To Cut, or Not to Cut? (TB Save)

[Ken Smith]

On 7/4/06 I authored a Thread on TalkBass titled "To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question". (http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259785) In order to protect the contents of this subject in the event it gets deleted from TB, I would like to basically copy MY posts over to here for viewing and discussion. The Blue "hyper text' above will link you over to the original TB Thread as long as it's there.

This Thread is about the restoration of my Mystery Bass (http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=415) and has been discussed quite a bit as well. I copied over my TB thread about the Bass some time ago but didn't bring this text over. Although it's basically old news to me and many others I think people who haven't read this might enjoy going thru the motions as I have over the last 4 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March of 2004 I made a Thread about a new Bass I had just bought titled "Name That Bass". It was a complete mystery and was dubbed the 'Mystery Bass'. At that time I had two Basses that I used but was looking for a fine Olde Orchestral Bass to settle down with. That was before I started buying other Basses and selling them off after restoration and a few concerts to sample the goods so to speak while I wait for my 'Holy Grail'.

Old Thread here: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118707

The Mystery Bass is now on its final leg of work before the re-assembly starts. The Top and Back have been off and the Ribs are in 5 sections with the upper Bouts still attached to the Neck Block. All the Blocks are still intact glued to one of the Rib pieces. The Top, Back and most of the Ribs are done as far as all the cracks go. The Bass Bar and Back X-brace will stay as is because it's looks just fine.

Now for the question. When I bought this, it was to become my main Bass so playability was a major factor for me. I discussed this with my old friend, fellow Bassist, long time repairman/restorer and mentor, Paul Biase. The String length when I bought the Bass was close to 44" and I was looking for 42" maximum. We discussed either cutting the shoulders/upper bouts of both the Top and Back, re-shaping them and then restoring the Purfling on the Top or maybe cutting the Ribs at the upper Bout/corner block, sliding them down on the corner blocks and trimming the Top and Back around the new lowered shape and then restore the Purfling on the Top as the Back is un-purfled (those lazy English!).

This plan has been on the table for over 2 years now but many things have happened since then that is now giving me second thoughts. First, I recieved a large German Bass in trade awhile back that had a similar String length. I brought it to Arnold and he suggested a 'Block cut' as he called it. The Top and Back came off for other repairs so he made a new Neck Block, Set the Neck Lower in the Block and then trimmed the Top & Back in the Block area just slightly as well as giving it some added neck-stand to play over the shoulders. He got the String Length from 43 7/8ths to 42 3/8ths. That's 1 1/2" less without cutting the Bass. Before; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...relliBass2.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/MorelliBass2.htm)
After; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...orelliBass.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/MorelliBass.htm)

I used this Bass for a few concerts and even did Beethoven's 5th fingering all the moving low notes on the extension. It was tiring but rewarding.

Arnold was also able to reduce the String length on a full sized Prescott I bought (and since sold) but that was mostly due to the neck graft being a D-neck from an Eb-neck. We also cheated the Bridge a little as well as on the Morelli.

One day I was in Arnold's shop and he gave me a huge Italian Bass to try. I played it and got around kinda ok. He said "you just played a 44" String Length". I was surprised but after taking a second look, I saw that the numbers were in my head a little as well, more than in my fingers!

The point of this Thread is to Poll opinions with discussion as to (1) Leave the Bass with it's shoulders as-is and do the 'Block Cut', D-neck graft (already planned) and cheat the Bridge up a bit, (2) Cut it as planned or (3) Do nothing and play it as a 44" and possibly cripple myself over time..lol

Your thoughts please Ladies, Gentleman, Luthiers and Luthierettes.......

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double..._that_bass.htm (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass.htm)

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; Sorry Ken, I'm not a luthier, and only very new to DB. But I've been repairing old and new watches for 30 years. One thing I have learned is, you can remove material much easier than you can put it back on. That's fine and thanks for your point of view. I am very aware of that but I have seen more old Basses cut and modified to be used in Orchestras than I have seen Basses in their original form. It's a fact of life with this big Basses and I think they have been cutting them since at least the 19th century if not before. Several of the Basses I have owned were cut when I got them so I am no stranger to a modified Bass for easier playability.

The main question here is should I go slightly over 42" or even to 43" and let well enough alone? This way I could slightly modify and adjust the length and still hear the full air volume and tone of the Bass. I bought it unplayable so I have no idea what this Bass can do. It's all been speculation up to now.

Thank's for your reply.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; Ken, that mystery bass has a lovely channel around the upper bout. How would that look once it has been cut into?

The deep-set neck sounds like a reversible change, but the cut-down is permanent. My conservative side says - the bass probably has a pedigree, even if unknown, so don't change it irreversibly. Leave the table intact and yeah, cheat the bridge a bit!

