History of the American Bass
 

I authored a thread on ‘talkbass.com’ in November of 2005 on Yankee Basses and it grew to over 400 posts in about a year. It was the first time on-line where Bassist and Luthiers came together to pool their resources and knowledge. I think this was a thread where everyone had something to learn. Rather that copy 21 pages containing over 400 posts from TalkBass I will just re-cap some of the highlights that I posted personally. I don’t feel good about copying materials from others over there that might have some copyright coverage as well.

Please feel free to jump in and post your Yankee Basses once again and add it to the Smith Forum. I assure you that it will not end up in some archive section! Relevant questions and comments are welcomed as well here.

History of the American Bass (2)
 

I have now owned 2 old Yankee Basses and one new one as well as an old English Bass that was restored in 19th century New England. I have great respect for these Bass Pioneers. Both of my older Basses are from the Prescott School. One is by A. Batchelder & Son, 1875 and the other a 7/8 Prescott c.1820 which I sold in 2006.

I have seen many Yankee Basses at other shops both pictured and in person. Some of them have replaced Scrolls and a few Basses I have seen have old Yankee type Scrolls but look to be European made Basses that were repaired here. When I was a young Bassist 35 years ago the only American Bass mentioned was Prescott. Since I started looking closely at this in the last few years it is clear to me that the Prescott name has been used much too often in naming an olde Yankee. Even Basses owned by famous players that I have seen I have to be honest with my opinions and say Prescott ‘School’ but ‘not’ a Prescott. Prescott was not the first maker of Bass instruments but his output and success made him the most prolific Yankee maker. Let's 'hunt' those Yankee Basses down and get them cataloged up here.......

All of my Basses can be found here regardless if they have been sold already; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/

These are some of the names that popped up on the TB thread I started; Prescott, Dearborn, Bates, J.B. Allen, Tewksbury..And Prescott attributed Basses owned by Scott Lafaro and Reggie Workman that have different FFs ad Scrolls than the other Prescotts we have seen.

Also, George and August Gemunder who moved here from Europe and settled in NY after starting out in Mass. as well as Czech born Joseph Bohmann who set-up shop in Chicago around 1888.

Yankee Bass owners & fans, Speak out!

History of the American Bass (3)
 

Not all made Basses. Many made just Church Basses and most made only Violins.

I have a fairly large book by Wenberg on American makers. Again, it's mostly Violins but there are 'mentions' only about some that made Basses. "The Violin Makers of the United States
by Thomas James Wenberg, Mount Hood Publishing Company, 1986."


I have read a story about the Smithsonian claiming Prescott made only 12 of the 7/8ths Basses but that does not make sense to me. Prescott made 207 Double Basses not counting the 500 or so Church Basses. I would assume that most were 7/8ths, some 4/4 and 3/4 sizes. Maybe the 5/4, 7.5ft Basses as Elgar refers to is what the Smithsonian is referring to.

I have also read that they made them 3-string as it was to be plain and conservative as the 4-String was new in much of Europe at that time and England was the last to go to 4-strings. New Englanders being mostly of English decent viewed the Bass as a 3-string instrument for traditional purposes.

My Batchelder from New Hampshire was made in 1875 as a 4-string. This shows that most of the 19th century stayed 3-string in NE.

Arnold Schnitzer and Robbie MacIntosh were looking over my Prescott when Robbie pointed out some faint Purfling left in around the C-bout edges.. What does this mean? This large 7/8 Prescott was cut down from a 4/4 size to its present shape. The Purfling Loop on the Neck Button did make us think it was cut but we didn't see any other clues at that time so we dismissed the idea until now.

I have seen a picture of a Church bass with an Oak or Ash Scroll on line. Also, my Batchelder has a quarter sawn White Pine Back so I would venture to say that early makers in New England used local woods on occassion that was less than traditional for string instruments.

History of the American Bass (4)
 

Prescott Scrolls

In an article I read It was believed that Prescott copied an old English Scroll for his model. I don't know if they are referring to Basses or Gambas on this one. I have seen other American Scrolls with carvings as well. Some have 4 and even 6 turns at the Head. I have seen Italians with an extra turn but never with 6. This seems to be mostly early American. Prescotts Scrolls vary from period to period but they are always the same idea. Scrolls are carved in at the top with inlaid plates for all that I have seen. FF holes are wide and short looking and usually upright but some have a bit of slant. Most that are un-altered are attached to the top at the ends.

