Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni') (SOLD)

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Didn't David Wiebe copy that bass?

Good for you Ken, that will turn out nice I think.

I would measure the plate resonances of the original when it is in restoration.

I would measure the density of the plates.

I would copy the exact bass.

I would laminated the ribs just as they were originally except I might use different thickness veneers. I can explain this if you wish.

Corners will change the way the corpus vibrates.

Ken, I can have it copied 100% if I like, 44 1/2" string length and all. The facts are that I DO own the original and I want to have the copy different. I already know what the original sounds like. I also know I will not live 200+ years to hear the copy age like the original has. Also, the bass has been repaired over the centuries as well and I will not live through that either.

I have used the original in Symphony concerts so I know very well what I would like if I owned a twin with the desired modifications. This is it, the twin, modified!

You would need wood from the same boards as this to make it exact but even then, it wont be. Only the exact is the exact.

I know David's copy BUT, to my eye it is more of an inspired copy than a copy copy. It was made with Walnut, different Scroll, different FFs and, he didn't have the original apart in his hands at his disposal to copy from. Arnold has heard the Wiebe copy and it doesn't sound like the original. Perhaps nothing will. The original has been re-graduated within the last 100 years or so and we have to 'guesstimate' what the original thicknesses were. Actually, the bass is currently 'reverse-graduated' The bass is thinner now in the middle and thicker (original) around the outer edges as the center was cut up quite a bit. We will use something more traditional and maybe tap tone the Top along the way making it to the actual wood chosen. We will have to ask Arnold when all is done how he arrived at the final thicknesses. I say we but 'I' am not the maker here. Arnold Schnitzer is. The 'we' is us, maker and player/designer but without 'me' commissioning this, it would never happen.

On the Ribs, they will be solid, not laminated. We can see now how cross grain Spruce against Maple reacts after 200+ years. Not something I want to see in my lifetime. I will however have the Rib depth and top to bottom tapers copied. This will not be a very deep bass at all. It tapers 7 3/4" to 5 3/4" Block to Block.

I asked Arnold to copy as close as possible and make the same Purfling as well. I also want that Scroll/Pegbox copied. It might get slightly extended in length if it helps fitting the C-Extension as this was a 3-string. How would this maker have made the Pegbox if it was to be a 4-string originally? This is in thought for now. We can use the Original to measure from and decide from there.

Maybe we need to have a mini-convention of all the recent Cornerless Bass copies and inspired models which this one actually is. I am not all that concerned how much the corners will affect the sound. The inside lines of the Bass will flow in the manner of mainly a Guitar form.

[Ken McKay]

I am sure it will be fantastic.

I forgot about that string length. You can't really leave it that long, can you?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

I am sure it will be fantastic.

I forgot about that string length. You can't really leave it that long, can you?

Here is a little video showing how floppy the sides were on my cornerless. Originally I had braces across the sides for crack stoppers, but they felt all wrong and I removed them. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/floppy.mov I think some of the character of timbre of the cornerless bass comes from the freeness of the corpus' ability to flex.

Do you think you could talk Arnold into measuring the resonances of that plate? (as if he isn't reading ) As well as the weight.

That link didn't open for me. What is it?

As far as measuring, I don't know what is involved there. Maybe you can ask him. I am confident with whatever he does concerning the copy-making process. By the way, this bass is #24 for Arnold. Nice even number, 2 dozen!

I am sure some of the sound comes from how the Ribs are made and how free they are as well as how free they are not! My Martini (here I go again..) has less then 8" of actual Rib depth and has wide flat outer linings as well stiffening it even more. The inside Linings are about the same as the outer Linings in width. That makes the 'free' part of the Ribs just over 7". The Storioni Ribs are close to 7 5/8" or so for the most part so they have more free Rib width than the Martini. The Martini however is deep into the floor type sounding. The Ribs and Back are Oppio, soft Italian Maple. The Storioni is hard maple like Sugar Maple or Yugoslavian/Bosnian Maple. We will be using Bosnian I think for this Bass, nicely flamed. The Top wood will be fine grained light weight but strong Spruce, I forget the exact species he mentioned. The Storioni Top was made in 6 pieces, this will be two.

I don't think anything can ever be copied 100% when it comes to an instrument but all things considered, this Bass will be like "what if the original was made like this?" kinda thing. So an inspired copy with a 'wish list' of modifications. Arnold will try staining the figure like this one was done to bring out the flames. I remember a few years back playing a bass he had just made while my Martini was there in the shop and comparing them. I was quite impressed how well his brand new bass held its own beside my nearlky 90 year old (at the time) Martini as far as tone and power. I think that bass of his after 90 years will at least as good if not better than the Martini, maybe sooner and maybe not! You never know but it's worth a chance to try. All basses were once new!