Can you post some pix of the back bracing?
The shoulders would look almost the same up at the neck but the edges will loose their curve after they would be trimmed to match the shape of the Ribs. The plan was to cut the Ribs about 2" or less from the corner block area of the upper bout and re-attach the Ribs to the upper Corner block. Then re-trim the Top and Back to match so the upper bout would then be shorter making the string length shorter. With the 'Block Cut' the Ribs might be trimmed about 1/2" up at the Neck and a deeper Neck-set into the Block (or new neck block if needed) would be done. The Back Neck Button would get the most trimming with this method. Cheating the Bridge will only help about 1/2" in the String length. I don't remember if the Bass had a D or Eb neck when I estimated the old string length but it will be a D-Neck. I bought a beautiful piece of Maple with matching curl to the Back about 2 years ago. The gears going in the Bass are English made Baker style but on the modern side.

On the Back Braces, I don't have any Pics now but I will get some next time I am in NY hopefully before the Top goes on. The original lower crossbars were twin rails about 1cm wide and spaced about 2cms apart. The scars of this early gamba style bracing are still visible. I guess the maker thought this would be stronger and lighter for the over 29" (originally) wide lower bout. The Purfling runs off both the upper and lower bouts showing about 1/2" of trimming the width per side was done at some point. I don't know how tall those rails were but at least as tall as the were wide if not more.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; were you intending to replace the neck block entirely? We don't know yet if it is even usable. It is not the original from what we can tell. Actually the Bass had a small piece of Maple left in the back like a Tab from a blockless Bass so this could have been Blockless and with the smaller notch in the top, a previous restorer so fit to do a dovetail neckblock. Just speculation as we don't know what went on exactly in the last 200 years with this beast. A new Block will be no more disturbing than replacing the lining where needed. It's just a utility piece of wood. Both my Morelli and Prescott got new Blocks during their restoration so it's no big deal. It gets what it needs.

String length is an issue mainly due to playability. The measurement from the Bridge to the Neck is way long. Getting over shoulders is one thing but reaching the end of the fingerboard is another. This Bass will be set-up as a full sized Orchestral Bass and not at all intended for solo work. It's a 'sit back and enjoy the ride' type of Bass in my eyes.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; The string length is only a huge deal in the bottom few positions, as the 'box' of a full step multiplied against string crossings can get big, so what can be done is to tighten up the string spacing just a bit and the long string is again playable. By the 2nd position or so the difference between 42" and 43" is almost unnoticeable.
I am not 100% sure of all the types of gigs you play but when you are playing Cello parts in Mozart and Beethovan pieces, String length is a Huge factor. I had a bit of trouble playing the 5th with the Morelli as it required alot of stretching and pivoting. Intonation was on the fence being so exposed in the solo sections with the Cellos. My Bass was almost 2x as loud as anyone else in the section as well. This will be an Orchestral Bass only for me and playing some of the great Symphonies is tough enough with a 41 1/2" string length let alone anything way bigger. The Shoulders?, that's another issue. In classical pieces we go up to C and D fairly often in the thumb position and occassionally higher. I just want the Bass in the best possible playing condition and size so it stays in use and not in a basement or attic again like it did most of last century due to its unwiedly size.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; I wasn't thinking of conserving the neck block, more of the potential of reshaping a new one so that for example the ribs could almost be let into the block like some self-neck basses. In other words, the ribs would not sweep upwards towards the heel, more rounded, a bit like your Dodd. I am thinking that this could allow you to set the neck much deeper while retaining the heel projection and most of the outline of the front plate. does that make sense?
The Block has to be lower into the bass by about 1/2" and big enough to set the neck in deeper. Currently the Bass is modified from and English Gamba style "Neck-thru" blockless type as so described in the Book 'The Brittish Violin'. The book shows an 18th century Violin made like this.

This is the Morelli before the block-cut, http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...s/fullback.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/fullback.jpg)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...es/pufling.JPG (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/pufling.JPG)

And this is it after the cut, http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/693.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/693.jpg)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/688.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/688.jpg)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/705.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/705.jpg)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/692.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/692.jpg)

The Block area would be flatter than before with wide Ebony strips covering the top view of the Block that the Ribs do not cover as seen in the 'after' photos. The Ribs will be cut back just a bit to allow for this lower set block. Currently the Neck just sits up on the Ribs with only a Dovetail going into the shallow block.

If I can, I will go into NY soon and take some pics while the Bass is still apart. I wish I had done this before any work was started when it first came apart just for comparison purposes.

[Ken Smith]

This is the b4 and after from the sides to compare.

Before; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ages/Rside.JPG (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/Rside.JPG)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ages/Lside.JPG (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/Lside.JPG)

After; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/700.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/700.jpg)
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/707.jpg (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MorelliBass/images/707.jpg)

After the Cut, the upper Ribs are slightly shorter going up into the Neck.