I see the most variation on the neck block and back construction. Some backs are double thickness with the ribs bent around them using the back lip channel as the bending form. My Batchelder is made that way. Some have neck blocks that from the outside seem to be the original design while many others have raised upper ribs at the neck suggesting they were made 'blockless'. Ofcourse these have been 'blocked' at the first chance during its earliest restoration. My Prescott was cut down and the original Purfling only shows in the corners and the 'button' area. We will try to figure out what shape and size this was originally if at all possible once the top is off. Many Prescotts were made with the Ribs ‘inserted’ into the Top and Back plates like a Yankee Furniture Drawers.

The other thing that varies with these Basses are the sizes he made as well as design. Gamba and Busetto were made as well as two different Block/less designs. I have seen a 3/4 Gamba the huge ones on line over 7ft Tall and the cut versions like mine. I would guess he made mostly 7/8-4/4 sizes with some 3/4 and some 5/4 models over his life span.

The 5-string Gagliano in the Elgar Book is now believed to be a George Panormo and was converted back to 4-strings some time ago. The Nicolo Amati (labeled) used by 'Virtuoso de Roma' on all the Vivaldi recordings of the 1950s-'60s is now attributed to CG Testori. This happens a lot with old instruments attributed to famous makers. If we never saw a JB Allen or Dearborn we would most likely call them all Prescotts. There is nothing bad here, just open minds looking for truth in Bass making history. A maker named Benjamin Willard (1805-1810) is believed to be Prescotts teacher. Recently I saw a Bass in a NY shop and thought it was a beautiful Willard only to be told it’s a Prescott. It seems that every Yankee bass wants to be the most famous regardless of fact. Regardless of who the maker is, I see the values based on the individual Basses as long as they have similar merits, Prescott or not.

History of the American Bass (5)
 

Now, as far as Prescott restorations go, a lot of discoveries were made when mine was opened up. The Top still has some evidence left of the Bass having Rabbit joints on the Top as well as the Back where the ribs were bent around the plates instead of using a form. This Bass was reduced in size (upper shoulders and C bouts but corners all original) and must have been trimmed just inside the Purfling line and re-carved internally to even the Bass out by that Joint. This means that this is an earlier Prescott than originally thought. We originally dated it due to the Dearborn Label as maybe old stock when the Bought the Shop from Prescott in 1845 or so but now we have a different viewpoint on it's age. This also means it is a Deerfield Bass and not made in Concord. We now believe this early 4/4 cut down Prescott to be c.1820 as his later Basses also have a lighter Varnish and different construction.

Arnold also found an old repair label inside from O.H. Bryant, August 1941. Bryant was the main repairman for the Boston Symphony. He died in 1943 at the age of 70. He was 68 when he worked on this Bass.
This Prescott of mine has had many alterations. It currently has a replaced Neck (graft), Neck Block, Size totally trimmed and reduced, Bass Bar replaced (but very old), Converted from 3 to 4 strings in the latter part of the 19th century with French gears and the Upper Ribs re-bent and sloped inwards as it is evident in the lighter Varnish color of the upper Ribs.

The Cross Bars in this Bass are Pine (as is the Top) and will be replaced as they are literally falling off the Back. The Bass Bar might remain but I have to look at it along with the Graduations which are almost perfect. The Top being slightly thicker near the Bar makes me think that the person that 'might' have done a re-graduation on the Top worked around the Bar instead of removing it. This being an Early Prescott and in fantastic condition leads me to believe Prescott left the Top extra thick as it is 11mm on one spot but 7mm right next to it. Maybe it was 11mm at that point and re-graduated to 7mm as far as possible without disturbing an otherwise good Bass Bar. The Bar itself it crude according to Arnold and he may just re-shape it slightly and leave the Top as is. "Aint Broke, dont fix!".. The Bass will need a Neck-graft again to get the proper Bridge height, Neck-stand, D-stop and string length desired by today’s professional Orchestra player. A few cracks need to be glued, Blocks glued back, half edging on about 1/2 the underside of the Top and a host of other small but important details. I have asked Arnold to do***ent his work as best possible on film as this Bass IS a real Prescott and maybe one of the oldest examples of a Yankee Bass we have seen from the inside.