[Ken Smith]

Ok, I opened it in Windows Media but there was no sound. What do you suggest?

[Pino Cazzaniga]

Ken,
As you have the "real thing" open for restoration, I would trace the outlines of the plates on the same sheet of paper.
Then I would draw a centre line, and the perpendicular lines at the upper and lower width, at the C width, at the stop, at the eyes of the F holes,etc. I would also trace the given back braces.
Then I would play a bit with numbers, looking for proportions among the given measurements.
I don't pretend that this is a way to know the original maker ideas about the design, but it may be helpful to get one's own insight of a given object, and sometimes it's funny (sometimes it's frustrating too).
The danger is to cut the foot to fit the shoe...
Anyway, if something is to modify, I would do it thinking of the founded proportions (if any!)

[Ken McKay]

sorry I changed my mind.

[Ken Smith]

Ok guys, A few current facts about the bass and the changes need to be spelled out.

On the original, the Top was thinned out to the danger point in the middle and lower bouts. The Top has 'sunk' in these areas as well.

On the original in repair it is obvious it will need some breast patching to bring 'up' the thickness in spots and then, level the graduations to the norm, what ever that is. So, tapping a tone now may give a false read as to what to make on the Copy bass because we are changing it from the start.

The Back is flat on the original with a center brace and 3 very shallow cross braces about the depth of a patch or cleat. The Copy bass will be round, not flat and will have a center brace as well.

The Top will have a similar arching system to the 'restored' original. The upper F-eyes and the F's all together are spaced too close. The original should have a 145mm bridge at the most but had a 170mm or bigger when I got it. The bridge foot on the 'G' side was crushing the Top inwards. The first night I had the Bass I cut about 5mm off the outer leg of each foot of the bridge and moved it up about 1/4" and this not only relieved some of the pressure, it made it sound deeper.

The Copy bass will have the F's moved up to match the desired string length within the same size body as the original and the F's moved outwards as well. It will get at least a 165mm bridge and the bar like on my Mystery bass was, might be in a bit from the upper F-eyes due to their wider width spacing.

So, we are copying the outline and Top archings (the way we think it was) and making the graduations the way we think is best. The Back is being changed from flat to round/carved but following the Top. The Ribs will be the same widths and taper as the original but in 6 solid pieces with small corners instead of two 2-ply continuous pieces without corners.

The Purfling and Scroll will be copied from as well but the pegbox might need to be longer for the 4-Gears to fit comfortably and the C-extension to fit without too much length protruding over the head. The original was a 3-stringer and the current gears are tight in there.

So, not an exact copy but a basis in which to center the design from.

Questions that arise in all of our minds might be;

1- how will the sound be at 41.5" from 44.5" if all else was left alone? Well, we are shortening the original so I will know somewhat the effect. Also, I had in the past stopped the string to 42" and re-tuned it to check the depth and if it was still there. It was and with even more focus so I know it's ok.

2- going round from flatback, how much change in sound or rather departure from the original sound characteristics will there be? Who knows? But, I am doing it. Flatbacks are just too much trouble to deal with. Round with a center brace is the way to go in my mind. The best combination.

3- how will the bass sound with the corner design change and with solid maple vs. 2-ply opposing grain ribs of maple and spruce? Well, in looking at the totally blistered 'blistered flatsawn maple' outer veneer, I hope structurally it will not be an issue or ever come to the condition the original has. As far as the sound goes, I have played many old bass with Organ like tone that were made like this, flat or round back so I am not worried.

The original Ribs will be repaired as best they can be but some restorers I am sure would opt for new Ribs entirely. The Copy should not have to go thru this split decision 200 years from now when it goes under the knife for a restoration IF it does!

Since the original is under a massive restoration at the same time the Copy is being made, it's not the same way other copies in the past have been made. Usually they get made from an 'in-tact' original with little or no modifications done to it and not taken apart either for corrective repairs.

Looking 2 and 5 years down the road, the restored original will be breaking back in from its massive surgery and the copy will be just spreading its wings. THEN, and only then will we know how well we did on both the restoration and the copy attempt. I know the sound of the bass from before and so do many others so I will not be alone in judging the repairs and modifications to the original. Making a Copy to the modified and repaired original before it's repaired is a big challenge in itself.

Maybe making the Copy now which will completed before the restoration of the original might help the actual restoration/modification as far as insight goes to what changes are in mind to clean up the original.