View Single Post
  #3  
Old 02-16-2007, 02:00 PM
Ken Smith's Avatar
Ken Smith Ken Smith is offline
Bassist, Luthier & Admin
 
Join Date: 01-18-2007
Location: Perkasie, PA
Posts: 4,851
Ken Smith is on a distinguished road
Cool Abe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Powell View Post
OK, so the door is open for me here. I'll go with the "lack thereof welcomed"! Recently there was a topic discussed not so much here about a Prescott bass that was restored by Lou DiLeone. Most of us know of Lou and he is very respected as an expert in his field. He made several changes to the Prescott and in general I would say that almost all of these are definitely changes that made the bass more useful, better sounding, more easily maintained in the future, and more modern in features. Among the changes were the installation of a neck block, new neck grafting back the original scroll, converting the pegbox from 3 to 4 string configuration, new tailpiece with 4 holes. I'm guessing, but I don't know, at least it is plausible that it got a new bass bar, some regraduation and other changes. It also got new varnish. I don't want to start a heated debate, just hear some knowledgeable responses about rebuilding / restoring a bass in such a radical fashion. To me, that bass is a Lou DiLeone bass made from Prescott parts now. Not that there is anything deleterious in that action or anything negative about it in my estimation. It is just giving credit to Lou instead of Abe for the instrument's current sound and characteristics? Any comments?
First off, in my opinion for what it's worth, that Bass is NOT a Prescott Bass. What is it then? I think it is a Yankee Prescott "School" Bass made by someone who 'copied' or was 'influenced' by his work or model. The Scroll is not a Prescott Scroll and the FFs are not Prescott either. The body, well that is a Gamba shaped Bass that could be made by any 19th century Bass maker.

Now, my Prescott, a real one was restored by Arnold who only did what was needed. I have since sold that Bass by the way. The Varnish, corner blocks, tail block and FFs and Scroll were all in its original condition. The Scroll needed repair and a new Neck graft. The Bass was cut from the C-bouts over 100 years ago and was converted to a 4-string. A Dearborn Label was in the Bass as well and I suspect the did some of these modifications for a customer. The Varnish is more of a stain and Shellac than Varnish that we know of from Europe either Spirit or Oil based. Arnold cleaned it as best he could and did minimal touch-up only. All the crossbars were replaced and only one corner block repaired or replaced (not sure which). The Bassbar was not the original but the second installed as we could see a scar from the original next to it. The Top was in perfect shape with the FFs wings still attached so he just trimmed the Bar slightly as it was on the crude side look wise. It was not even completly sanded so you can see the old oxidation where it was left alone.

A restoration should only fix what needs to fixed and modifications kept to a minimum in order to keep the integrity of the maker. Exceptions being re-finish IF is was done before and botched. Re-graduate only if it needs to be from over thickness and sound loss or add breast patches to restore overly thinned wood and then re-graduate with the added wood. Block or shoulder cut only if the Bass was made unplayable by today’s standards and/or the string length is too long for today’s orchestral players. Change Tuners or Tailpiece IF they are broken, don't work or don't match the Bass.

Currently, I have several old or original non-ebony Tailpieces on some of my Basses. These Basses are the Gilkes, Batchelder, Martini and Cornerless Italian. They will remain on the Bass as long as I own them unless something breaks beyond repair.
Reply With Quote