiful Lockey Hill Bass c.1780s. Although this is a completely different model from my Mystery Bass, the look of the Back and Rib wood as well as the Varnish bore similarities.

Have a look for yourself and let me know what you think. .

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/101_0112.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/LockeyHill/images/hill8.jpg

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/LockeyHill/images/hill2.jpg

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0071.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/LockeyHill/images/hill10.jpg

The wood figuring is not so visible on the Hill pics and only barely visible on the Mystery Bass pics but it's the same type of flame figuring on both Basses. The Varnishes on both also show some red mixed with the gold which has faded in some areas on both Basses.

Matthew Tucker
01-23-2008, 08:01 AM
Have a look for yourself and let me know what you think.

Well ... I think they both look like nice basses, but each one is only about 6" tall, making it a bit hard to see any other similarity.

But the plywood in the background looks almost identical, even though the colour is slightly different

Ken Smith
01-23-2008, 12:00 PM
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/tails_front.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/tails_back.jpg

The 3-string Tailpiece (black stained Maple) shown was with the Bass when I acquired it. Although it is at least 150 years old I don't know if it is original to the Bass. The wear on the center 3-string hole shows that it was used as a 3-string for at least as long it was a 4-string. By the repairs and Gears I found on the Bass I would say it was a 4-string for well over 100 years. The new TP in Cocobolo made for this Bass by MPM may be put aside for use on another Bass in the future. I have 5 other classic Basses that have non-Ebony Tailpieces (stained black) and they each sound wonderful. I think this old 3-string TP will be more fitting than the new Compensating Pecanic TP. The 'Mojo' is something you just can't buy! The weight is another factor. The old 3-string weighs about 7.4oz (210gr) and the Cocobolo TP weighs 11.4oz (322gr). The lighter stained Maple actually sounds much deeper than the Cocobolo TP and has a slower decay to the tap tone (longer sustain) and the Cocobolo does not ring as much as the 3-stringer.

If you have an opinion either way, please let us know.

Eric Hochberg
01-23-2008, 02:11 PM
In with the old, out with the new. From your description, the old sounds better, too. It's also more in character with the instrument visually, which I prefer.

Ken Smith
01-23-2008, 03:06 PM
In with the old, out with the new. From your description, the old sounds better, too. It's also more in character with the instrument visually, which I prefer.

Well, if this helps at all, here's a body and TP shot side by side to compare (not to scale).

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/tails_front.jpg

David Powell
01-24-2008, 12:55 AM
You know, I really like the Pecanic TP and I am in general a big fan of these. However, I lean a bit toward the older one for this bass. For one thing, you will have a nice ebony FB and it looks good when the two match color wise. Secondly, the Pecanic might stand out too much as being new. The old TP has a lot of character and that goes with the bass better. I wouldn't say old is always better, but here, I'm thinking maybe so.

I also see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass.

Matthew Tucker
01-24-2008, 08:22 AM
I also see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass.

Can you explain to me what you see as similar, except that it's a shade of orange and worn in spots? I'm not being facetious; I just can't understand how anyone can see a strong similarity - inferring I suppose that it could be in fact the same varnish - from two small photos taken in different light?? Educate me.

Ken Smith
01-24-2008, 09:38 AM
Can you explain to me what you see as similar, except that it's a shade of orange and worn in spots? I'm not being facetious; I just can't understand how anyone can see a strong similarity - inferring I suppose that it could be in fact the same varnish - from two small photos taken in different light?? Educate me.

Actually, both Basses were 'shot' in the same room. One on the floor and one against the door. The carpet is almost the same shade so the lighting was similar in each pic. Matt, it's also not just the color. It's the layering with the Gold under the Red giving that orange-red glow. Same basic idea in both Varnishes. The Top of the Hill has had many more repairs then the Back and Ribs. The 'over varnish' has darkened the original color quite a bit. Also, being a smaller Bass by comparison, it has been used quite a bit rather then being stored away due to its cumbersome size like the MB.

Also of note are the C-bouts. While one is Violin and one Gamba, they both have similar curves (long and slightly shallow), especially in lower section. The extra curve needed for the Violin corners should be overlooked and imagined as a Gamba.

Age wise, if the Hill which is confirmed is from the 1780s, then how old does the Mystery Bass look in comparison. The Back and sides on the MB are of a softer variety of Maple than used on the Hill. Perhaps it was imported wood.

The FFs though are completely different in thought. The Hill being of the Amati pattern and the MB more Strad like. See below and compare for yourself;

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0078.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/LockeyHill/images/hill13.jpg

Ken Smith
01-24-2008, 09:53 AM
You know, I really like the Pecanic TP and I am in general a big fan of these. However, I lean a bit toward the older one for this bass. For one thing, you will have a nice ebony FB and it looks good when the two match color wise. Secondly, the Pecanic might stand out too much as being new. The old TP has a lot of character and that goes with the bass better. I wouldn't say old is always better, but here, I'm thinking maybe so.

I also see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass.


By the way, I failed to post the length measurements of each TP. The 3-stringer is 14 5/8" long. The MPM is 14 5/8" over the top of the 'G' but shortens towards the 'E' as seen in the pics. For the G, they are about the same size but the 'E' after length would be way different. Whatever that means, we will never know unless I try them both on the Bass and compare. At this point, I will just try the 3-string and ;leave it as-is unless a problem arises.

David Powell
01-25-2008, 01:46 PM
Can you explain to me what you see as similar, except that it's a shade of orange and worn in spots? I'm not being facetious; I just can't understand how anyone can see a strong similarity - inferring I suppose that it could be in fact the same varnish - from two small photos taken in different light?? Educate me. Varnishes and finished wood are notorious for being difficult to photograph accurately, however, the same varnish will always photograph the same way under the same light, in my experience (given the same film or in these days, the same digital camera). I have photographed quite a bit of finished wood professionally, so I have years of first hand experience. One of my clients was Signature Interior Woodworks. They were often tasked with matching a new finish to an old one. This was difficult and getting the two to look the same in a photograph was practically impossible even if the two looked similar to the eye. Vary the light source and it might get better or worse.

What is fairly determinative in this case is that many finishes that appear similar to our eye will not appear similar at all when photographed. Cameras just don't see things the same way our eyes do. The dye peak sensitivities of film or digital cameras are not at the same frequencies as those of our eyes. This means that if two things look the same to our eyes and look the same to a camera or to film, it is even more likely that the substance is the same chemical formulation. Chromatography is a process by which color absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances. This is an abbreviated explanation, but covers the concept.

You asked for an education! :o

Michael Harrison Jr.
01-25-2008, 02:22 PM
I really like the cocobola TP, but I think the 3 string TP would look best on that bass.

Ken Smith
01-25-2008, 02:34 PM
Here's the other TP that Mike made for my converted 5er I used to have. Sorry in advance that I don't have a close-up of it. I don't remember now if it was Cocobolo or Macassar Ebony which was from my own stock that I supplied to him.
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/5str_imgs/m2_f.JPG

He makes great Tailpieces.

Michael Harrison Jr.
01-25-2008, 02:38 PM
very pretty.

Matthew Tucker
01-26-2008, 12:08 AM
What is fairly determinative in this case is that many finishes that appear similar to our eye will not appear similar at all when photographed. Cameras just don't see things the same way our eyes do. The dye peak sensitivities of film or digital cameras are not at the same frequencies as those of our eyes. This means that if two things look the same to our eyes and look the same to a camera or to film, it is even more likely that the substance is the same chemical formulation. Chromatography is a process by which color absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances. This is an abbreviated explanation, but covers the concept.

You asked for an education! :o

So what you are saying in an abbreviated way is that because in two small digital photographs the varnish looks a similar colour to you, even though you have not seen the originals to compare or contrast (as Ken has), and even though your eyes are looking at a digital photograph (which is different to the way your eyes see it anyway) you can still see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass, and this is equivalent to chromatography in that absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances, leading you to believe that it is quite likely those two varnishes are the same chemical formulation? :confused:

David Powell
02-02-2008, 01:54 PM
What I am saying is, of course, what you quoted. :o

I am not saying that Ken's by eye comparison and my comparison of two digital photograph (size is not important where colour is concerned) is equivalent to chromatography. It is based on the same principle though much cruder. To me the varnishes look similar.

Ken Smith
02-03-2008, 12:07 PM
I moved David's post and all the related replies about his Bass to the German School (http://www.smithbassforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24) section "Another mystery bass? (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=626)". Please follow that thread over there.

If any of what I moved belongs here as well in your opinion, please feel free to copy n paste it and re-post it here as well.

Ken Smith
02-07-2008, 11:10 AM
I just tried something interesting here. I drew in violin corners on the Back here and cut it out. I curved in the upper bout above the corner and the lower bout below the corner making violin corners. The upper corners are more pronounced than the lower corners but it has Violin corners now on my pics.

Can anyone here photo shop violin corners in and post it here? This is the Back and try also to do the top. Looking at it with corners make it looks so different.

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg

When I have time, I will ask my son Mike to help me post what I have done as well.

Ken Smith
02-08-2008, 03:10 PM
I talked with Biase earlier today and he sees the original golden varnish under the over-varnished dark red on the Scroll. What does this mean? Well I have updated our opinion to read; "The Maple Scroll, although varnished over in dark red is most likely original to the Bass as it matches in character as well."

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/MysteryUpright/TNleftscroll.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0092.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/MysteryUpright/TNrightscroll.jpg

Ken Smith
02-10-2008, 10:59 AM
I just posted this in the Yankee thread but it actually ties both threads together as Yankee was one of the origins guessed on this Bass and by more than one person.

Can anyone here post a good scanned pic of the Elgar Calvin Baker Bass so we can compare it here. I am mainly concerned with the FFs.