Pre-Restoration and Post Restoration links; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ott/index.html http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...t-preview.html

History of the American Bass (6)
 

I recently ordered some info on Prescott from the 'New Hampshire Historical Society' and just received it today. It is hand written accounting records (probably done at one time as the handwriting is identical on all pages) of all the Bass Viols from 1809 -1829 numbering 147 instruments. I believe these were both types of Bass instruments from the prices he charged.

For instance, this is how and what is written;
1. (when made) 1809 April - (when sold) 1809 Nov - Jon P. Cram M. (Price) 14""

#s 1-15 are priced from 10"" to 17"" (1809-1819 Nov.)with some @15.50
#11 had no price and says yr.1818, Doit. Crosby with no price listed.
Then after #15, #11 is listed again and says; (made) 1819, Nov (sold) 1820 Jan. Harrison Gray, 16"".

#3 of 1811 is re-entered after #43 and says who bought it first and who then bought it again in 1824 Oct. It seems to have a record of both Buyers there.

After 30 instruments made by July of 1823 he had grossed $530.50. His prices now change after #15 ($14.) as #16 is $28. and #27 and 28 are only $12.

As time goes on his prices go up to 20s and 50s. I believe this MUST be the price differences between his Church Basses and his Double Basses. In Feb of 1828, one entry is for $72.50, the highest price yet and sold to Deacon Mason. Was this his first 7ft 5/4 Busetto monster? I see one other Bass earlier for $60. That says (when made) Oct. & Nov., (sold Nov.19, 1825 to T. Thompson. Several Basses b4 and after were only $20. Some say in the Price column, 20 B.B.6. This appears first on #40 and last on #92. What could B.B.6. mean? A bank account, partner, location?

These are only legal pad sized photo copies and are not so clear. I am using a Magnifier Glass to read these for you.. And me too..lol

Some names appear many times in the sold list. One of interest is Henry Prentiss who himself was a Violin Maker in Mass. at that time. He must have been a dealer for Prescott’s Basses because I see 16 of them sold to him and often several in a row. The first was #76 made March 1826 and sold Nov 1826 to Esq. Prentise and later entries all say Henry Prentise. The last on my List are #s132, 133 and 134 from July 1828. All 3 seem to be Double Basses as they are $45/2 and $50. each. Also, $16-$29 seems the low $ in that period and they must be Church Basses. It seems that Prentise bough both types of Bass from the prices show paying $25. or $50. in the same month. In the Wenberg book of American makers his name is spelled with ss at the end, Prentiss. Is this the same guy? I think so.. maybe not...lol.. Dealer? Maker?

Anyway, I wonder if my EXACT Prescott Bass is listed here. Then I would know who the first owner was. Gee, I wonder if the Warranty is transferable.. That would save me alot of money in repairs..lol

History of the American Bass (7)
 

Bates listing!

Ok, here is what I have from the Wenberg Book of American Violin & Bow makers;

"Bates, A.B. & Co.; Fairfield, ME. Makers of double basses. Operated there c. 1843. Used cedar for the top plates."

With the location and period listed we can only assume he was influenced by Prescott. There were many workers over the years in both the Deerfield and Concord shops so we cannot rule out his possible employment or training at an earlier time. Keeping an open mind and considering the close proximity, we can consider Bates as a Prescott 'School' Bass maker. Photos pending of course.. Just to keep it honest..lol

There are a few Prescott features that would be good to date if possible. Rabbit joint/inlaid Ribs into the top and back, Blockless, No Linings, Busetto, 3/4 and large 7/8 Gambas, X-brace (not exclusively), FFs, Cello models, etc..

These features appear on various Prescott Basses. The features you see on almost all but the first few are Wide FFs attached to the Top, Flat Back, the unique long Scroll with inlaid brass plates, and 3-string. The rare early ones are huge 7/8 or small 4/4 Cello form with thin long sweeping FF holes like his Church Basses and a carved Round Back.

History of the American Bass (8)
 

Dates & Prices..
Prescott prices for the first 15 Basses from 1809 thru 1819 were $10.- $17. Who knows why the difference in Price! These must have been Church Basses and #11 of the first 15 was sold in 1818 and again in 1820. So it seems that he also took trade-ins on his own Church Basses. #3 of 1811 was bought back and sold again in 1824 for $17. the first time and $18. the second time. While the lower priced sales were under $20. The first one (Double Bass?) at $23., #16 was made and sold in April of 1820. Was this the first DoubleBass? Also, it was sold to 'Smith Batchelder'! What? I am Smith and I own a Batchelder Bass. Is this Fate or the 'TwiLight Zone'. This MUST be my calling. When MY Prescott is finished in restoration, FATE tells me I am done buying and playing other Basses. Seeing **Smith Batchelder in his record books sends CHILLS up my Spine!