[Ken Smith]

What I was proposing with the string spacing at the nut (and bridge) was specifically meant to address things like open 5ths. The diagonal from an Eb on the D string to the Bb on the G string, for instance, can be alleviated greatly if the D and G strings are closer together. This adjustment can make a 43" bass feel a helluva lot shorter.

Two things, though: If you get the strings too close together at the bridge you can have trouble getting a clean bite with the bow on the middle strings in TP, especially if you play the strings high. At the other end you if you get them really close, it'll take you some practice to get the string that you want with the left hand (old dogs, new tricks).I used to have a beautiful Italian Bass that was cheated at the bridge to be almost 42" SL. I used a very close string spacing as well. When I recently re-united with Paul Biase I asked about the fate of my old Bridge with the pickup installed in it that I personally did in 1974. Paul sold my Bass in the early for me '90s after my playing retirement in 1988. Paul said, it's right here in my cabinet and sent it to me. I measured the width of the slots only to find they were from 23.5-24mm center to center. That's a bit under an inch (25.4mm). Arnold sets my Bridges at about 27mm for the Orchestral Basses. The 5er is about 25.5-26mm and that feels tight to me now. Back then, I didn't play in a Symphony so my bowing on jobs was minimal. Now I can see how 26-27mm is closer to normal when sawing away with an Orchestra. True it feels smaller if tighter spaced but intonation is not an option for me. I'm sure you know what I mean Ray but thanks for the suggestion in either case.
Looks a very clever way to achieve what you are after. Does the bass feel any different to play with such a shallow heel after the "block cut"? I mean, around the neck joint?

What are the two dots near the button on the Morelli? Mere decoration, or registration pins??I didn't play the Morelli at all before it was altered. It too was unplayable when I got it as a trade in part for a Bass I sold. My old Italian had a wide Block cut-like heel and felt great as the Morelli did. Not really a fell thing as much as a survival thing to have a playable Bass. As far as the pins go, yes they must be for location for the back removal as they were there when I got the Bass.[/quote]
I have made a few False Nuts myself in the past but this works only on Eb neck stops. When you do this, you are pushing the F#, G etc higher up and harder to reach. I usually go for a D-stop at the heel and go from there. Cheating the Bridge is something done more commonly and works to a degree but if you take a good look at this Bass, the distance from the F notches to the bottom of the neck is about 2" longer than average. The top of this Bass is even longer than my Prescott and that beast is a challenge to reach anything past the heel and have it in tune until you get used to it. This Bass on the other hand has even wider upper bouts as well so making it playable is most important to me. The restoration cost for this Bass is more than the average Bass costs as was the Prescott. The Gilkes restoration is not far behind and I can only imagine what it will run for the Fendt to be put back into service. Playability is a must here. This is a serious Bass and if the Shoulders need to be cut down the road, they will get cut just like all the other old English and Italian Basses that grace todays professional Orchestras. This is one monster of a Bass and my goal here is to get it into top playing condition.
(Shortening the String length) I've seen a couple of female bassists have their string length shortened to accommodate their smaller hand size.

They had the fingerboard at the scroll-end cut about 2 cm short, then they had an extended nut made to fill up that 2 cm gap. The nut looked a bit like a mushroom or a fat letter "T".

Also, the bridge is moved up about 1.5 cm as well with the f-hole nicks lined up with the bottom of the bridge feet rather than in the middle. Viola, the string length is 3.5 cm shorter (1.38 inches). 44" - 1.38" = 42.62"; 43" - 1.38" = 41.62"

This saved the bass from having to go through major surgery or being permanently altered.
I have made a few False Nuts myself in the past but this works only on Eb neck stops. When you do this, you are pushing the F#, G etc higher up and harder to reach. I usually go for a D-stop at the heel and go from there. Cheating the Bridge is something done more commonly and works to a degree but if you take a good look at this Bass, the distance from the F notches to the bottom of the neck is about 2" longer than average. The top of this Bass is even longer than my Prescott and that beast is a challenge to reach anything past the heel and have it in tune until you get used to it. This Bass on the other hand has even wider upper bouts as well so making it playable is most important to me. The restoration cost for this Bass is more than the average Bass costs as was the Prescott. The Gilkes restoration is not far behind and I can only imagine what it will run for the Fendt to be put back into service. Playability is a must here. This is a serious Bass and if the Shoulders need to be cut down the road, they will get cut just like all the other old English and Italian Basses that grace todays professional Orchestras. This is one monster of a Bass and my goal here is to get it into top playing condition.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; It sounds to me like the shoulder cut is the only option that really fixes the problem, the rest only kind of seem to address the problem. You could try the other ideas, but I suspect you'll have the rib cut performed eventually. Not only will it have a more friendly string length, but the shoulders will be a little more accesible. As much as I hate to see such an old bass getting cut up, I would hate it more if no one used it because it was too awkward an intrument. I wouldn't say I'm very qualified to make such a recomendation, but you asked for our opinions...
Yes, I did ask and I like hearing all sides of the argument. That was the reason I posted this in the first place. I know there are 4/4 Basses sold new today with 44" string lengths but I doub't anyone is buying them to play in an Orchestra Professionally.

