Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker
Nice work Arnold, I DO like that head carving!
The outline is quite unique, with its small corners. The bass looks a little tubby but at the same time elegant. It isn't so much that the centre is wide as the upper bout is narrow and tall.
I am frustrated seeing only small pictures, Ken. Got any bigger ones or nice sharp closeups of the corners, the purfling and/or that show the wood textures??
How does the sound compare to the original? Are the organ pipes still there?
|
Matt, my son took these pics in a hurry the other night so I could get the page up. Arnold's facebook pics are nicer. The pics on my page are also sized a bit and it's a longer slender look in real than anything squat. They came out distorted and blurred as well. I will get new ones up one day but because it's not really a bass for sale (unless one wants to order my model made new), we didn't go crazy with the pics, yet!
The Original is about 300 years old and we can't figure a way to put that component into a new bass other than waiting 300 years! But the depth or sound is there and the low strings almost increase in volume over the D and G strings. The Original is a flatback with narrow spaced f-holes. That in itself will change the tone as well the individual exact pieces of wood. The original 2-pc laminated Spruce/Maple Burl Ribs on the original are or were very resonant but in time they blistered all over rather then cracking like with normal solid ribs. Unless we try a few more basses copying the parts we changed for longevity we will never know. We will also need 300 years of playing it in to compare but by then, the original will be 600 years old! So, WE will never know.
The original is still in restoration so after IT'S done, we can compare the modified original all repaired to the copy of the modified bass and get a 'real-time' comparison. For now, I am quite happy with the results. I can take out the new bass with as much confidence as any of the older ones. The differences are mainly the played in aged tone. Other than the aged factor, there are no more or less differences here than comparing the Gilkes, Hart, Martini, Panormo or any of the other basses I have taken to work in recent years. They are all different and all very good professional high grade basses. The new bass will sit amongst them equally in time. I am sure about that.
One thing I want to point out is that Arnold did not go for cosmetic perfection on this bass regardless of how beautiful it looks overall. It came out how it came out within the details. Older basses were often made this way as the DB was not the most important instrument of the Shop so it suffered in some areas of its cosmetics but not in tone as we now know. This is somewhat a non-deliberate way of making something with simplicity. Looks do not equal tone. I wanted tone. The original is made very simply so that's the brain you need turned on when making this. If you look at the bass close up in person at the corners, details, purfling, varnish, etc., you will see an individually handmade bass. If Arnold makes another, it will not look exactly the same no matter how hard he tries..