Here is my post from the Yankee thread;
Has anyone here ever seen a Bass by Calvin Baker? There is one pictured in the Elgar book and looks like a German Gamba design.

C.Baker trained and/or worked with Asa White. I have seen a Bass that was by Asa White the same day I dropped off my Mystery Bass at Biase's almost 4 years ago and only vaguely remember the Bass. It was a small 3/4 or 5/8 and had a dark varnish and a Flatback.

I have mentioned before that the Scroll on the 'White Bass although smaller to match the Bass was nearly identical to my Scroll which is on a full sized Bass.

Although my Bass has some English features as well as an early French style outline, American has also been guessed on it several times but with no match other than the White Scroll and by the way, the FFs on the C.Baker Bass which look close.

One of the reasons I never considered New England as a real possibility was became I have never seen an American Bass as European looking as mine. The thing to know here is that the Boston and NY school of Violin makers were mainly European immigrants that trained in Violin making before coming to USA. Both Asa and Jay White though were trained by their father John who made about 12 or so violins and is noted as the first Violin Maker in Boston but an amateur. Jay and Asa are I think credited as being the first professional makers in that area. The Gemunder Bros. George and August came later. George from France and August from German. Both initially trained by their father in Germany. George also worked for Vuillaume before coming to USA.

One thing that concerns me is that many of the Basses in the Elgar book are falsely listed. He accepted pictures in the mail with any named attribution and published it as fact. The 5-String Gagliano Bass is actually an English Bass and has been sold at least twice since as an English Panormo by one of the sons. One of the large d'Salo Basses listed that's in a Canadian Museum is old Brescian but not d'Salo.

Can anyone here post a good scanned pic of the Elgar Calvin Baker Bass? (not the William Baker, that's English and it's the real deal as well)

Ken Smith
03-26-2008, 11:19 PM
Ok, false alarm I guess on the American thing and probably on the French theory as well.

Recently, the main String instrument appraiser from one of the leading Auction houses dropped by Biase's shop and saw my Bass being worked on.

When this person saw the Bass he commented how beautiful it was overall and also how nice the FFs looked. He agreed with Biase that it's definitely some kind of English Bass but that's all I could get.

I asked Biase on the phone how good this guy's eye was for instruments and origins. Biase mentioned that he sees thousands of Violin family instruments from Violins thru Basses and appraises them for Auction so he knows a bit about them.

So, I guess the majority of the opinions from 'informed' people (several British Dealers/Luthiers, Biase who is working on it, a top Auction appraiser and a few others) agree that it's Olde English..:)

Ken Smith
05-12-2008, 03:27 PM
For those of you that have been following the Thread of Mystery and massive Restoration I would like to give an update as to the Porgress of this olde English Bass.

I spoke with Biase last week and the body of the Bass, Top, Back and Ribs are all glued up together and repaired internally. Now he is doing the final measurements for the Block-cut and Neck-set. This will determine the String length and playability of the Bass. He still has to do the Neck-Graft but that will come after he has a correct Block to fit it in.

Here are some pics as a reminder of how the Body looked before it was disassembled. The After Pics will be posted when all done. The outer touch-up work is the last of course so although the Body is done, the Bass itself is nowhere near being completed, just further along, much further!:)

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpg

Ken Smith
05-21-2008, 02:14 PM
I visited Biasie in NYC yesterday to inspect the progress and go over the final measurements of the Neck and String Length alterations. The Neck Graft for the Scroll is well under way and he even put some matching Varnish on the Maple Cheeks I had added. It looks like it belongs now so I was happy about that.

I looks as if we will not be doing any cutting to the Top or Back around the Block other than converting the Dovetail joint to a Mortise and deepening it. Some of the Top was cut under the Fingerboard area to accommodate the deeper Neck-set which before hand just sat on top of the Block and not in it.

The FFs are extremely wide and the old Bassbar we left in was set in a bit from the upper Eye rather than up against it. This Bass can actually take a 3/4 sized 150mm Bridge and sit mostly over the entire 'bar. If we use a 165mm Bridge like the one used before on the Bass is will sit slightly over the center of the 'bar. I would prefer the wider Bridge being that the Bass is so wide. If the 'bar was out further towards the edge of the upper F-eye, it would need something closer to a 180mm Bridge blank.

I expect to have this Bass in my hands to play and break-in over the summer. Somewhere along the way I will decide if I want a C-Extension on it. If it's a Bass I am going to use myself in the Orchestra then I will have the Ext. put on. The Graft is set so that the outer Scroll edge is even with the plane of the Neck under the Fingerboard joint which seems just right for the Extension to be fit around the Scroll.

After 4 years we now believe this Bass to be English and no longer a big Mystery with the exception of the actual maker and date. Because of this I have changed the name from 'Mystery Bass' to 'Olde English'. I have also altered the Webpage quite a bit on this as well as deleting all the question and answer stuff with the various 'blind' opinions given from around the world. This Thread as well as the original TB Thread says it all so the original information and search is not lost. Here is the link to the updated 'Olde English (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html)' page.

Matthew Tucker
05-21-2008, 05:58 PM
Can you share any pictures of the back bracing/blocks/scars on that bass? I'd be very interested to see that.

Ken Smith
05-21-2008, 07:52 PM
Can you share any pictures of the back bracing/blocks/scars on that bass? I'd be very interested to see that.

Matt, the Bass is all glued up now and just waiting for the Neck. I have never taken any pictures of the inside of the Top or Back. I did however take some pics of the Ribs while apart and posted them on my Website. The Neck Block was Shimmed internally so there would be room to cut a deeper mortise and save the existing Block. The Tailblock is the same as well, not replaced, touched or altered.

In this pic you can see the Tailblock which is relatively small as well as some of the Cornerblocks;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/repair3.jpg

All of the Corner Blocks remain as well as the 'low' Bassbar and X-Brace that was in the Bass when I got it. Biase did however add some block wood in the X-area to beef up the center of the Back. He said the Tonetap was better afterwards than before.

The area in the Back by the Tailblock had virtually no wood left at all. He had to inlay a supportive piece inside, a piece outside flush with the Back and then cover it with a decorative bottom wood plate which I supplied from my maple stock (not shown). Most all of the internal repairs were done conventionally. http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0077.jpg

On the upper portion of the Back there was a very fine split starting at the upper Bout edge under that added Neck Button plate on the left (G side) and running thru that dark
horizontal scar and down a bit from there. The crack would not go together flush so on this he used a Violin repair technique as he explained. He sliced a sliver of wood from an area inside the Back near the crack and inlaid it outside where needed so that the wood and rays/grain would match up and not be visible after touch-up when turning the wood as the Flame moves in the light. He then inlaid another piece inside the back to fill the area used for the graft and then put a Patch over that as well. He also antiqued the new/old wood inlay thru that dark scar so it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye. It looked great when he showed it to me and I was quite impressed as well that he went the extra mile to do it the hard way which in the long run, was the best way. http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0074.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0087.jpg

All the pictures shown here were from before the Bass ever left my shop for this restoration over 4 years ago. I will post new pics when it's all done, I promise!

While I was there yesterday I got to play on a beautiful Bass by Paulo Antonio Testore. The Scroll however was not Testore but was told (and I agree) that it's from a much finer maker. He pointed out the details and said it's like Guarneri or Ruggeri, Cremona School. The Scroll was at least as old as the Bass (early 18th century). Then, to take some measurements and do some comparisons we used one of two big Giuseppe Guadagnini Basses he has and made comparisons for string length measurements and various stops. Then he pulled out a Violin by the same exact maker to show (and teach me) the similarities. The Arching was the same as far as curves go as were the FFs and Corners. Biase is also an international Violin dealer on a large scale. He always has several classics in his Violin, Viola and Cello stock as well as a few really great Basses. Although my trip was for my Bass in repair, it quickly turned into a lesson on Vintage Classic Italian makers and their traits. I have known Biase for my entire adult life and he is about 10 years my senior as well. I am truly grateful that he accepted this job. I have learned so much from this experience in the last four years.

Ken Smith
05-28-2008, 11:10 PM
Here is a Bass with a very similar outline to mine;
http://www.germanstrings.de/Englischer-KB.jpg

What do you make of it?

Ken Smith
07-08-2008, 07:45 PM
First off, what is the biggest Neck-Stand (from the Top to the underside of the Fingerboard) you guys have ever had or seen?

My Basses that were recently restored with the Necks re-set average from about 34-37+mm (1 3/8"-1 7/8+). I have heard of some using 40mm as a standard measurement as well.

My Big Bass was supposed to originally have the Shoulders Cut to get it down from a 44" String length to a 42" and then we opted for just a Block-cut instead. Towards the end of the restoration Biase lowered the Neck slightly into the modified Block and pulled the new Grafted Neck out at the heel to over 50mm. he just measured it over the phone and the current dry-fit is about 55mm or 2 3/16" out from the Top.

The Bridge was also placed on the upper most position that shows wear from before which sits just above the FF notches as seen here from the old scars;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0078.jpg

Within the next week or so I will go into NY to meet with Biase and finalize the neck-Stand and String length. We are well within the 42" or less number now but I will do some final measurements when I get there. The Pitch he has the Neck at now is planned for about 10 degrees. I don't know if that is steep or shallow but I will have a look at it in a few days. I have no idea what pitches my other Basses are and I doubt any two are the exactly same as they all feel different when comparing the most recent 3 restored Basses, the Gilkes, Hart and Martini.

Because of several factors about this Bass like the long body length, the long original string length, the extra wide upper bouts and the Rib area at the Block that tapers down to 5 3/4" (from 8 1/2"), Biase feels that this Bass is now very playable without any cutting whatsoever. The Body and Shoulders of this old beauty has been respectfully preserved now 100% to its original build or at least from what we can tell.