In my opinion, the only way to make this a playable under 42" SL Bass IS to cut the shoulders and re-bend the Ribs to match the new Top and Back cut/curve. My intention at this point is to do as much as possible to make it playable to a degree so it CAN be Cut in the future if the Bass passes on to someone else. There are some big guys out there and maybe one will knock on my door looking for a Bass like this at the time I decide it's too much for me to handle. That person will appreciate that fact that I didn't cut the Bass. As I stated earlier, it was my only old Orchestral sized bass when I first bought it and I wanted it to be right for me and my hands. Since then I have bought some other Basses that I like better as-is for all around playing. This would become my big Plush Orchestral Bass for when I don't need to play up high and don't need a low C extension either. Just a big fat plush sounding Orchestral bass to play and have fun with. I can manage a SL over 42" for those occassions but prefer not to for my everyday use.

I recently when thru 3 other biggies while this one has been in restoration. The Dodd was big to play but the SL was only 41.5". The Morelli was close to 42.5" and the Prescott just under 42". All three had their challenges to play them. The Morelli was long and slightly big at the shoulders. The Dodd was shaped like a Violin and getting over the shoulders was not so easy for me. the Prescott is just HUGE all around. If I didn't have this Bass, I would probably keep the Prescott but there is only room for one Biggie in my rack. With 2 of the 3 gone, the Prescott will go up to Arnolds shortly and look for a new home to be welcomed in. The Mystery Bass, now believed to be Olde English, will take its place as my 'Big Gun' when the Buffalo come to town so to speak.

I want to make it somewhat playable now and preserve it for those times a big Bass is needed or wanted. Now that my Gilkes is near completion and the Fendt in the wings, I no longer need to cut this bass down to a smaller bass and do the Dragonetti on it. If I can reach the D or and play Ottello or Lt. Kije on it, I will be happy.

[Ken Smith]

Member Question; I vote to preserve all that is original or altered on any bass that comes in your possession. I know it is tempting to make it playable to your specs but this is history and too much of it is already gone. I say don't cut it, re-bend it. Some day the bass world will thank you.
So what are you saying then?

Being it is a Mystery Bass to all that have seen it, please help me out with the History on it if you know something.

I am trying to make it playable again. I don't know anyone who would use it as it was. It was laying in a basement for most of the 20th century because it was unplayable. It fell apart, ribs peeling off the blocks, coal dust filling the cracks... etc..

No one I know will or can play a Bass this size in a modern Orchestra with a 46" Top (up to the neck only, 47" to the tip) and upper bouts almost 22" with high shoulders and a 44" string length. these measurements ARE the reason why it was not played much in the last 100 years. I plan on changing that.

[Ken Smith]

Member Comment; Don't mess with the mensur. If you don't want it Ken, I'll take it off your hands
If only you could have held this Bass on the floor before it was taken apart. I don't know if you realize just how big it is but by most charts I have seen, it's a full 4/4 sized Bass and with some careful block area cutting we can make it a very playable Bass just like the Prescott is today that I have.

I had an offer 2 years ago for the Bass as-is and again recently from the same person who likes 'em big. This is however a 200 year old English Bass and tonally will rank easily with my Gilkes, Fendt and recently owned Dodd. The offer for this as-is with almost 10k of work into it was slightly less than half of what I was willing to let it go for. The potential value of this Bass fully restored is quite high so selling as-is will be at about 75% of it's value. If you are serious about this, PM me but in advance I will tell you that you can buy a new car for the price of this Bass as-is so check out your wheels and let me know.

To play this Bass at it's current size in the Orchestra would be punishment. It's bigger than my Prescott which is also classified as a 4/4 and it was cut about 160 years ago from even a bigger size. This English Bass however has an advantage to the player and that is weight. It is not that heavy as compared to it's size. This is due to the lighter Sycamore Back and Ribs instead of regular European Maple or in case of the Prescott, instead of its heavy Curly New England Sugar Maple.

So I can see your cause now being 'Save that Bass' from 'Cut that Bass'. I wanna save a Player and get the Bass back into permanent use in an Orchestra or at the least as planned from the start, 'My Orchestral Bass'. Selling it was never my intention when I bought this Bass. Biase took on this Job as a personal favor to me and not as a business venture.

