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

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

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

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

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

humm...
 

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

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

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

Laminated Ribs
 

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

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

Have fun and let us know what's up!

hey!
 

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

corners
 

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

wood slat?
 

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

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

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

smiles...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure it will be fantastic.

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

link..?
 

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

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

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

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

link..
 

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

Modify
 

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

sorry I changed my mind.

humm..
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions that arise in all of our minds might be;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scroll, etc..
 

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

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

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

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

yup..
 

Better said than I could Maestro!

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

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

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

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

missed this one..
 

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

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

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

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

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

Stew?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ever-expanding ego?
 

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

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

Neck...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those of you with experience on both, which do you prefer? We talked about it awhile ago here but the Thread has all but died out..

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

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

well..
 

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...mages/back.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...es/body_bk.jpg

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

slight update..
 

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

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

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

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

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

Tuners..
 

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

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

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

Your thoughts please?

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

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

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

Gear choices..
 

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

http://www.gallerystrings.com/access...s/mk4large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/access.../mk11large.jpghttp://www.gallerystrings.com/access...s/mk9large.jpg

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

Gears
 

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

Baker only?
 

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

correction..
 

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

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

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

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

top left?
 

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

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

ok...
 

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

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

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

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