Arnold Schnitzer
07-10-2008, 08:42 AM
You mention a "pitch" angle of 10 degrees. Well, that's nice to know, but irrelevant as every bass will be different there. Some basses have setback in the neck block mortise, some are completely flat. Occasionally you encounter a bass where the block angles down in the front. So a ten degree angle on one bass may be perfect and on another be unplayable. What I'm saying is that pitch angle is not a measurement that can be used for comparitive purposes. Also, the amount of overstand you describe above is really excessive; the result could be shoulder strain (in the player) or even a split neck, as a huge amount of stressed end-grain wood will be hanging out of the body unsupported.

Ken Smith
07-10-2008, 02:52 PM
You mention a "pitch" angle of 10 degrees. Well, that's nice to know, but irrelevant as every bass will be different there. Some basses have setback in the neck block mortise, some are completely flat. Occasionally you encounter a bass where the block angles down in the front. So a ten degree angle on one bass may be perfect and on another be unplayable. What I'm saying is that pitch angle is not a measurement that can be used for comparative purposes. Also, the amount of overstand you describe above is really excessive; the result could be shoulder strain (in the player) or even a split neck, as a huge amount of stressed end-grain wood will be hanging out of the body unsupported.

So, what should be the maximum 'overstand' for the integrity of the neck-heel as far as endgrain strength goes be? This Neck is a new graft made of aged European Maple (a Cello Back) which I purchased about 4 years ago from a supplier for the restoration project. The wood is fairy hard and high quality with tight narrow flame.

Also, the Bridge was figured out to be about 7" tall due to the wide 15 1/2" center bouts. I just looked Arnold and noticed that the Prescott, a similar large Bass that you restored also had the same 15 1/2" center bouts and Bowed just fine. Do you happen to recall what the Bridge height was on that Bass? I think the center Top arch is not far off between the two Basses from what I can see in the pictures.

Matthew Tucker
07-11-2008, 04:35 PM
So, what should be the maximum 'overstand' for the integrity of the neck-heel as far as endgrain strength goes be? .

I don't think anyone can give a "maximum overstand". By what you wrote, the depth of the neck block at the top is 5 3/4". An overstand of 2" is about 1/3 of that total glued length, so the leverage moment is considerably higher than a "standard" overstand which would be about 1/5 of the total glued length. Make of that what you will.

If it's playability you are after, I think a canted fingerboard might allow you to reduce the overstand a bit and still get up into the higher reaches comfortably.

shoulder strain (in the player) or even a split neck, as a huge amount of stressed end-grain wood will be hanging out of the body unsupported.

That sounds like something that a decent pair of underpants could fix.

Ken Smith
07-11-2008, 06:24 PM
I don't think anyone can give a "maximum overstand". By what you wrote, the depth of the neck block at the top is 5 3/4". An overstand of 2" is about 1/3 of that total glued length, so the leverage moment is considerably higher than a "standard" overstand which would be about 1/5 of the total glued length. Make of that what you will.

If it's playability you are after, I think a canted fingerboard might allow you to reduce the overstand a bit and still get up into the higher reaches comfortably.

Thanks Matt for your comments. I think by canted you mean pitched like Shimmed up at an angle? If so, pitching just the fingerboard will thicken the Neck up at the Heel and I don't think I want that. Pitching the Neck with fingerboard slightly more is an option. I also discussed this with Arnold on this over the Phone as well and about 2"/50mm is the maximum Overstand considered but again, each case is individual.

On the % of Overstand vs. depth of Block up at the Rib area, this particular Block was the existing one plus some wood was laminated under it to deepen the Block rather than replacing it entirely. This was better I think because an entirely new Block didn't have to be fit and the extra piece laminated gives it some slight cross grain or 'ply' if you will and should act stronger than a single piece. It was also much easier I'm sure just trimming it to the Ribs than a new Block as I mentioned.

We originally planned the Bridge to be about 7" tall with the string height at its lowest but I think I can get away with 6 3/4" and take the 1/4" or so off of the Overstand for starters. Also, I might make some more difference up with a steeper pitch in the Neck set and try for a maximum of 40-44mm of Overstand if possible.

This is a long bodied Bass and wide at the upper bouts as well. My tummy is also not as small as it once was either so only a personal fit like we have planned for later next week will tell me what really feels best. Since this is not any sort of cut, future owners of this Bass can re-adjust all of these numbers as they please. For now, it's how it feels to me that counts.

Matthew Tucker
07-12-2008, 02:08 AM
A canted fingerboard is one that is not exactly parallel with the top, in this case you would thin the bass side of the fingerboard, so that the fingerboard is actually rotated ("canted") towards you slightly. This has the effect of raising the surface under the G string relative to the E side, making it easier to play in TP. I suppose you could set the whole neck at a slight angle as well, but that may look odd unless the whole bass is designed that way. Hmmmmmmmmmmm ...

Ken Smith
07-12-2008, 07:54 AM
A canted fingerboard is one that is not exactly parallel with the top, in this case you would thin the bass side of the fingerboard, so that the fingerboard is actually rotated ("canted") towards you slightly. This has the effect of raising the surface under the G string relative to the E side, making it easier to play in TP. I suppose you could set the whole neck at a slight angle as well, but that may look odd unless the whole bass is designed that way. Hmmmmmmmmmmm ...

Ok, I get it now. Actually, Biase asked if I wanted it tilted/canted and I opted for it straight. I don't like thinning FBs or tilting Neck sets or the plane of the Neck either.

Thanks for the suggestion though. I did measure my other Basses at the root of the Neck to look for any tilt in the plane of the Overstand and they are all pretty much symmetrical as are the FB thicknesses.

I will be in New York next Thursday to go over the final numbers and dry fit with the actual Bass and with a FB tacked on. I will post the outcome of that meeting when I return.

Matthew Tucker
07-12-2008, 06:34 PM
I don't like thinning FBs or tilting Neck sets or the plane of the Neck either.

For what reason?

Ken Smith
07-13-2008, 12:10 AM
Originally Posted by Ken Smith http://www.smithbassforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?p=8986#post8986)
I don't like thinning FBs or tilting Neck sets or the plane of the Neck either.
For what reason?

Well, I prefer my FB as thick as possible to start out and my Neck set parallel. I don't have a problem playing big Basses unless they are real heavy.

Matt, I play these Basses in Symphony Orchestra settings. I use the entire range of the Bass from the Low C-Ext to the end of the FB plus harmonics when written. I have a good idea how a Bass has to play for my needs at least.

This Bass however is not all that heavy. My Prescott was about 30lbs. The Hart is 26lbs, Martini -25lbs, Gilkes -24lbs. I think this is in the low 20s or so when done but I can't tell till it's all done. The Neck is harder wood than the last one and the Gears going in are heavy duty modern English Gears, nice ones. Biase had a few sets custom made a few years back so I requested he sell me a set for this Bass being that it's English as well. This Bass is in many ways at least as big as the Prescott was. The Prescott Back and Ribs were hard flamed sugar Maple which is curly rock Maple. This Bass has softer European Maple/Sycamore (not sure of the exact species) and should result in a much lighter Bass. The Prescott Top was Pine and this is fine grained Spruce.

The old Italian Bass I used for 15 years in NY was a large Bass as well with a low Overstand, wide shoulders (already cut once in the 19th century) and barely a D-Neck. I cheated the Bridge up to get it to 42". Before it was restored the Neck was about an Eb and had a 44" string length. I am no stranger to big Basses.

Fix them good and set them straight and I will play them. That's the plan at least..;)

Ken Smith
07-13-2008, 12:20 AM
A canted fingerboard is one that is not exactly parallel with the top, in this case you would thin the bass side of the fingerboard, so that the fingerboard is actually rotated ("canted") towards you slightly. This has the effect of raising the surface under the G string relative to the E side, making it easier to play in TP. I suppose you could set the whole neck at a slight angle as well, but that may look odd unless the whole bass is designed that way. Hmmmmmmmmmmm ...

Ok Matt, after posting I see that I have left out some important stuff.

Canting/Tilting the Neck towards the E is a bad idea. We have to Bow these Basses and with wide center bouts a parallel setting is needed. If not, the Bow will not clear the lower E-side Bout without an extra high Bridge to compensate. To do that, the Overstand needs to be pushed out and that's reverse engineering in my book.

Thinning a FB is also not good because it can weaken the Neck and cause it to bend over time needing dressing after dressing after dressing until you need a new FB again.

I learned the Dragonetti on two big Basses with fairly high shoulders. My old Italian and my Cello model Bernadel which had some slope but wide upper bouts and deep ribs. I am no stranger to 'reaching over' a big Bass.

Ken Smith
07-18-2008, 05:37 AM
I started this Thread ("To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259785)") about the possibility of cutting this Bass and to get some general opinions form the readers on TalkBass. Currently TB is going over their CUP (Commercial Users Policy) and who knows if I will be able to write about Historic Basses on TB if it is one I own and will be selling. Well, my main business is not the DB but more of a hobby turned business as I work my way up the ladder and sell off what I no longer need or use. Rather than copy this other Long Thread over to here as far as what I posted and questions I answered, I will just show the Link as I have above for those that feel like 'catching up'. Much of what was discussed there has been discussed on the Mystery Thread over on TB as well as here.

Summary: We now believe the Bass to be English with some French styling and it's about 200 years old or so. Also, whatever cut or not cut that has been discussed had been done or not already. I was in NY yesterday and went over all the final measurements (final for now...lol) of the Neck-set and Bridge height as well as Neck heel, String length etc..