[Ken Smith]

Member Comment (actually, it's from Phil ;));
This is a great thread. It stands on the difficult edge of deciding what is valuable, now and in the future. There are big questions of utility vs. history. Do we modify things to address playability or do we maintain things for historical accuracy? What do we do when those things are at odds? Does an instrument have more value when it represents history precisely or when it is most fit for the current player? Is it possible to maintain an instrument for both current and future players and still be faithful to the original builder?

I struggle with these questions in the guitar business all the time. I don't have answers that I'm satisfied with and my feelings about them have change over time. Here’s where I am at today.

These days I ask myself if this thing that I am contemplating doing is going to be something that someone in the future might say "what hack did this and how could they think it was a good idea?” I try to avoid doing those things. I've done things to instruments in the past that I wouldn't do today as my priorities have changed. I find myself erring on the side of being more conservative more often than I would have 10 or 20 years ago.

Where I live craft and artistry have much less value than I think it should have. When my house was built in the early 50’s it was made by craftsman and it is level and square for the most part 50+ years later. The floor joists in my sister-in-law’s million dollar house just finished last year have at least 6” of warp across an 8’ span. Multiple workers saw that and decided it was ok to put their names on.

I value craftsmanship. I value its history and tradition, even more so than dollars. These days I value utility and function but only up to the point where it diminishes dollar value or historical value. If I can’t comfortably make those assessments I usually do nothing invasive until I can. Sometimes this stance can put me at odds with a client’s goals. There have been times that I have had to decline to do things that I don’t feel comfortable with. Shaving braces on Prewar Martins comes to mind.

The products of craftsmanship and artistry are manifestations of our spiritual gifts. The builder uses their gift to create an instrument from materials and the player uses their gifts to create music from the instrument. I respect the artisan builder’s intentions. Any choices I make to modify the product of their gifts must be made with the same care and consideration as the original creation. Irreversible changes require great scrutiny as we are making permanent transformations that may be inspired or may be selfish.

When masterworks transcend the common they also transcend ownership. They cease to be disposable commodities. It is our job as their temporary custodians to care for them, maintain them, and enjoy them for as long as we are allowed. Many of these instruments have outlasted generations of “owners”. They belong to God and humanity and my decisions about what to do with them can never be selfish. My decisions must be made with the long-range view of how they affect my children and the generations to come.

Last night I went to the Ohio Theatre in downtown Columbus. It is an outstanding Art Deco theatre built in the late 20’s. They were playing Harrold Lloyd’s Kid Brother, a silent film from 1927. The Morton Theatre Organ was played by Clark Wilson to accompany the film as a live soundtrack. It was magnificent. The 7 and 10 year old kids that were with us were amazed, mouths agape through the whole thing. They were witness to something from another generation that most modern kids don’t get to see. They got it too. 40 years ago the Ohio Theatre and its Morton Organ were set for demolition to make room for yet another office building. It was saved from the wrecking ball and these two kids are why.

I can’t say how this applies to your bass Ken. It may not. You are a far better judge of that than I’ll ever be. My point is to make sure you and the restorationist consider every angle before making your decisions. My hope is that all who make decisions like this about these instruments are as deeply considered about them as they can muster.
The main difference between the Guitars you work on and the Orchestral Basses is really the music. Most guitars with some exception is playing the same music and technique now as it did when they were made. Old Basses on the other hand took over 300 years to evolve to what we play now. I have seen a Strad Guitar and a Panormo as well, 300 and 200 years old. They of course were different than any Martin. If repaired they are most likely ONLY a Museum piece. Old Basses on the other hand have had all sorts of modifications to be kept in use as some were not even Basses but Violones with wider necks and extra strings. There is no replacement today for old wood and ancient Varnish. New and 'newer' Basses can be nice but they just don't have the experience and almost any good player can feel and hear that difference.

This Bass in question may or may not be a piece of history as it's just old with a few speculative origins attached to it. One thing for sure is that they didn't make this Bass to fit todays musical requirements of a Classical Bassist. I doubt that they played up to the octave on this Bass much less the harmonics over the fingerboard like in the Dragonetti. Market-wise, a young player going for a Symphony job may not want a Bass like this as he'll have trouble playing a solo piece on it. My Dodd had high shoulders but the String length was 2 1/2" less (41 1/2") than this Bass.

Personally, I think the best thing for this Bass is to respect its large Orchestral size but make it playable as an Orchestral Bass or all around Bass for a larger person. It MUST be modified once again to become playable in todays Orchestras. It has had many modifications in the past as well but never the size. Now we must make it playable but as a large Bass and get it back in circulation. The Block cut is the best idea yet which I learned from Arnold when he restored my Morelli. I don't expect a short string length but 44" is just not going to work.