** A Batchelder bass now owned by me, Ken Smith; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...der/index.html

In June of 1820 #18 is sold for $28. while $14. and $16. instruments are still being sold presumeably Church Basses. #55 was made march 1825 and sold in July for $50. It was bought back in october and sold for $52. He first wrote $50 and changed the '0' to a '2' as if he forgot to make a profit... The first buyer bought another Bass in Oct 1825 as well and he paid $57.50 this time. I guess he used the first Bass trade-in to pay for most and only made up the difference after Prescott sold his Bass.

My Prescott was cut down possible by Prescott because of the construction b4 the cut and at the re-build both times having the Ribs set in channels in the Top and Back. I am sure he cut down several of his Basses and helped owners trade up or dispose of Basses as needed.

In the 147 instruments made thru early 1829, there are records of 6 being bought back and sold again, #s 3,11,23, 28, 50 (sold first to the name Dearborn), and 55. The ones with lower prices I assume to be Church Basses.

Well, we need to see a 'confirmed' Tewkesbury. I mentioned Ira and Asa White and have seen a small 5/8 size Bass by them in NY. Benjamin Willard is reported to have trained Prescott but haven't seen his Double Basses but did see one I suspect. Baker of Boston I think was spotted somewhere.. and I am sure if I sit down with my American Violin Makers book, I can dig up a few more names BUT, seeing is believing.. and much much more fun..

History of the American Bass (9)
 

More Yanks..
I don't remember if these were posted before but I consider these important. Some are pre-Prescott Church Basses. Also, one of Prescotts Earliest Basses looks much cruder than we are used to seeing. I think this makes some Basses we know of difficult to date.

Benjamin Crehore (1765-1831); http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21

Benjamin Whittemore Willard,(1762–1848) reported to have taught Prescott; http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21

Other Bass Viols (non-Prescott); http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=31
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21

Prescott Viols and DB; http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=31
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=31
http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=31

When you look at the last one dated 1823 (labeled or estimated, I have no idea?) you wonder about the claims of the other Prescott Basses dated 1818-1823 that are so much more refined. It almost seems impossible for a Bass like this to be made 5 years after the large Busetto posted in the previous post.

By the way, this is where these pics came from; http://www.mfa.org/collections/searc...&coll_start=21

History of the American Bass (10)
 

Fig.8/Pattern 'D'.this is figure 8, the 'Wright' Prescott;
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eprescot...ightTailpc.jpg

As you can see in his Pic as compared to mine, the upper shoulders are on the narrow side. Mine were actually much bigger before the 'Cut' so I would believe mine to be an earlier example by Prescott. The date listed as 1800 is at least 25 years too early as that is NOT the work of an 11 year old boy (Prescott born 1789) as well as that Bass looking very well developed into his style as sizing especially with the smaller trimmed/evolved upper bouts. Also, my lower bouts are 28.5" wide, uncut as the bottom is original;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ott_fullFR.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...s_fullback.jpg

History of the American Bass (11)
 

This is why I mentioned that my model is not listed in the A-D list.

Maybe mine was the 'E' model and made before he bothered with the Busetto which does have the later and lighter varnish on all that I have seen.

More here on Don Carrigan’s Prescott page; http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/data/

Great job, Ken. A thought occurred to me-I remember that David Bromberg had a keen interest in Yankee instruments. Was wondering if you had ever crossed paths with him in that regard?

David Bromberg?
 

The Banjo guy? No, never met him. All I have to offer at the moment is the Batchelder Bass but enjoy talking about it.

On another note, over at TB, they have this thread about a restored Prescott by Lou DiLeone. It is NOT in no way a Prescott and either is Jason's Bass that he says looks like Lou's.
Everything in a Violin made near Cremona is a Strad..NOT..
Every old Bass from Milano is a Testore..NOT..
Every 19th century Bass from New England is a Prescott..NOT..