Yesterday I was looking over the Block area and noticed how long the Tips of the Top looked sitting above the now deeper set Neck mortise. Biase mentioned that he will fit some Ebony trim along the shoulder area against the Neck and then showed me the 1" pieces he had cut off the Rib/Block area. The Bass looked so normal and correct I didn't even think anything was cut. This WAS the Block area Cut we had talked about last year or so and it looks great now. He saved the pieces just in case whatever! I will bag them up and save them. The cut pieces can also be glued back on but the Bass looks much better with a slight platform and will look great when all done.

Here is the Morelli Block area that was modified a few years ago;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MorelliBass/images/688.jpg

Here is my Bass that is being discussed before the Block Cut was done;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0087.jpg

My Bass will look similar to the Morelli when done. The Bridge will also be set to the upper most position it once was which will have the Bridge feet sitting just above the F-Notches. The Picture shows several previous positions for the Bridge Feet that was used before. Just draw an imaginary line across the Top connecting the F-Notches and envision the Bridge sitting just on top of that line;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0078.jpg

The String length was about 43 3/4"-44" before from what we could measure. Between the slight Block Cut, the regular sized new Neck graft and the 'Bridge Cheat" it will be closer to 41 3/4" when completed.

We marked the octave 'G' on the Fingerboard by just Clamping the Neck in place (it's still being fit). Then I played some imaginary arpeggios and when I went to the octave 'G', I was right on the mark.

Craig Regan
08-25-2008, 03:15 PM
How is the restoration coming along on the "Olde English" bass?


http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/mystery-old.html)

Ken Smith
08-25-2008, 03:43 PM
How is the restoration coming along on the "Olde English" bass?

Well, the last time I was in New York as mentioned above we were checking the Neck overstand. Because of the available time to work on it by Biase, it is running way longer than could have ever anticipated which was under 2 years. It has now been well over 4 years so all I can do is wait.

Everything looks good and the Bass is HUGE.

Next time I go into the city I will report back with another update unless, I am lucky enough to come home with it.

Ken Smith
10-08-2008, 07:34 PM
I drove into NY today and visited the Bass. The Neck is glued in but the Scroll is still not attached yet. The Graft taper is done so it slides right on the Neck Graft but the wood in the Pegbox still has to be cut out inside. Currently he is fitting the Gears which are English Baker copies. Biase mentioned it was easier to work on the Scroll/Pegbox un-attached as I did when I made the outer Cheeks and plugged all of the Gear and Screw holes even before Biase got the Bass from me.

The Bass is looking beautiful now and the good news is that it will be done sooner than later.. lol

I had mailed him a drawing of the Martini Neck width at both the Nut and where it sits on the Block to give him an idea of what comfortable is to me.

Once again I must say that this is a HUGE Bass. Probably by most standards it's a 4/4 size aka Full sized Bass. Some Dealers in Europe or the UK might refer to this as a 5/4 sized Bass as I have seen one listed and it was similar to mine in most dimensions give or take. The String Length will be just under 42". The Bridge will be about 6 3/4"-7" tall. The wide 'C' bouts and wide Upper Bouts sort of demand that to make it the most playable. I have played at least one large Bass in the last few years that did NOT have the attention to playability that this Bass has had in the process and that other Bass was not only hard to play over the Shoulders, the Bow was rubbing the 'C' Bouts as well when playing the G or E-string. All the more reason to pay close attention to these details and the reason why I prefer that the Luthiers that work on my Basses PLAY the Bass.

Craig Regan
10-10-2008, 07:32 AM
The body length of 47" seems much longer than a "normal" size bass. I was curious, how does the extra body length effect how the bass sounds (in general terms) and its playability.

Glad to see the Bass is moving along!

Ken Smith
10-10-2008, 08:27 AM
The body length of 47" seems much longer than a "normal" size bass. I was curious, how does the extra body length effect how the bass sounds (in general terms) and its playability.

Glad to see the Bass is moving along!

Craig, there is nothing 'normal' about the size or rather the overall dimensions of this Bass. It is a 'full sized' Bass. Not a 7/8 and no where near a 3/4 either. Full sized Basses were made to have I suppose a full sized sound as far as the fundamental notes go. Also, it lived most of its life as a 3-stringer.

I have had many good sounding old Basses but it is always the bigger ones with more air to move that sound the biggest and deepest when they are in good repair.

How does this one sound? I have no idea. It has never seen Steel strings from what I can tell and I would also venture to say that it has not been strung up in out lifetime. The Bridge that came with the Bass was cut for Gut Strings. The Tailpiece is a 3-stringer as well with 2 extra holes drilled to use as a 4-string. This is also the size Bass that some Europeans would convert to a 5-string as it has the mass to produce the lows. It did however have an early type C-extension fitted as I did fill some holes from it. The short Scroll/pegbox however barely fits 4-strings let alone 5.

I am hoping that this Bass fits me well and has the sound I want for Orchestra. It is huge but fairly light weight. The Back and Ribs are almost thin to medium as well as the Top. Nothing overdone here as well as the internal work. All of the Blocks are small as well as the Back bracing system and Bassbar. Internally streamlined for this 'soft shoe' giant..;)

Playability wise we have to remember that when this Bass was made, there was not even a written method of how to play the Bass. This was a 3-string that might have been used in Theater, Opera, Church, on the great Ships of the 19th century possibly and probably some Symphony stuff after about 1850 from the later 4 Gears that were on the Bass and the Extension which is probably early 20th century. The demand for Orchestra playing today is far different than it was then. Also, even with all that we know about the difficulty of large Basses, we still see new ones being made with big upper bouts, high shoulders and long lengths. It is so expensive to modify and make a big Bass playable for modern standards. Why then are new Basses still being made that might not be cost effective to modify for easier playability?

This Bass will play at just under 42" string length. The Block lowered, the Shoulder tips cut down about one inch to shorten the upper bout reach and the Bridge sitting just on top of the F-notches to compensate. The Neck is pitched nicely for the bridge height so the bow will clear the Bouts and the the Neckstand is out at about 40mm or so. It was planned a bit more at closer to 50mm but I suggested to Biase to bring that down a bit for Neck strength closer to 40mm and pitch the Neck in the Block back a tad more to make up for the difference to achieve the Bridge height which was about 7" before as well on the old Bridge.

For playability you have to measure your octave reach so it's not too far over the shoulders. Also, the area where your arm goes over the Shoulder should be marked and measured to the top of the Bridge foot. This is a play-factor measurement. Check on a few Basses that play better or worse in that area and take that measurement. This is as important as any to be able to reach over the shoulders and hit the note where you think they should be, 'for you'. Some Basses regardless of how great the may be might just not fit a particular player due to dimensions alone. You are trying to match up two bodies here, yours and the Basses'. What good is a great Bass if you can't play it?

Ken Smith
11-01-2008, 12:55 AM
I drove into NYC today for some other unrelated Bass biz but while I was there we went over some final details.

The Scroll is now grafted to the Neck and the Neck is glued in the Block with a nice Ebony Fingerboard on it. The Neck itself is not yet shaped and nor is the Fingerboard done. These are the areas we went over as far as the width at the Nut and ends of Neck at the Block along with the desired string spacing centers at both the Nut and Bridge. These factors combined will help to create the Neck/Fingerboard Taper.

Now for a few 'cool' details. This Bass is big and WIDE. The Bass Bar is set in a bit but that is because if it wasn't we would have to make or buy a custom Bridge. A normal 3/4 Bridge is about 150-155mm wide measuring the outer most part of the Feet. Bridges for bigger Basses from 7/8 to 4/4 or so measure about 160-165mm. The Bridge that came with the Bass which is about 50 years old or so is 170mm wide. If the Bar was pushed to its furthest point of the upper F-hole Eye it would require a 190mm Bridge to match the width of the upper Eyes. We will use the existing 'old' wide Bridge with regular aluminum adjusters which I happened to have cut and tapped the feet myself about 2 years ago as a test before doing my first actual adjuster job for one of the Corsini's I had back in 2006. Turns out I did just fine the first time because Biase said my test piece was usable as-is. I didn't think the old Bridge was usable anymore but it fits just fine.

The Gears to be used are English Baker copies made some 20 years ago or so by "Fawcett", the same guy that made the English mechanical C-Extensions. Biase just happened to have a set of these lying around for a special occasion. I am more than happy that my Bass qualified and will get that set which is in the process of being fit.

The Tailpiece as mentioned awhile back will be the 3-string stained Maple TP that was modified with 2 additional holes when it was converted to a 4-string Bass.

The End Pin will just have an Ebony socket and a short Peg maybe only 3" tall that I whittled myself recently with just a rubber tip at the bottom. If need be, I will make another one with a spike for non-slip needs. I can also make other lengths if needed. Down the road after breaking in this Bass I can also change the entire system to the modern Carbon Fiber unit if necessary. The Peg I'm using was originally made for the Mougenot Bass I bought recently as a test idea. That Bass had an endpin system already so I decided to put the Peg where it's needed most.

Besides using either older or traditional components, the Bass even after its restoration still retains the Bassbar and X-Brace system from the 19th century. This Bass from what I can see has never seen a steel string. Rather than get overly busy fixing what ain't yet broke, I thought it best to give it a chance with its short & low inset 3-string Bassbar and x-brace while it breaks in and makes its first musical Bass sound since most reading this post were born.. lol

The x-brace is the 3rd bar system this Bass has had. Scars from the original 'Bars and secondary lower Bar is still visible. I think some of this work was previously done for experimental purposes as the early damage to the Back is at a minimum.

All 4 corner blocks are still original. The Bottom Block might be as well. The Neck Block looks to be its first 'real' Block because it appears that this Bass was most probably born 'Blockless'! The 'first Block' was cut at the top for the deeper Neck-set and the Block beefed up lower down to add support. This same technique was done on my Hart Bass which Block was original but needed some 'beef' added as well.