[Ken Smith]

Member Comment (actually, it's from Arnold, lol:D); Real world: A bass must be playable to have value as an instrument. An unplayable bass is essentially worthless. Do what you must to make it a playable (and therefore valuable) bass. Most of the top-tier basses in the world today were cut down at one point, and their value is intact. Witness the ex-Homer Mensch Gofriller, which would have caused a bidding war in the $200,000+ range, had it not ended up with his favored student.
Yup, my point exactly. By the way, that Bass of Homer still went for close to the 200k mark even though it WAS his student. It was NOT given to him for free at all. Maybe you can say, he got the Bass less the commission had it been publically sold. Homers' Gagliano is for sale and it was Cut too as well. That is going for 200k. By the way, Biase IS the one that cut Homers' Gofriller. Paul has a similar near identical one at the shop un-cut for comparison. Even the Scrolls match not to mention the wood. On the Gagliano, it's cut all around upper and lower from what I understand. I don't know who cut the Gagliano or when but I figure if Paul can cut a Gofriller for Homer, then my Bass is just a walk in the park.

[Ken Smith]

Well, if you wish to preserve the bass, then you will want to leave as little indication as possible that you ever worked on it. If you cut it, then you become an obvious part of the history of it, and your work will be judged. I don't see one way as better than the other, just different approaches. To me, what matters more is the quality of work and end results.The History IS the work that has been performed on the Bass throughout its life. I can already see 3 different crossbar patterns on the back. The Top has its original shape and no cracks in the center of the Breast, Sound Post or Bass Bar areas. This shows the makers work and wood choice was complementary to itself despite the usage of the Bass over the centuries. The Ribs have plenty of splits which shows that the Top was stronger when the Back shrunk each season and let the Ribs take the hit. The Bass has many many mars and scratches on the Back which shows it didn't always have a Case and may have been on top of a Carriage cross-town. The Bass was restored in USA around the 1840s but was reported to have been brought to the USA around 1908 by the previous user/owner. This means it was probably played by a Musician on the Great Ships from Europe to USA as it was here before and maybe brought back after it was repaired. The Scroll was 3-strings and then converted to 4-strings. The Neck has a Carpentry splice in the center. The back Button had a plate of wood and under it, 2 huge Screws into the neck showing signs that it had taken a hit or fall at sometime. This may explain the new White Bros. Scroll of Boston, 1840. The Neck Splice may be from later damage. I have a black stained maple Tailpiece that was made for 3-string but 2 holes were drilled thru it later for 4-strings.

This Bass was originally a 3-string but the 4 Gears that were on the Bass when I got it date from Germany about 1800-1850 or so and were exactly like these but without the Plates;

http://www.worldofbasses.de/Instrumente_02/Seitz/scroll.jpg

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

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

[Ken Smith]

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

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

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

[Ken Smith]

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

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

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0087.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0089.jpg

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

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0077.jpg

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

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0074.jpg

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

[Ken Smith]

If you follow the Link to the original TB Thread you will see that I kept this slightly shorter with a few quotes and answers. I cut over 2 pages off of the TB Cut Thread but gave you all the basic 'Meat' of the Topic.

Another thing I did was to leave out the names of the other TB Members posting in response that I quoted just in case they don't want to be mentioned here. I can't imagine why they wouldn't but just to be on the safe side. Being that this is the internet, I am not sure of the 'copyright' laws either. I know what I write is mine so that's no problem copying over my Text. I cut out quite a bit of back and forth from one particular Dealer because it looked a bit to commercial on his part how he posted. I did mention the Names of two people quoted mainly because I know them and they post here regularly.

The bottom line here on the 'Cut' topic was that on a phone conversation I had with Biase in the Spring it looked as if he didn't need to Cut the Block area as he explained to me how he could avoid it with the Neck-Set, Bridge 'Cheat' and Overstand. Around that time I had sent him pictures of how the Block area was to be Cut to achieve the String length along with the other changes that were being made. When I went there in July I saw that he DID actually Cut the Inch off that I had drawn up and even saved the Pieces. One side on the Rib touching the Block had some serious repairs to it. By cutting that inch away, the prior damage in that area was half gone. Again, he did save the two pieces in case I change my mind but the Bass actually looks better now in the Block area than it did before. I am talking with vision here as it was not yet all done up with the Neck in and the Ebony shoulder caps on the Block. When it IS finally done, it will be a beautiful and subtle modification. The String length with the Bridge 'Cheat' will be under 42". That is what I call a success story.

When the Restoration is all done, I will update the Webpage for this Bass (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass.htm) with its modifications along with a Link to the 'before' Page and Pics.

[Ken Smith]

For those of you still with some confusion about what a Block-Cut actually is, let me try and explain this here with no other topics in this post.

