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?