What is so hard about that. Even dealers can't get that straight. It's a shame when you look at it. There were many good Yankee Bass makers from the 19th century and we know that now. Why still is everything a Prescott?

Yeah, when I look at the restored bass by Lou DiLeone the shape of the lower bouts AND the 'f's don't exactly scream Prescott to me either.

BG

Prescott features..
 

To me, it's not so much the shape as it is the FF cuts and Scroll. Like Jeff Bollbach has preached to me, each person makes a curve his own way. In the case with hand made instruments, you can see if it's the same guy or not. With shop or production instruments, you cannot. In the case of Prescott having his own design with several workers over a 30 year period making Basses in two cities and at least 4 shops, you will see variation but not one that looks like a completely different maker or style. I have seen only two FF patterns used on Prescott Basses and only one Scroll design. The measurements vary from period to period but the 'idea' does not. With the FFs, only a few of the full sized Cello model Basses have that sweeping 'S' design as seen in his earlier Cellos (Church Basses). According to the records I have I don't see that he made that many Double Basses prior 1829 or in his first decade of making them. Mainly what we see are the Church Basses. After the move to Concord and the expansion of the shop, we see even the Cellos (Church Basses) using the short wide FFs that are on almost 98% of the Basses he made. When you see an old Yankee Bass and the FFs are not Prescott, that's usually a 'smoking gun' right there. Many old Basses have had their Necks/Scrolls replaced as until recent years, not everyone considered an original Bass Scroll of value or worth saving with a grafted neck. I understand Prescott farmed out his Scroll work at some point. This would mean that each time the model was made for duplicating, slight variations could occur as they could with final sanding and hand shaping. My Prescott (now sold) had a beautiful Scroll with soft lines. Some are more box-like in their finished state but some not. In either case, you can always tell it's a Prescott. Similar looking long Scrolls with extra turns or similar pegbox lines are just 'Prescott School' model Basses.

I bet that if my Batchelder did not have a label, it would be called a Prescott by just about any of the Dealers currently throwing his name around casually as we have seen to date. For lack of a better name, it is easier to call anything close to Prescott a Prescott. The only problem is that it's not close to my eye having studied his Basses over the last few years mainly for personal interest. So far, two Basses called Prescott and owned by famous players are just not a Prescott to me eye.

Dating Early Prescotts
 

DATING PRESCOTTS:
We know that in 1822 Abraham Prescott travelled (by c**** & Hudson?) to the annual "Mechanics Exhibit" to show of his new DOUBLE BASS. He built his FIRST DOUBLE BASS IN 1819. Then one a year until 1822. The newspapers in New York made a fool of him, saying his double bass was 'UNPLAYABLE' because the shoulders were rediculously wide! He had "projected" the measurements directly from 'cello measurements!
With his tail between his legs he quickly beat a path back to Dearfield, N.H. and instantly cut down (narrowed) the shoulders of every bass in his shop and perhaps others he might contact. Remember, these basses were sold to accompany choirs. One didn't have to play like Koussavitsky to play roots and fifths on a 3 string bass.
But dating his DOUBLE basses is easy for examples PIROR to 1824. He, himself, carved his earliest scrolls from soft sycamore wood with an open back string box and "teeth marks" at bottom rear. Here's my 1820 Prescott Busetto (now 5 string neck) showing pre 1823 carving: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...StrBoxRear.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...5StrScroll.jpg
In addition, Prescott's earliest basses sported FF holes ONE INCH WIDE!!! and, if you include the triangular notches, ONE INCH AND A QUARTER WIDE!!! The largest FF holes what am, ever. He only made a few of the provable early basses.
http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...06Prescott.jpg
By 1830, increasing business demanded that Prescott hire apprentices, some of whom quickly changed designs to personal tastes. Many later walked away to start their own shops, especially after two shop fires.
Prescott numbers may be misleading inasmuch as he simply numbered instruments consequtively, whether 'cellos, church basses, double basses and even one or two violas and a single violin. We have to guess.
See my photos and data at http://home.earthlink.net/~prescott
Front: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...5strgFRONT.jpg
Angle: http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...strgANGLED.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...SCROLLSIDE.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottv...TTdonSMALL.jpg

Message from Don..
 

It's getting harder to maintain this List of Purported Prescott Bass Locations, but here's my latest data. Click here below:

http://home.earthlink.net/~prescottviol/data/LOCATIONSPrescott07APRIL5.txt


I let Don know that my c.1820 Prez is now in the Columbus Symphony but I still have the Prescott School/relative Batchelder Bass.