Today I measured on the blank unfinished Fingerboard where the octave 'G' is with a bit of Rosin. The Bass will be 42" mensur so I marked it at 21", half way. Then I bowed the Bass at the edge of the Fingerboard while playing imaginary scales, arpeggios, excerpts and some doodlin' as well. The G was just about where I want it. The Neck-stand which I also discussed awhile ago is 'out there' at 48mm. Most of my Basses average from 32-36mm so this one is almost 1/2" further out. With these bigger, broader and wider shoulders, any help that can be done with the Neck-set is really needed. The Bass feels easy to play and get around but mind you, I was only playing on air!

Being that I have never played or even heard this Bass, we are doing things on the 'basic' in a few places as mentioned above. It would not be a surprise to me one bit if one or more things had to be re-done in the first few years including pulling off the Top again if further internal work is needed. This is partially because it is just now getting converted to a modern steel string Bass from Guts and has the internal structure partially of a Gut 3-Sting Bass. Being olde English I would venture to say it was first tuned G, D, A (high to low) which was the tuning in fourths that was used in England back then.

As of now, I hope to be playing this Bass before Christmas or shortly thereafter. If it sounds and plays like I expect it to, I will have a C-Extension made for it sooner than later..

Ken Smith
11-02-2008, 05:52 PM
It's a slow day this Sunday and my Brain which is always ticking just came up with.. 'What do we call this Bass?"..

I don't mean the actual maker or even the School of making which by the way the 'Hill School' was just mentioned to me while looking at the Bass in general and the style of the FFs.

I am looking for a new Web Page description for this Bass. For instance, I have a beautiful Pollmann that is from Mittenwald which is an area in Bavaria. I named it "Bavarian Beauty (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/pollmann1/index.html)". I also have a nick name for my Gilkes (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/gilkes/index.html) which is not in print. Because he worked for the Royal maker William Forster and because the wood, workmanship and condition which I attribute partially to the care that has been givin to it over time, I call it "The Royal Gilkes".

So, for this one I have been thinking about a name and something just popped into my head a few minutes ago. I know this is more of a game type post than anything factual but combining the size, quality, believed origin and the gentle corners upper and lower which are quasi Guitar/Cornerless, the name "English Gamba Supreme (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html)" came to mind.

So, what name would you like to give it? Don't be shy. Have a little fun and throw your two cents in..

Eric Hochberg
11-02-2008, 09:52 PM
OK, I'll bite. The Triple B Gamba. Now, what does "Triple B" stand for?

Ken Smith
11-02-2008, 10:01 PM
OK, I'll bite. The Triple B Gamba. Now, what does "Triple B" stand for?

What does it stand for?:confused: Humm.. a riddle for a riddle..

Ok, the 'B' stands for Bouts? The Bass has 3 bouts, upper, middle and lower.. Am I getting warm yet?

Or, the 'B' stands for Bass? But what's the 'triple' mean then.. humm?:confused:

Keep at it..

Eric Hochberg
11-02-2008, 10:09 PM
Ok, my idea(s) is(are) a little more playful, maybe you'll think frivolous.

I'm picturing "The British Big Boy Gamba". Or how about this one, "The Bountiful Big Ben Gamba"?

Oh, I'm on a roll. "The Bodacious, Big Bouty Gamba".

It's getting painful now, I think. :o:eek:;)

Anselm Hauke
11-03-2008, 04:13 AM
Ok, my idea(s) is(are) a little more playful, maybe you'll think frivolous.

I'm picturing "The British Big Boy Gamba". Or how about this one, "The Bountiful Big Ben Gamba"?

Oh, I'm on a roll. "The Beautiful, Big Bouty Gamba".

It's getting painful now, I think.

i think "big ben" would be adequate

Ken Smith
11-03-2008, 05:21 AM
i think "big ben" would be adequate

Big Ben (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ben)? Really?.. lol.. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Clock_Tower_-_Palace_of_Westminster%2C_London_-_September_2006-2.jpg/279px-Clock_Tower_-_Palace_of_Westminster%2C_London_-_September_2006-2.jpg

oooooook..;)

David Powell
11-17-2008, 02:06 PM
+1 for Big Ben!:o

Glad to hear everything is coming together so well with this bass. Years ago when I joined (eh, that other forum), it was to discuss this actual restoration with you, Ken. How time flys..

Ken Smith
11-17-2008, 04:49 PM
+1 for Big Ben!:o

Glad to hear everything is coming together so well with this bass. Years ago when I joined (eh, that other forum), it was to discuss this actual restoration with you, Ken. How time flys..

The new/old Fawcett English Gears are just being fit as we speak. I also made in the shop here a book matched pair of Macassar Ebony Neck caps to fit the modified cut Block and sent them to NY. The work is slow but the Bass is looking beautiful so far.

Ken Smith
12-05-2008, 07:31 PM
Nearing the Finish line, Biase called me yesterday for some depth measurements of the Neck at the 1st Position and at the 'D' by the Heel. I walked over to the Martini with 2 small rulers. I used one as a straight edge against the Back of the Neck and measured with the other. I also checked it with Dial Calipers deducting the String and Nut height as best I could. I came up with 24-25mm deep tapering to 28-30mm. I checked another Bass that had Grafted Neck by Arnold and it was just under those numbers. When the Martini first came over I had Biase put a new Fingerboard on it. The Neck overall turned out too thick as the original Neck had never been trimmed down so I did it myself. Later on while fitting the C-Extension Arnold just cleaned up the Heel and Pegbox underside with some matching Varnish as I only had some stain on it I mixed up. When it was determined that the Martini actually needed a Graft to replace the overly soft Italian Oppio Neck, I asked Arnold to copy the Martini Neck as exact as possible because I was used to it and it was my favorite playing Bass. He did as I had asked.

After giving the Neck depth numbers to Biase I called Arnold to ask what his numbers are normally. I had only the Pollmann in the shop to compare it to. That Bass was done earlier in the year but I wasn't sure about his standard shop measurements. Turns out that his numbers are about 2-4 mm less from top to bottom. Still, I gave the numbers that were on the Martini. Then, I went and measured the Martini again and they were as given the day before to Biase.

A few weeks earlier I gave Biase width measurements of both the Nut and Heel of the Neck using the Martini as well. Hopefully the 'Mystery Monster' will be as 'playable friendly' as the Martini when it's all done.

Right now, I am hoping for a Christmas present.. A BIG one.. lol

Craig Regan
12-06-2008, 05:52 PM
You should consider naming it the "Biase Bass" for all the work he has done!

Ken Smith
12-06-2008, 10:59 PM
You should consider naming it the "Biase Bass" for all the work he has done!

Well, he was the one chosen for this Bass but remember, I have had other Basses brought back to life by Arnold and never named one after him. Jed even has one of my Basses now as well for a full restoration and also one with Nick Lloyd.

The Mystery Bass is the first project I started when I started back playing and the one that has taken so long. This is mainly due to Biase's work time on it. He didn't really want the job or had the time for it but I convinced him to do it as I didn't know anyone else at the time.

Maybe the longer waiting time between steps has helped in the stability, maybe. He mentioned that he glued some of the Rib cracks over and over as they re-cracked as he straightened them out. The Ribs were wavy across the width and warped aya from the Blocks when I got the Bass. Now it looks pretty much flat across them. The Bass lays on either side on the floor nice and flat, even. Like re-bending wood. It takes time till the wood takes. In a case like this, his goal was to get everything back to where it used to be without forcing anything.

The varnish touch up looks beautiful as well. The Bass looks pretty good on the website from before the restoration but it looks way way better now. The Patina is a sight to see in person. I hope the new pictures I take when I update the webpage looks as good on-line as it does in person.

Craig Regan
12-07-2008, 07:19 AM
Do they leave the little tag behind that says "Repaired by... Date...."?
For some reason, I find these labels fascinating; they are like little clues on the history of the instrument.

Ken Smith
12-07-2008, 10:46 AM
Do they leave the little tag behind that says "Repaired by... Date...."?
For some reason, I find these labels fascinating; they are like little clues on the history of the instrument.

You know, I'm not sure if Biase uses labels at all. I have never seen one. In 1973 Peter Eibert restored my old Italian Bass just after I got it. About 2 years later Biase popped off the top and trimmed away some of the excess wood from Eibert's repair and the Bass opened up quite a bit. That was the last repair while I owned Bass and then sold it a few years after I retired from playing.

Neither repair/restoration were marked with a Luthier's label. The only label that was ever in the bass while in my possession was the Giacomo Rivolta label which was printed but had some hand written stuff as well about his medals won and his revival of the School of Stradivari. All of this is known history but the Bass was dated 1822 on the label. I don't know if the silver and gold medals (argento in di quella d-oro/?sp) had been attained by that date.

