Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker
OK Ken, I had mis-read that your tip that leaving the "shelf" under the bass bar was an inherently good thing, instead of just "working around the bar" to improve the thicknesses.
When I regraduated my own bass, I worked neatly right up to the bar, and in fact now you can see the bar and the original glue line raised above the level of the plate. The edges of the bar are sheer and clean right down to the new thickness. If I was to do it again, I'd remove the bar and put a new one on after regraduating. It was very fiddly working neatly right up to the bar, and replacing a bassbar is no big deal in comparison.
|
Matt, in the case of the Gilkes, the platform was outside the glue line about a centimeter or so all around it. I didn't measure it but when the Top was off and before the new 'Bar went in, I felt around the 'Bar and 'Post areas and commented to Arnold how unusual this was. I suggested (which he probably had planned on anyway) that he leave the platform relations as-is during the 'gentle' re-graduation and keep the makers 'idea' as original as possible. The Gilkes was estimated for its wood and arch strength at about 200% the necessary thickness and ended up at about 120% the thickness it would be if made today. The Bass sounds deeper and fuller now and still strong as a tank. The Bass could probably easily survive another 20% of scraping and the removal of the shelf but, why fix what isn't broke? The Bass sounds great now and at 195 years old just needs to be played steadily and break in again. This is a Bass that does not have any belly splits. I plan on keeping it that way if I have any say in it.