The "Arvel Shaw" Prescott
 

Barrie has the Arvel Shaw Prescott up for sale.

There are nice pics here: http://kolstein.cybrhost.com/mm5/mer...gory_Code=bass
BG

Prescott?
 

Why do you believe that to be a Prescott? The FFs and Scroll are different than all the other Prescotts we have seen. Maybe it's another Yankee maker but I don't buy every old Yankee being a Prescott because someone claims it to be!

I agree, however I have seen some longer swooping f's like these on a lighter colored, very large 'Prescott' that I believe is on Barrie's pay to veiw site. Also similar f's on some Prescott church basses. AND the cello shaped one sold at Hammond Ashley's. We've also talked about the possibility that Abe and the boys probably used different scrolls from dif. suppliers thru the decades.
Also on the Arvel Shaw bass, look at the outer linings on the ribs and along the side of the neck joint, as well as the flamed rock maple back and compare it to this bass at Nahrmann's : http://www.nahrmannbass.com/cgi-bin/...rd&UsedID=0003

pretty similar.

BG

Yankee School
 

Brian, the sweeping FFs on the early Prescott Cellos and a small amount of Cello Model Basses are quite different than the LaFaro and Shaw Basses. Basses by JB Allen in Ma. and Bates in Vt. have a similar sweep to those just mentioned including my Batchelder. It is unfortunate that most dealers today still call any Bass similar to a Prescott a Genuine one. Maybe you can go back and read my original longer thread on TB about the Yankee makers which has pics of some of these other makers. Then it will be clearer that many other makers used similar features like Prescott.

Ken, It doesn't necessarily mean that they are not Prescotts either. I have gone thru that thread extensively. That is what got me on TB in the first place. However, I don't remember seeing any outer linings that looked like these on basses other than Prescotts. Would you agree that this Nahrmann three stringer is the real deal? I saw it and played it in the flesh. He believes the tailpiece to be original.

BG

Linings..
 

Brian, the 3-stringer is a Prescott. The Linings have zero to do with the ID process. the FFs and Scroll is the main focus here as far as I am concerned. We see linings on Allen and Bates Basses as well as other Olde Yanks!

If a dealer claims Prescott, he can charge more money than if he says 'Prescott School'. Please sit back a moment and look at the possibility of those other Basses NOT being Prescott. The 'NOT' factor benefits the Dealer/seller and owner much less than the 'YES' factor. I don't care so much about the $ factor as I prefer the truth who the actual maker might be. I have looked at several 'claimed' Prescotts over the last couple of years including some with famous Jazzers as owners past and present. I am sorry to say that in the case of this Pedigree I am often the bearer of Bad News!

This means nothing to the credibility of the actual Bass or the sound of it. It just means that there were other good makers making Basses at the same time that also used outer Linings and Busetto corners. If the Scroll and especially the FFs are different, then I suspect the Bass may be not be from the head of the School but rather one of the followers.

Ken, I'm not saying you're wrong about that. I can see that there were other Prescott inflenced makers from New England in 19th Cent. that present day dealers are too quick to tag as Prescotts.

I wish there was a way to see those pics of the Big Blond Busetto bass that Barrie had on his free site a few years ago. He was calling it a Prescott and it did have many Prescott features including the scroll more similar to Nahrmann's 3 stringer, but it also had the the long, narrow swoopy f's like on the Church basses. It is this bass and the curious scroll on my bass that makes me believe that there may be more variation to actual Prescotts that we may have to take into account. Probably due to the different periods, and workers (Concord, early Deerfield, Dearborn Bros. etc.) involved in their manufacture.

Whoever the maker, I know musicians that worked w/ Arvel Shaw that have said that bass sounds fantastic. You have to admit that the side veiw and the wood on the back of that bass is similar to Nahrmann's, but the button, scroll and f's are very different. To me the f's on yours, mine, Don C.'s, the Wright Prescott all have a similar feeling to them not found on the Shaw bass. It's my memory of Barrie's Big Blond Busetto ;) that has me thinkin'. Before he posted the Shaw bass I thought maybe they were one and the same, but BBBB was different. He must have sold it and now is only veiwable on his pay site. Anyone have access to that?