Back to the English Gamba, this BIG Baby (or is it officially 'Big Ben' now?) doesn't have a single marking or Stamp anywhere inside or out, not even in pencil. English Basses often have external and/or internal stamps with the makers name. Some of them have internal pencil inscriptions from either the maker and/or past repairers. The English like to write. It looks like this Bass was repaired in New England in the mid 19th century. A 3-piece X-brace replaces the traditional cross bars as evident but the shadows of scars inside the Back. In the lower Bout we see the oldest scar in that area of twin rail cross bars. Two bars of about 1/2" wide each and less than an inch between them. This is 'olde' English Gamba construction. Viol d'Gamba, not Gamba cornered Basses I mean. This was a major find in the ID process as well as the age guesstimate. Also, the Top is purfled but the Back has a few signs or inked lines. This is also a feature of the Olde English. Most authorities place the Bass in the Northern part of England in the mid 19th century. This mainly because of its Gamba shape I believe. The FFs however and their placement is nothing Northern to my eye but rather a refined or modified Strad style 'F' shape but rather long like we see on Gagliano school Basses. Gagliano (Alassandro and possibly one of his brothers) reportedly worked in Cremona in both the shops of Nicolo Amati and Stradivari. Clearly an early Italian influence is here which started in London with makers as early as Peter Wamsley (c.1715-1751) who overlapped Strads period (Strad died in 1737). The English mainly copied Stainer then as well as the earlier Amati's, Andrea & sons. It would be almost 50 years before the Strad model took foot in London gradually replacing the Stainer and Amati stylings. With this knowledge and the evidence shown on the Bass we place the dates from 1775-1825. Biase thinks it is a very old Bass made way before the Tarr school of makers ever came to be. The only Basses I have seen that resemble it were attributed to George Corsby (with internal pencil inscription inside) and Joseph Hill which Biase also thinks it looks a bit Hill'ish especially in the FFs. I have seen at least one other English Gamba style Bass made slightly on the Germanic/Mittenwald pattern like the Neuner, Hornsteiner and Seitz models but that was a large 3/4 or 7/8ths size by the numbers. Another Corsby believed to be possibly the brother of George that dates a few years earlier than George in London is in Northampton. His dates are up until 1780 or so and then we see George from 1785 dated by his known works. They say in the scriptures that their work is similar but neither or their work is prolific. In the later years of George he becomes more of a dealer in London than a maker. A pattern we have seen with many English makers as it was a sign of the times and more profitable in that period as well. My theory on them drawn from the dates and opinions that the work is similar is this. George Corsby started in Northampton (known for mostly Basses and Cellos) and then moved to London. As a maker ages, so does his work mature, usually. At least we see evolvement in many makers especially in this time period where the Double Bass was just coming into its own in a big way. The c.1800 Corsby I have seen pictured is very similar to this Bass as are 3 Joseph Hill Basses (attributed or confirmed). The Hills look like earlier work and are dated so. The Corsby is a full sized Bass like this one. A sign to me possibly that this size was needed to fulfill a purpose, the new Symphony orchestra. Remember now, England up until 1800 mainly preferred chamber music over the new Orchestra music coming about and seen by visiting Orchestras from Germany. The English making mainly 3-string Basses while the visiting Germans played 4-string Basses. The big flourish in Double Basses I believe came about with the model of Panormo which were more or less full sized Basses and the great Dragonetti who brought his d'Salo to London. The London Gamba model Basses as well as the Cello models made earlier would soon vanish from the work bench. The long forgotten Gamba 4/4 models are sadly overlooked now. With playing styles being as advanced as they are today, these bigger Gambas are in need of modifications to suit todays playing technique. Block cuts are quiet common these days to shorten the playing length we need. I know a Hill in London was recently shortened as well as my big Gamba Bass. A 4/4 Panormo school Bass was recently modified with a block cut as well.

I have to say this though. Time aside, Biase has payed special attention to the playability and originality of this Bass. I am sure any of the other good Bass Luthiers out there today could have done this as well but credit is due no less to a Luthier that very few of us know.

When I get the Bass and start breaking it in, I will report back on the playability as well as the sound. The new grafted Neck was moved out quite a bit and the pitch is modest rather than extreme. The Bridge height is about 7" but moved up about an inch with the bottom edge of the bridge feet parallel to the upper cut of the F-notches. If the bridge were lower, it would need to be even higher. Let's just wait and see how she plays an sounds.;)

Ken Smith
03-20-2009, 09:15 PM
Big Ben, aka The Gamba Supreme is finally home. I just took off the old string set used for the basic set-up and put a new set of Evah Weichs (nice strings by the way).

I can't talk. It is one freaking amazing bass. Big too I may ad but a floor shakin' sound to reckon with.

I don't know when I will post new pics but I will as soon as I can being that I need help from my web guy or my son Mike.

I will post the new measurements though and start describing a few things as well as updating the 'page' being that is is done. It still needs personal set-up work for my taste but usually bass buyers like set-ups other than what I use so it will be left alone for awhile as I break it in.

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 12:06 AM
As promised (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html)..

This; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/images2/backclose.jpg From this; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/100_0085.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0085.jpg

I have played very few Basses in this class sound-wise.

Please look at the link above (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html) and give me your opinion of the before and after pics. If you like, you TBers can go over there to the Thread I Started (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118707) a little more than 5 years ago and post the new page link as a conclusion to the Mystery Bass and the long wait to see the final product. If this Bass had a C-Extension, I would be sheddin' right now for next weeks concert with it. I was thinking of just tuning down but that's a bit much to think about with a new Bass. The last time I did that was the week I got the Martini. I was so excited, I wrote in the fingering on all the notes below the A-string as I tuned down to D and C a few times in the program. Now that I have a C-extension, I've become lazy.. lol ;)

So, does it look like it was worth the wait? :confused:

Steve Alcott
03-24-2009, 12:33 AM
It looks really fine, Ken. I especially like the way Biase dealt with the way the neck sits in the shoulders; to my eyes, it looks better than original in that area. You should make sure he leaves a note somewhere inside documenting his work. A hundred years from now, someone will be grateful. Mazel tov.

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 01:05 AM
It looks really fine, Ken. I especially like the way Biase dealt with the way the neck sits in the shoulders; to my eyes, it looks better than original in that area. You should make sure he leaves a note somewhere inside documenting his work. A hundred years from now, someone will be grateful. Mazel tov.

Biase put a repair label inside under the re-built Neck Block. He also wrote something inside the Back. On just about every new piece of wood for cleats and such, I see 2005 or just '06, '07, etc. penciled on each piece he glued in. When this Bass is opened next for whatever, it will be obvious what is his work and what is not. He also mentioned that he only did touch-up and French Polish in regards to the Varnish of the Bass rather then re-coat the entire instrument in clear or colored Varnish as we see occasionally on other large restorations.

Phil Maneri
03-24-2009, 06:04 PM
That work is breathtaking.

I'd love to see that in person.

I'll leave tonight......

Anselm Hauke
03-24-2009, 06:51 PM
hi ken
congratulation, nice bass, interesting to see the pictures.
one question:
here:
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass2.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html)
you write:
"The upper and lower Back have decorative raised plates added for structure as well."

was it the only possible way to add these plates at the outside of the bass?

i am asking only for my personal curiosity in luthiery, this is not meant as criticism to the work of mr. biase.

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 07:47 PM
hi ken
congratulation, nice bass, interesting to see the pictures.
one question:
here:
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...that_bass2.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/index.html)
you write:
"The upper and lower Back have decorative raised plates added for structure as well."

was it the only possible way to add these plates at the outside of the bass?

i am asking only for my personal curiosity in luthiery, this is not meant as criticism to the work of mr. biase.


In my opinion, there was no way to avoid adding them.

When I got the Bass, there was no wood at all behind the bottom block (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/100_0077.jpg), just some black colored wood putty or something. This Bass was not even possible to string up when I purchased it. Biase had to do an inlay under the external Inlay first to replace the missing wood of the Back for the lower Block fit first. Last Friday was the first time in just over 5 years I was even able to play and hear the Bass.

At the upper Block, a piece was already added (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/100_0074.jpg). Behind it was some original wafer thin wood with two HUGE brass screws going into the upper block under the Neck Heel. I had Biase remove the remaining screws that were not cut away from the Block and Back and plug the holes with wood. This area needed an internal repair as well. Now the Neck and Back upper Block area are free from metal and 'patch-type' repairs.

I made the Plates here in my shop from the same block of wood that I cut the Scroll Cheek wood out of and sent them to Biase. He faxed me a template of the areas that needed to be covered. When He got the wood (plus some extra pieces) he called to tell me he didn't like the grain pattern because it was flatsawn and the back was perfectly quartered. He took the wood that I sent him and made book matched looking pieces with more of a quartered grain and added an Ebony center strip to each plate to match the strip running up and down the Back which seems to be an old repair inlay from the joint expansion. These are some of the details this 'old schooler' went thru to make this Bass as close as possible to a 'period-type' restoration. I have seen decoritive back plates on a Busan and a Goffriller as well as some other Basses and if done right, they look beautiful. Some however do not look as nice as others.

The Neck Block/Shoulder area 'Cut' which I forgot to photograph for the website looks very similar to the Neck platforms on both my Hart (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/hart/hart-restore-images/hart13.jpg) (100% original) and my Block-cut ex-Morelli (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/morelli/images/688.jpg). This Bass is capped at the Block as well with some Macassar Ebony cut from our own lumber stock we use for Smith Basses, bookmatched pieces no doubt! The Neck Graft is from an aged European Cello Back billet that I purchased 5 years for the restoration job. The billet sat in Biase's shop untouched for about 4 years before he started the Graft process. The neck piece cut from the 'back stock also sat around for months until he got around to it. This was actually a good thing for the acclimation process of the wood once it's been cut from a larger piece of stock.

I took Neck, Nut, Fingerboard and Bridge measurements from 3 of my best and favorite basses here to give him the specs to ensure personal comfort on the final set-up. I think Biase left things a bit heavy so I would have room to trim it down later. You can't add it back once it's been cut away! The Fingerboard Camber is about the best I have had which is only about 1-mm end to end. This is also the thickest and longest piece of Ebony I have had on a Bass as well. The highest note on this monster is an F which is a 7th above the fingerboard previously on the Storioni.

This Bass is huge and has a similar punch and crunch of air movement to my Storioni attr. Cornerless Bass. The Hart use to feel a bit broad to me getting over the Maggini-like shoulders as compared to the Martini but after playing this Bass for a few days, the Hart feels more like a Solo bass in comparison. Whom ever ends up with this Bass, I doubt it will be used for Solo Rep.:eek:

Oh, and by they way with the current set-up with the Evah' Weich's, the Pizz for jazz is like 'Killer Joe' in your face..:cool:

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 07:48 PM
That work is breathtaking.

I'd love to see that in person.

I'll leave tonight......