The Neck must be set deeper into the Block, so in order to do that another piece of wood was 'added' to the existing Neck Block so the Block would have more depth in which to set the Neck deeper down into Block. Also, the current Block was cut with a 'dove-tail (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0084.jpg)' instead of a standard 'mortise' joint (partial pic shown) (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/GilkesBass/restoration/IMG_1650.jpg). With a dovetail, the Neck sits ON the top of the Block and Not IN the Block as it should. The Block in this Bass is not the Original as we have found a small 'left over' Tab still glued to the upper Back from an older Blockless Neck. The English made all grades and styles of String instruments from the simplest construction to the most elaborate as they copied makers from the Tirol and German Schools as well as the great Italians like Amati, Maggini and later Strad and Guarnieri.

Ok, so have a look at this Pic below and I will explain. Sorry for the full Scale Bass as we need only to look at the Block area.

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

What was did here was to Cut about 1" (one inch) off of the Ribs measuring from where the Ribs meet the Top up at the Block and measuring 1" downwards. The width of the Rib/Block piece Cut looks more than 1" because it is gradually curving away from the Neck and not straight down.

This will look visually like it has a 'platform' around the Neck Heel rather than the Ribs curving up to and meeting the Neck directly like it does now similar to the pictures posted below;

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MorelliBass/images/688.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Candi/images/candi-012.jpg

The Block that was originally a dovetail has been converted to a Mortise joint similar to the partial Block pic shown below from my Gilkes (look to the far right of the pic).

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/GilkesBass/restoration/IMG_1650.jpg

Now, looking at the Block of the Gilkes above imagine the bottom of it being squared off which was more like the Mystery Bass than the rounded bottom and edges of the Gilkes. Another piece of similar wood was added and glued to the bottom of the squared off Block in order to allow for both the Mortise to be cut into the already lowered-Cut dovetail block and also to deepen the Neck-set to help with the string length alteration.

To compensate for the 'stop-note' of about a D-Neck at the Heel, the Bridge will be moved up one inch as well. The combined Block-Cut and Bridge-cheat shortens the String length by 2" (two inches). The new Neck Graft along with the slightly deeper Neck-set gives us a tad more deduction as well on the length.

Being that the Neck-stand is also moved out quite a bit along with the wide (22") but slightly sloped Shoulders (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0074.jpg) and the extreme (8 1/2"-5 3/4") but gradual Back Bend towards the Neck (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/100_0089.jpg) makes this 'biggie' one easy playing monster to be..

I hope this single synopsis helps to put this whole 'Cut' subject in a better light.;)

[Craig Regan]

Ken, You mentioned a neck graft in the above post. Could you explain how was it done? and how it changed the bass?

[Ken Smith]

Ken, You mentioned a neck graft in the above post. Could you explain how was it done? and how it changed the bass?

Well first off neck Grafts are very common on old Basses and not so un-common on new ones either as my 2001 Pollmanm, 1936 Candi and 1919 Martini all got Neck Grafts within the last year. Some Basses have had 3 or 4 Necks made over time.

The Neck that was in this Bass was Spliced in two pieces length-wise with some cabinet makers joint in the middle of the Neck. This coupled with the Length being slightly long made for one ugly, poorly repaired and planned out Neck to begin with. There was no way this Neck would ever see a String on it in my lifetime!:mad:

The first thing I did was to pull off the already thin fingerboard and Cut the neck in half so that I could work on the Scroll separately and plug all the old Gear, Screw and Extension holes. There were 72 holes. Yes, count 'em, 'seventy two'!:( Then, I made the raised Maple Plates and added them to the already thin 'swiss cheese' Scroll Cheeks.;) Now, we have a Scroll & Peg Box to work with!:)

How did or rather how WILL (I haven't played a note yet on this Bass) the neck Graft change the Bass? Well, at least for once it will be a good Neck and not some pile of mismatched pieces glues together in various ways masquerading around as a Double Bass Neck. It will be the first correct Neck this bass has had since it became a 4-string some 100+ years ago.

Here are some pics of a Neck Graft in-progress from my Prescott of a few years ago..

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Prescott/restoration/IMG_1519.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Prescott/restoration/IMG_1522.jpg

When does a Bass need a Graft? Well, you will know it for sure when it needs one but sometimes it pays to modify a bass with a new Graft for optimum condition or mensur as done with the Martini and Candi recently for the reasons just stated.:cool:

[Phil Maneri]

That's a smokin' hunk a lumber on that neck graft.

[Ken Smith]

That's a smokin' hunk a lumber on that neck graft.

But it finished up quite nicely as you can see here (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Prescott/Prescott.htm). Most Graft blocks start out like that, big and chunky. Many times like with my Bass in restoration a Cello Top is used but usually one with a cosmetic defect that down grades it to a Graft Block. For a neck, you can cut around it but not on a Cello Top smack dab in the middle.