BG

This is all very fascinating to me. Subscribe.

I think this thread and the other one like it over at TB are why I really admire Ken Smith. He is not satisfied with blurred details and easy approximate answers that are "convenient". And I think the points made here are very well made. There is a tendency to want a definitive answer about every bass that is made while in many cases the most honest answer is that we really don't know who made some of these basses. I am convinced as Ken is that there are too many basses that don't fit the Prescott details enough but are conveniently ascribed to him due to incomplete, hopeful, or just downright sloppy research. It makes me thoroughly question the "origins" of antiques that are not well documented.

Certainly there were other American makers in Prescott's time and some of their work survives even if their name and reputation did not. That these basses are valued higher or lower because of the recognition of only one name is a bit ironic, and genuinely ignorant in terms of real value. It is quite possible that Prescott was not the best builder of that place and time, just the most prolific and best known. What I really appreciate is the time and diligence that Ken has put into this subject.

Compiling as much accurate information in one place is also a great idea. It is fantastic to have Don Carrigan's input here as well and the publications that he has supplied online about Prescott's life and career. I would encourage Ken to compile his research, notes, photos, other contributor's information etc. into something more durable than just a web forum, but I'll take it anyway he wishes to publish it.

In all of my life I have seen only one great Yankee made double bass in performance (other than one Prescott that pops up in the Atlanta Symphony). It belonged to a fellow who used to play in a local bluegrass outfit, Blue Steel, and it was attributed to Dearborn. It had the same general American or "Prescott" appearance in that it was very large. I tried very hard recently to locate the player, but it appears he no longer plays with that act and I could not find any information about him. So the only reference I can add is that somewhere in the Southeast wanders a really good blue grass bassist who has an old Dearborn bass. I'll be on the look out for him.

Very informative and educational thread here, Ken. Not that I'm bored with the English bass thread, that one has some great story lines as well. It might not have ever occurred to you that you could teach this kind of stuff at some university, but given what you have to share in direct first-hand observation, I'm certainly glad that you post it in a forum. :)

>>Antico Contrabbasso fine '800 Pennsylvania<<
 

ken,
what do think is this:
http://cgi.ebay.it/Antico-Contrabbas...QQcmdZViewItem
?

it's.. it's
 

It's... a Bass!

You would think that with a claim of being an American Bass and from Pa. no doubt they would at least say why or refer to a label or some markings for an explanation. To me, it passes for a Germanic type Bass without much question in my mind.

Hey, maybe it's an Italian bass but they are too embarrassed to admit it. Blame it on the Yanks..

Calvin Baker?
 

Has anyone here ever seen a Bass by Calvin Baker? There is one pictured in the Elgar book and looks like a German Gamba design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Gemunder?
 

A. Gemunder 1846, Springfield MA

Gemunder...
 

Beautiful Bass. Thanks for posting. If you can, show us the Back, Ribs and Scroll as well.

here they are
 

Note the trap door (decommissioned) for sound post adjustment.

Gemunder back
 

I forgot to include the back picture - here it is.

Another Gemunder
 

Found this in a story about Joe Byrd, Charlie's Brother.

I played a Gemunder at Arnold's shop a couple of months ago....It was so sweet sounding and responsive I was speachless.

Gemunders..
 

The French looking Gemunder at his shop was made by George after he left Vuillaume and moved to USA. The one pictured above may be a George as well. All the August ones I have seen were Gamba. I have one now as well but it is in a year long restoration. It is August Martin Sr., Georges older brother. Completely different style Bass and equally different sounding.

The one above (and now below) may possibly be the exact same Bass. George is only known to have made two Basses. Maybe Arnold who knows the current owner can confirm if this is the exact same Bass in both pictures old and new. They look like the exact same maker and maybe the exact same Bass with a few decades between pictures.
http://www.bayweekly.com/year06/issu...dbass1960s.jpghttp://www.aesbass.com/images/galler...nder_front.jpg

I played some type of Gemunder about 15-20 years ago in Anaheim at the NAMM show at a Guitar Player magazine breakfast. There was a Piano/Bass duo playing and somehow after not playing at all for many years (retired from the game), someone convinced me to sit in. The Bass I played I was told was a Gemunder made in NY. I don't remember if it was George, August or the sons. The Varnish was darker and different than both the George that Arnold has and my August as well.