Ah.. meet me for breakfast at the diner..;)

I will bring my wallet for the check, you bring your chops for the bass.. :D

Anselm Hauke
03-24-2009, 07:53 PM
thanks for the detailed answer!

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 08:39 PM
Hey, I have to thank Arnold Schnitzer here for his advice along the way. Also, if not for him, I would never have known what a block-cut was. I feel in a way that Arnold was somewhat of a 'ghost' on this project as I guided Biase thru the 'cut' process of the Shoulders but only after going thru several restorations and alterations of Basses with Arnold.

My ex-Morelli and ex-Prescott all needed String Length shortening and I was like a student in class discussing the planning of these Basses and taking mental notes. You gotta be 'mental' to some degree to take all the risks that I have with reviving all of these dead and sometimes oversized awkwardly playing Basses.

I consider Arnold to be my teacher in this part of the process to date. A lesson for all here is when having a bass adjusted, fixed, repaired, fully restored or even 'brought back from the dead' (like I have done many times now), try to learn as much as possible about not just 'what' was done but 'Why' it was done that way. The Why is often more important then the How!

The two possible plans originally discussed with Biase for the 'Cut' were either an actual Shoulder Cut and Rib Re-bending/shaping or his second suggestion of cutting the Upper Bout Ribs 2" and sliding them down the Corner Blocks. Then without re-shaping/bending the Ribs/Shoulders, trim the Top and Back plates to match the lowered Shoulders and re-purfle the Top area that was Cut. A new Neck Block might also be required depending on which way we went.

Then, after working with Arnold with restoration planning for a few years on the Basses I had aquired gradually the thought came to me. After several 'cries' from on-line readers of a similar Thread on TB saying to me 'Don't Cut the Bass', I thought.. "Why not do a Block Cut like Arnold did on the Morelli?"

I explained to Biase exactly what to do and how much to Cut up at the tips of the Top and it was done. The Block itself that is in the bass is not original anyway as we suspect this bass was Blockless in the Gamba style sense of the word. The Block in the Bass was dovetailed where the neck sits on Top of the Block, not IN the Block. So, cutting about an inch off the Block, adding some wood to the underside of the Block to make it extend deeper into the Bass and setting the Neck INSIDE the Block over an Inch instead of on Top of the Block made the String length reduction a Breeze. Only the Tips of the Top were Cut and the original Purfling around the Shoulders still remain intact. The String length is now just under 42" with the Bridge a bit above the notches from a length before of about 44". I remember Arnolds words in the beginning like "good luck on getting that Bass down to 42". Well, my good luck came from none other than Arnold himself with his Block-Cut idea that I borrowd and conveyed to Biase.

Arnold?.. Thank You.. Lunch is on me next time regardless of whose turn it is..:rolleyes:

Ken Smith
03-24-2009, 08:46 PM
thanks for the detailed answer!

I'm just getting Started!

David Powell
04-14-2009, 11:58 AM
And so it is! This bass and the restoration of it brought me into bass forums as a participant instead of a "reader", for better or worse. What an inspiration, Mr. Smith. Thank-you for doing this one so proud.

I think the process on this bass encapsulates what I have felt about musical instruments ever since my father passed several years ago and I adopted his old Harmony 173, a rather humble classical guitar, but with one of the most beautiful spruce tops I've ever seen. It too was unplayable when I brought it home, and now it intonates quite well after my efforts.

We don't really own these instruments;- ever. Once created they have an immortal potential that humans do not. We are at best humble caretakers that can make some art from them in a single lifetime, but these instruments are just getting started on their many journeys, however old we perceive them to be. You brought it back to life, Ken. Now it's your turn to create with it. Best to you always,

Silversorcerer

:o

Ken Smith
04-14-2009, 01:43 PM
And so it is! This bass and the restoration of it brought me into bass forums as a participant instead of a "reader", for better or worse. What an inspiration, Mr. Smith. Thank-you for doing this one so proud.

I think the process on this bass encapsulates what I have felt about musical instruments ever since my father passed several years ago and I adopted his old Harmony 173, a rather humble classical guitar, but with one of the most beautiful spruce tops I've ever seen. It too was unplayable when I brought it home, and now it intonates quite well after my efforts.

We don't really own these instruments;- ever. Once created they have an immortal potential that humans do not. We are at best humble caretakers that can make some art from them in a single lifetime, but these instruments are just getting started on their many journeys, however old we perceive them to be. You brought it back to life, Ken. Now it's your turn to create with it. Best to you always,

Silversorcerer

:o

Well, I agree about the Caretaker position. Besides all the work that has been done, it is still not where I want the Bass. I have it packed up and am sending it down to Jeff Bollbach to have a few things tweaked as well as having him make and install a Chromatic C-Extension like the one he made for my Bisiach labeled Bass (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Bisiach/images/bis5.jpg).

The Neck heel was way higher than what I wanted but Biase wanted to stop at that point and have me play it for awhile before removing any wood that can't be replaced. I had giving him the Neck/Heel specs off of my Martini to sort of copy but still he left it a little heavy.

After a single rehearsal I put the Bass away until I could have this done. Last week I made the decision that driving back and forth to NYC a minimum of 2 times is more work and expense than if I just cut it down myself to what I really want which can only be done here by tweaking it daily as I play the neck in an unfinished state until it's just where I want it. I now have the neck just about there but the top of Heel and throat underside under the Peg Box needs to be Varnished back up to match. I decided that it would be best to just let Jeff finish this off from here as well as a few touch-ups along with the Extension job than driving into the city which will cost me more in time that it's worth even thought the work will be free of charge from Biase.

So, there will eventually a whole new set of pictures taken on this when the C-Extension is done and the re-carved Neck & Heel are all varnished up. The Heel will look about half the size as it does now as well as the neck and profile being thinner overall to better match the Martini.

It's not over till it's over..;)

Eric Swanson
04-15-2009, 08:09 AM
Dear God, that is a beautiful bass.

Congratulations, Ken, on having the faith and vision to make this happen.

I hope that playing it gives you many hours of joy.

Ken Smith
04-15-2009, 09:52 AM
Dear God, that is a beautiful bass.

Congratulations, Ken, on having the faith and vision to make this happen.

I hope that playing it gives you many hours of joy.

I should know in a day or so if I have my booth/room set for the June ISB (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=1021). If so and all goes well with Jeff's work, 'Big Ben' will be on display at the Show along with a few of my other Basses that are fully restored and sale-ready.

Ken Smith
06-01-2009, 04:25 PM
I should know in a day or so if I have my booth/room set for the June ISB (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=1021). If so and all goes well with Jeff's work, 'Big Ben' will be on display at the Show along with a few of my other Basses that are fully restored and sale-ready.

'Big Ben' is sitting in the rack a few feet from my desk. I picked it up Saturday and even stopped by Arnold's to show him the Bass as well. My Evah's were there to be put on my Lott model Bass after the Extension but that job was put on hold so I put them on 'Big Ben' instead and used ones of Arnold's benches while he touched up my modern Lott Bass which is now ready for the ISB as well.

Big Ben, aka Gamba Supreme will be at the ISB. It's a Bass NOT to miss! Trust me on that. The sound is in the class of my attributed Storioni. An Organ with Strings on it!

The C-Extension came out beautifully as well so a big thanks to Jeff Bollbach who also did a few tweaks on the Bass to say the least. "Dr. Arnold" had the last word as I had him look it over just in case he had any thoughts of his own.

This is a Bass I could keep and use for everything short of a tight spaced Pit job as she does have some girth on her to contend with, upper and lower. She measures about 60"-48"-86" in case you were thinking of taking her out for a spin..:p

Ken Smith
06-18-2009, 04:01 PM
Ok, I am back from the Show now a few days and recovering from the long hours I have been putting in over the last few weeks between my two branches of the business, the DB's and the Smith products.

Big Ben as we now call it (or is it Gamba Supreme? I forgot..) was a HIT at the ISB. Everyone who played it stopped after a few notes or just after the 'A' sting and paused before continuing. I was told by many people that it was the best Bass at the ISB. Just about every dealer came over to check it out as well after hearing all the talk about it.

Several of them examined the bass carefully trying to figure out what it was. They all were puzzled and said things like, 'I'm not sure", "Very difficult, very..", I'll have to think about it", "ENGLISH".. the usual call and then I heard one dealer whisper to another, "Gagliano?"...

So, even after several first hand looks at it, we are about where we started some 5+ years ago. The Bass even has some old Mittenwald qualities to it but we are not sure what exactly is original on the bass as well as the lower bout shape which one dealer/maker thought it could have been cut down even in that area as well as the outer Bouts which do not have any purfling left either.

So, she is big, she it powerful, she is beautiful, sweet sounding, colorful and complex sounding and she's big.. I said big twice, I know.. lol

What is it? A big and quality sounding bass that is actually fairly easy to play. One of the European pros performing at the ISB mentioned that it's a very special bass as fat as good basses go and was playing on it as if it was a solo bass hitting the high harmonics and double stops with the greatest of ease.

I was told by two pros there giving me separate informal private lessons in the booth that I needed to pick ONE bass and play it. Part of my problem in playing is that I switch back and forth between basses which have different lengths and measurements making hand position training impossible. Maybe I should just play this one and leave the others in the rack just for sale. In NYC when I made my living playing bass, I used one instrument primarily for about 15 years. Maybe that's what I really need to do again. Play only one bass for the most part, practicing and performing. Sitting, standing, classical or jazz, whatever. Just one main bass..

