taken in different light?
 

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/double...s/100_0078.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ges/hill13.jpg

TP Lengths..
 

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.

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

I really like the cocobola TP, but I think the 3 string TP would look best on that bass.

Mpm Tp..
 

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/double..._imgs/m2_f.JPG

He makes great Tailpieces.

very pretty.

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:

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.

Post moves..
 

I moved David's post and all the related replies about his Bass to the German School section "Another mystery bass?". 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.

photo shoppers?
 

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/double...s/100_0085.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...s/100_0084.jpg

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

Scroll report..
 

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/Myster...leftscroll.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...s/100_0092.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/Myster...ightscroll.jpg

Calvin Baker/Asa or Jay White..
 

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;

Update..
 

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..:)

Update..
 

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/double...s/100_0084.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...s/100_0085.jpg

The Final Lap...
 

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' page.

Can you share any pictures of the back bracing/blocks/scars on that bass? I'd be very interested to see that.

Pics?
 

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/double...ss/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/double...s/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/double...s/100_0074.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...s/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.

Similar Bass..
 

Here is a Bass with a very similar outline to mine;
http://www.germanstrings.de/Englischer-KB.jpg

What do you make of it?

Restoration progress...
 

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/double...s/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.

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.

so..
 

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.

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.

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

Overstand..
 

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.

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 ...

canted..
 

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.

For what reason?

why?
 

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..;)

Canted or thinned...
 

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.

"To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question" (from TB, 7/4/06)
 

I started this Thread ("To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question") 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/double...images/688.jpg

Here is my Bass that is being discussed before the Block Cut was done;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...s/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/double...s/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.

"Olde English"
 

How is the restoration coming along on the "Olde English" bass?


http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/MysteryBass/name_that_bass.htm

How?
 

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.

Today's NY Visit..
 

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.

Body length
 

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!

Normal size?
 

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?

Todays visit - Update..
 

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..

ok, ok, ok..
 

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". I also have a nick name for my Gilkes 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" 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..

Here's one...
 

OK, I'll bite. The Triple B Gamba. Now, what does "Triple B" stand for?

Triple B?
 

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..

The Triple B's
 

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:;)

i think "big ben" would be adequate