I think mine and the one Arnold had were made in Mass. (Springfield for August Sr. and maybe Boston for George as he came to the states from Paris after his brother came over from Germany). They both moved to USA within a year or so of each other and both moved to NY separately (1852/George, 1859/August).

I don't have pics of mine to post because it was in dis-repair and unplayable when I bought it. Arnold and I both agreed it would be best if the Bass was shown only after it was restored and playable. It's long and slenderish as compared to a Prescott but similar flame type American Sugar Maple Back and Ribs often seen on Prescotts.

Hmmm... they do look really similar. I would think they were from the same hand, but after looking at these 2 pics for a long time I suspect they are different instruments.

BG

According to the article on Joe Byrd, his bass is labeled 1875. The one in my shop is 1852. I think the model is the same, but I see differences in the shading. Also, the history of ownership is different.

wow..
 

Then that must be the 2nd Bass George Snr. made. If not, the book is wrong about him making only 2 Basses in his time.

Prescott periods..
 

I have seen many Basses called a Prescott and have disagreed with several of them. Mainly because of the FFs and Scroll. They shapes were all similar (Either Gamba or Busetto) but only the general shape.

The two FFs I know of are the sweeping curling ones seen on his early Church Basses and a few Cello model Basses he made early on. The scrolls on the early Basses although similar on top, differ slightly at the bottom of the pegbox. The other style had the shorter wide FFs like on the majority we have seen including Don C's (cut shoulders and replaced Scroll) and my Prescott (cut shoulders and C-bouts).

My question is this and I do say question because having not been there in person 180-190 years ago, how can we really know? Ok, my question is, is there possible a period between the early Deerfield Basses and the lated Concord Basses where the FFs were somewhat different than either of the two model mentioned above? Could there also be a few Scrolls made that differ too?

There are a few basses that I have seen in person that I did not agree with because of these different FFs so I must question myself here. Two of them were personally repaired by Jeff Bollbach so he has seen the insides of these two as well as many others that are within the regular modeling most of us agree with as being 'real' Prescott.

The Basses that I am referring to belonged to Lafaro, Shaw and one still owned by Reggie Workman (one of my former teachers) as well as one other owned by a NY State dealer/player.

It was the last one mentioned above of which had to have its Back replaced during restoration that I played most recently and considered at the least 'Prescott School'. That Bass according to Jeff looked very Prescottish internally, where it counts. The FFs and Scroll are different than the typical ones used but still, is it possible that there were Basses made between the periods that had different FFs and Scrolls? The LaFaro bass now has a replaced Scroll made in the Kolstein shop that resembles a Prescott but it's not like the original one that was on there before which I have seen a picture of with Scotty. This possible 'middle' period of Prescott (if such a thing exists) had variations in the FFs and Scrolls from Bass to Bass unlike his earlier period and later period both of which were fairly consistent.

I say this with as mush doubt as I do possibility that these four basses or any others that are similar can be or not be actual Prescotts. I have seen 3 different J.B. Allen basses who worked in Springfield, Mass. and I must say that without better knowledge, these too would be called Prescott basses. I have not seen many Basses by Dearborn who worked for and bought the Prescott shop in the end (operated it only 5 more years or so) and I have not seen but maybe one Tewkesbury Bass so I can't point to them that easily.

I am just mentioning this to keep your minds open. I recently bought a 3rd Bultitude bass bow that was so different I had to send pictures to England to see if anyone could confirm it. Luckily I heard back thru another dealer from a Bow maker still alive today that knew Bultitude personally. He mentioned a remark by him like "I will leave something for the historians to figure out". This late Bow of his is just that. Sue Lipkins who is restoring it sees Bultitude all over it but nothing like any other Bass bow we have seen.

Our own Electric Basses have evolved as well since the late 1970s but I was there and can attest to them and with reason why each model and design change was made. Is there someone here alive today that worked for Prescott between 1820 and 1835 that could bear witness? For this reason we must speculate that if the internal work is similar but the design is not exact like the other then the possibility may be there that the maker experimented. It just doesn't follow his consistent pattern of work in my mind between the first and last Basses. This fact is blinding me!

If those other basses are actually Prescott's then they were made after the Cello models and before the Gamba and Busetto patterns with the shorter wide FFs. Either that or he made one off's on occasion which I highly doubt.

Dating them as the in between models would push back the dates of all of the others with the wider FFs, no?