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

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Nathan Parker

I look forward to hearing more about this, Ken, as it progresses. Of all the basses in stables, this is the one that I enjoy looking at the most. I don't know all the technical terms to describe it's features, I just know that it moves me every time I look at it. And good call on copying the scroll. Of all the scrolls I've seen on the interwebs, this is my favorite.

The Scroll in my opinion is one of simple beauty. It has had at least one Neck graft that I know of and probably had at least one more in the past. That being said we don't know for sure the true original shape of the bottom and bottom rear of the pegbox. Wood taken off can never be put back. The next graft of the original for this restoration will disturb little more than the finish around it. The Copy Scroll will be as close to the original as far as we know it.

The Copy Bass will not start for a few months. Other than a few drawings there wont be much in reality to report on for at least 6-8 months. The original bass restoration will not be completed until next year sometime.

For now, we just sit and wait and talk about it!

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

Better said than I could Maestro!

The sound of the Bass it-self before restoration is breadth taking. The Ribs have multiple splits, partly due to its construction. The new Ribs will be solid and 6-pc in total instead of 3. The Back has several splits/cracks as well. Partly from being a typical Flatback and partly from being used in the N.E. USA. The modified Roundback planned for the new bass will hopefully fix both of these issues in the long run.

All of this will be a change from the original and the sound difference will take 200 years to compare. Volunteers? .. Gee, I hope my cell phone number still works in the 23rd century...

I have played several of Arnold's handmade basses. I am confident that between his workmanship, build style, model to copy and my personal design requests this will be his masterpiece to date. I would also like to mention if I may that this will be the most expensive Bass Arnold has custom made to date. I am totally ok with that because I know very well what is going into it. I am happy that Arnold has accepted the project.

Now, would someone PLEASE Photoshop a demo of this? I will tell you what corrections to make as we go. Ofcourse Arnold's drawings will be final as we deciede together what it will be but having a little fun on-line along the way seems like fun..

[Pino Cazzaniga]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.

Arnold, sorry, I did not mean to teach you how to work, was just curious about the design of that old beautiful instrument.
Any luck for your "Storioni" times!

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Pino, absolutely no offense taken. It's just that too many cooks can spoil the stew!

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Pino, absolutely no offense taken. It's just that too many cooks can spoil the stew!

We're having Stew for dinner? .. gee.. thanks for the heads up.. I just ordered Chinese!

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

... but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. ...

Arnold, I thought it important at least from my point of view to bring up the subject of experience gained from working on and restoring old classic basses from the Italian, French, English, German and other schools that might be guiding you towards or away from some of the things you do in making your own bass.

So, what are these things that you go for and stay away from. Also, besides the generic factory basses of the last century, can you estimate the number of Symphony grade classics you have worked on in the last say, 20 years?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Ken, I appreciate you stroking my ever-expanding ego, though my wife would disapprove.

The main thing I try to stay away from in my building is introducing tension into a bass' corpus. All my basses are a little asymmetrical because after I build the rib structure, I let it relax, and then match the top and back plates to it, rather than doing the opposite, which is more common. I look for good, stable, well-seasoned wood. I stay away from common blunders I see in basses I repair, such as ill-fitting or crooked neck joints, and plates that don't meet the blocks. The workmanship you don't see is more important than what you do see.

To answer your second question, I would say a few hundred.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Ken, I appreciate you stroking my ever-expanding ego, though my wife would disapprove.

The main thing I try to stay away from in my building is introducing tension into a bass' corpus. All my basses are a little asymmetrical because after I build the rib structure, I let it relax, and then match the top and back plates to it, rather than doing the opposite, which is more common. I look for good, stable, well-seasoned wood. I stay away from common blunders I see in basses I repair, such as ill-fitting or crooked neck joints, and plates that don't meet the blocks. The workmanship you don't see is more important than what you do see.

To answer your second question, I would say a few hundred.

Thanks for the answers. I never noticed the ego thing. Please tell you wife Barbara you're safe with me when we hang out in the shop or out to lunch..

I believe too in the relaxed theory. Wood itself releases tension every time it's cut. I agree that building slow allows the release of the tension as it happens allowing all things to settle down along the way.

[Ken Smith]

I know you are not in favor of Eb Necks but playing my Hart mainly for the last few weeks as well as every other time I can see the advantage personally of the Eb over the D.

I looked over at my stand partner the other day at rehearsal and asked if his was D or Eb? He showed me as we discussed it and he has an Eb as well and does not like the D-necks. I have spoken to other players who feel the same.

With my thumb on the Heel my 1st finger plays D (on the G) and my 2nd plays the Eb. I can easily play a C on the E with the 1st and D with the 4th and the same across the Neck. On a D-neck I cant do that without a fairly uncomfortable stretch.

Now, on the 'copy' bass the shoulders will be sloped quite a bit more so maybe it wont be as important but I recall the original bass being more of an Eb as well. You can see here the difference in shoulders between the two.


Also, the distance from the top of the Heel to the root of the Neck in the block is much less making the transition into TP so much easier. Look here between the Hart and Martini to see what I am talking about.


Playing the Bass for just a few minutes testing it you will notice other 'feel' issues than the Heel depth but playing 2-3 hour long rehearsals and concerts is another story. I end up thinking about these details on the drive home almost every time.

For those of you with experience on both, which do you prefer? We talked about it awhile ago here but the Thread has all but died out..

[Arnold Schnitzer]

My preference is for a D neck, because it's the standard on all string instruments, and because it's stronger. An Eb neck should be installed with less overstand because the heel is much weaker. Also, to do the Eb neck right, you either need a long string length, or you need to build the bass with a short stop. Neither is a good idea, IMHO.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

The Scroll in my opinion is one of simple beauty. It has had at least one Neck graft that I know of and probably had at least one more in the past. That being said we don't know for sure the true original shape of the bottom and bottom rear of the pegbox. Wood taken off can never be put back. The next graft of the original for this restoration will disturb little more than the finish around it. The Copy Scroll will be as close to the original as far as we know it.

I mentioned before that the original bass may of had one other neck graft besides the current one BUT, looking closer at the rounded button area recently we counted about 4 graft like pieces showing, maybe 5 in total. At that point we both agreed that the rounded button is more probable than not, a modification to the bass at some point in its life.

I spoke earlier today with Bob Riccardi Jr. and asked if he had any pics of the original Button area before Bob Sr. did that last graft. He said it was copied 100% as best as possible. He sent me the pics and it IS the same rounded Button area now as it was before. That being said, the same will be done with the current graft keeping it like it was as far back as we know. The Neck break back then took out the bottom of the pegbox with the rounded button all in one and I have the pics to prove it! If not for needing an extension we could have left the neck BUT, it was also a bit too long so we fixed two things in one repair. String length and Scroll angle to handle an extension without cutting the Scroll ever again.

As I mentioned before, the Copy bass will have more of a standard type Button which might keep that area a bit stronger from breaks in the future.