This was the second old bass I bought this time around when I started playing again about 8 years ago. The Batchelder was the first and that was just sold. My intention was to have this fixed and use it for myself. Sounds like I should stick with that original plan. These other basses I have been buying for my hobby/business has become such a distraction..:eek:..;)

Joel Larsson
06-21-2009, 04:49 AM
I am happy about your successful restoration and the pride you seem to feel towards this bass. It doesn't sound like using this one as a main bass would be a bad idea, does it..?
You should allow yourself to have a special relationship to your main bass, that's my opinion. Despite owning at least one da Salo and countless other excellent instruments, and having to sell off almost everything he owned in times of financial difficulty, Bottesini kept his Testore to the end. You certainly seem to have a less "professional" approach to this instrument already! ;) And just imagine what the BB might sound like after it's had some time to break in and open up..! How about you go for it??

Phil Maneri
06-21-2009, 09:04 AM
I agree with the one bass for everything, it's an approach I've been taking since buying my #1 bass. Even taking it places I "shouldn't" like outside. I find that I really just want to play that bass for everything regardless of the circumstances. It's the dancing partner and I learn more about her as we become really acquainted.

Ken Smith
06-21-2009, 11:13 AM
I agree with the one bass for everything, it's an approach I've been taking since buying my #1 bass. Even taking it places I "shouldn't" like outside. I find that I really just want to play that bass for everything regardless of the circumstances. It's the dancing partner and I learn more about her as we become really acquainted.

For some reason, I keep going back to the Martini. Ever since the last restoration with a slight modification done to the Back as well, the Bass has been sounding better and better.

A few days ago someone was playing the Basses for me and me for him, testing them for an Orchestra client. The Gilkes(Jilkes) sounded huge as usual, the Big Gamba was a bit bigger sounding and deeper but the Martini was within 90% of the other two in power (closer than usual) and the tone was the best overall. The G and D were the biggest sounding on the Martini over the other two. The Gilkes is fairly even and the Gamba very bottom-like but the Martin now re-strung with a slightly used set of BelCantos (switched the Flex 92s with the Bel's on the Hart), the Bass sounds bigger and better than ever.

Last night I played them both again, the Martini and the Gamba. This is a tough choice. For big bottom orchestra or fat jazz pizz, the Gamba wins. For solo and sweet tone but still with more volume than the average bass, the Martini wins.

I noticed something a bit strange but good at the ISB. Someone was playing the Gamba and it was huge, shaking the floor and walls. Then while that was going on, someone else took the Martini off the stand and started playing it. These were all good orchestra players here, no beginners. The sound of the Martini cut right thru the middle and top of the Gamba like a hot knife thru a pound of butter. I was very surprised but in a happy way. The Martini being just about the most comfortable bass to play within the group I have now.

All this will change in a year or so when the Storioni is out of restoration. That Bass has the power, depth, sweetness and playability of all the basses combined. Some say the Gamba sounds like the Storioni on steroids but they haven't heard the Storioni restored yet, nor has anyone.

For now, I will keep my practice on the Martini since I am more used to it. The Gamba will go out when I think it fits the job. For upper solo work within the Orchestra rep, I'm not ready for it on the Gamba. The reach over the shoulders are a bit more than I'm used to and intonation is not an option!

One other thing I noticed is how different the basses sound sometimes when various people play them. This is the puzzling factor. How do I sound between all the basses? Which Bass do I play the best and with enough volume as well? Listening to the Martini in comparison to the Gilkes, Hart and Gamba is almost unfair as these are not your average sounding basses at all. They have always made me think less of the Martini when comparing. That is over now. The Martini can hold it's own as I've heard it cut thru the Gamba. That's enough proof for me right there.

So, Big Ben will have its time when the setting is just right. I would love to use it in a rhythm section. It just kills with the Evah's on there now. Next string change might be Evah Weichs which I had on it before but didn't have an Extension E/C. I heard they are available now so it's on the menu, some day.. ;)

Ken Smith
06-24-2009, 04:00 PM
At the ISB I was fortunate to have met with Michael Krahmer from Pollmann, the cheif maker (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/pollmann1/images/label.jpg) (along with his younger brother Ralph) and a respected Bass expert as well.

Michael put the bass up on a stool on its back and had a look inside and out but without a needed light. Then upon examining the lower bass-side corner a 'smoking gun' came out. Under all the Varnish and repairs the C-Bout Purfling coming down on the Bass side crosses over the Lower Bout Purfling coming up to the C-Bout as well as a small Joint exposed between the edge and the Top just where the Purfling route joins the Top under the Corner.

Conclusion, 'estimate'? This Bass was CUT down. It is huge now but was even wider as I suspected on both the upper and Lower Bouts as the Bouts themselves have no Purfling at all. The Purfling runs only along the Top and Bottom Block areas as well as the C-Bouts but the edges have worn there. I was told that this was wear but the 'lines' of the Bouts tell me a different story with about 1/2" missing in width of each bout, about 1" overall Top and Bottom. That was my initial feeling some 5 years ago and now I am reassured that my eyes and brain were working just fine back then.

Those soft lower Corners, one of the big mysteries up until now is actually a later modification, we think!

Just as we were trying to pick the period and location of the maker in England we find this out. Still, the modelling and mix of flavors point to English but by who, where or when?

So, as far as origin goes, we are still not certain. As far as construction goes, the Bass was bigger originally in the width, not necessarly the length by much. The re-curve is only evident at the Top Bout so the Bass could have been an inch longer as well with the Purfling being replaced as evident up at that suspicious lower bout corner.

I owe this discovery(we think) to Michael Krahmer as everyone else missed it.

Ken Smith
06-29-2009, 01:16 PM
For some reason, I keep going back to the Martini. Ever since the last restoration with a slight modification done to the Back as well, the Bass has been sounding better and better.

A few days ago someone was playing the Basses for me and me for him, testing them for an Orchestra client. The Gilkes(Jilkes) sounded huge as usual, the Big Gamba was a bit bigger sounding and deeper but the Martini was within 90% of the other two in power (closer than usual) and the tone was the best overall. The G and D were the biggest sounding on the Martini over the other two. The Gilkes is fairly even and the Gamba very bottom-like but the Martin now re-strung with a slightly used set of BelCantos (switched the Flex 92s with the Bel's on the Hart), the Bass sounds bigger and better than ever.

Last night I played them both again, the Martini and the Gamba. This is a tough choice. For big bottom orchestra or fat jazz pizz, the Gamba wins. For solo and sweet tone but still with more volume than the average bass, the Martini wins.

I noticed something a bit strange but good at the ISB. Someone was playing the Gamba and it was huge, shaking the floor and walls. Then while that was going on, someone else took the Martini off the stand and started playing it. These were all good orchestra players here, no beginners. The sound of the Martini cut right thru the middle and top of the Gamba like a hot knife thru a pound of butter. I was very surprised but in a happy way. The Martini being just about the most comfortable bass to play within the group I have now.

All this will change in a year or so when the Storioni is out of restoration. That Bass has the power, depth, sweetness and playability of all the basses combined. Some say the Gamba sounds like the Storioni on steroids but they haven't heard the Storioni restored yet, nor has anyone.

For now, I will keep my practice on the Martini since I am more used to it. The Gamba will go out when I think it fits the job. For upper solo work within the Orchestra rep, I'm not ready for it on the Gamba. The reach over the shoulders are a bit more than I'm used to and intonation is not an option!

One other thing I noticed is how different the basses sound sometimes when various people play them. This is the puzzling factor. How do I sound between all the basses? Which Bass do I play the best and with enough volume as well? Listening to the Martini in comparison to the Gilkes, Hart and Gamba is almost unfair as these are not your average sounding basses at all. They have always made me think less of the Martini when comparing. That is over now. The Martini can hold it's own as I've heard it cut thru the Gamba. That's enough proof for me right there.

So, Big Ben will have its time when the setting is just right. I would love to use it in a rhythm section. It just kills with the Evah's on there now. Next string change might be Evah Weichs which I had on it before but didn't have an Extension E/C. I heard they are available now so it's on the menu, some day.. ;)

Ok, ok.. for the last week I have been changing favorites more often than I had meals. At least twice a day, for real.

Last week I had an outdoor concert, the last of the season and took out the Big Gamba to play. I was able to hear everything bowed or pizz'd including the C-Extension notes. We were set up in the Grass but I demanded a carpet so I wouldn't be standing over anything wet with my Bass or Shoes at risk. It rained for about an hour just before we started to play but we had dry sunshine for the Concert.:)

I was almost set on just playing just the Martini for everything and then went to the Hart for the easier Eb reach and then the Gilkes for the same but more presence and then back to the Martini for the heavy bottom and D neck and then back to the Gilkes. Then today I A-B'd all the Basses again sitting as well this time (which I do normally in concert) and the Gamba just seems to 'spit' the notes out quicker and easier. This bass has Evah's on it but so did the Gilkes in the past but never played or sounded as good as it does now as far as these strings go so it's not the strings. The Gilkes and Martini both have the Bel's on and that's the best they've sounded with the Hart strung with 92s at the moment.

I just think that with all things weighed in, the 'Gamba' pushes out more sound with less effort overall. The Shoulders are something to get over and the Neck Heel barely a D (which can be fixed) but all in all, it's the most fun to play, especially if I have some Pizz. Also, it just kills for jazz as it is.

So, 5 years plus on this Mystery Bass, its restoration and now its place in the 'rack' saga. 'First Bass' is my appointment for the Gamba. It looks the part too..:)

Ken Smith
11-04-2009, 02:49 PM
This Bass has now been Sold. As it turns out, the Martini (sold now as well) and Hart Basses are closer to what I am used to as far as body size goes. After playing this Bass a few times I came to realize that it is just a bit too big for me the way I play now.

It was fun these past few years searching and discovering as well as discussing all the possibilities and finds. This particular 'saga' has now come to an end as far as being in my possession. A very talented professional Orchestra player now owns and plays the 'Big Gamba' on a daily basis. 'Big Ben' has a new home and will be played and loved daily..:)