Phil, this Bass was sold to a player in Columbus. You should have seen it by now.

[Phil Maneri]

But it finished up quite nicely as you can see here (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Prescott/Prescott.htm). Most Graft blocks start out like that, big and chunky. Many times like with my Bass in restoration a Cello Top is used but usually one with a cosmetic defect that down grades it to a Graft Block. For a neck, you can cut around it but not on a Cello Top smack dab in the middle.

Phil, this Bass was sold to a player in Columbus. You should have seen it by now.Really? I've never even heard about it. Symphony? Maybe they are gone now. They've been dropping like flies around here since the Symphony stopped cutting paychecks.

[Ken Smith]

Really? I've never even heard about it. Symphony? Maybe they are gone now. They've been dropping like flies around here since the Symphony stopped cutting paychecks.

Well, maybe he's gone and maybe not.?

He did play in the Section and commented to me that now with this Bass, Morton's Gagliano 'wont' drown him out anymore.. lol

By the way, we were talking Neck Grafts?.. Lol

[Phil Maneri]

Well, maybe he's gone and maybe not.?

He did play in the Section and commented to me that now with this Bass, Morton's Gagliano 'wont' drown him out anymore.. lol

By the way, we were talking Neck Grafts?.. LolI'm sure the Gagliano won't be a problem anymore. Morton's now in Phoenix.

Speaking of Grafts, does the neck graft have to fit the scroll original dimension exactly or can the scroll where it enters be enlarged to fit a wider neck width?

I ask because if I ever get around to redoing the neck graft on the German/French I wouldn't mind it being a little wider. It's pegbox seems slightly narrower than many I've seen.

[Ken Smith]

I'm sure the Gagliano won't be a problem anymore. Morton's now in Phoenix.

Speaking of Grafts, does the neck graft have to fit the scroll original dimension exactly or can the scroll where it enters be enlarged to fit a wider neck width?

I ask because if I ever get around to redoing the neck graft on the German/French I wouldn't mind it being a little wider. It's pegbox seems slightly narrower than many I've seen.

Humm.. well I think maybe the Neck and Fingerboard can be flared out a bit to go wider. That would be better asked of your Luthier Nick Lloyd than myself or maybe Arnold can chime in having done countless Grafts and that was just on my Basses..lol

Does this help answer your question?

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/full_F.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/5str_imgs/m2_ff.JPG

And from the Back;

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/full_B.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/5str_imgs/m2_fb.JPG

and...

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/scroll_F.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/Mystery2/5str_imgs/m2_pf.JPG

Although that Pexbox was already quite wide, the Neck still needed Flaring for the 5-string conversion. Arnold did a great job on it, as usual.

[Craig Regan]

On a neck graft, do you try to duplicate the original neck profile? or replace it with a different shape. It seems to me, the riskiest part of doing a neck graft is the final shaping of the profile.
You must have a lot of faith in your Luthiers.

By the way, I found this article on your friend who is working on the bass.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFDF1E3CF930A25757C0A9619582 60

[Phil Maneri]

On a neck graph, do you try to duplicate the original neck profile? or replace it with a different shape. It seems to me, the riskiest part of doing a neck graph is the final shaping of the profile.
You must have a lot of faith in your Luthiers.
That carve is a negotiation between the luthier and the player save for structural concerns.

Well some Luthiers do what they want but the best of them pay attention to the person paying the bill.

[Ken Smith]

On a neck graph, do you try to duplicate the original neck profile? or replace it with a different shape. It seems to me, the riskiest part of doing a neck graph is the final shaping of the profile.
You must have a lot of faith in your Luthiers.

By the way, I found this article on your friend who is working on the bass.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFDF1E3CF930A25757C0A9619582 60

Yes, I have seen that article. Fantoni, his mentor was mine as well so in some small way, we were cut from a similar cloth. His piece was much bigger than mine.. I just got a small tear of it..:(

On the neck Graft, the old Neck is most often something other than what you like so the new one is an improvement all around. Also, on occasion the Bass might go back and get re-shaped on the Heel, profile, depth or any of all mentioned.

With this Bass we do not have much to go on as the old Neck was junk. I trust Paul will make something that I like. We have had some brief discussions of my set-up preference plus he is a professional player. Imagine going to try a Bass and getting a Spicatto lesson or excerpt lesson just about every time you go there. He takes whatever Bass I am trying or grabs another and demonstrates for me the way to play it properly. He has a degree in Bass playing from Manhattan School of Music, studied with Homer Mensch and also played 14 years with the New Jersey Symphony as well as other Orchestra jobs. I always enjoy my time with Paul as I did with Fantoni as well. Different between the two of them but always educational to say the least.