re- graduations explained ?

[Eric Swanson]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Craftsperson?

Yes, I literally meant a skilled worker who practices some trade or handicraft. I generally use the term interchangeably with "mechanic."

I didn't intend it as an assessment of the quality of their work or their knowledge; there are some very rough craftspeople out there, in my limited experience in the woodworking trade.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

Yes, I literally meant a skilled worker who practices some trade or handicraft. I generally use the term interchangeably with "mechanic."

I didn't intend it as an assessment of the quality of their work or their knowledge; there are some very rough craftspeople out there, in my limited experience in the woodworking trade.

This bass would better be described as made by crafts-people rather than crafts-person being made by more than one individual.

[Eric Swanson]

I agree. The specialty or custom shops I have worked in have a fairly high degree of specialization; most mechanics do a handful of the relevant manufacturing operations; as you say, there is no single person making the product, start to finish. Rather it is the plant, as an entity. Craftspeople they were; of various and unknown skill levels.

Semantics aside, bless both you and Arnold Schnitzer for improving these instruments so much. You have both done something wonderful for those basses, their owners, and their listeners.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Lest one assume that every repair/restoration job includes regraduation, I just want to point out that it is far from the first thing considered when trying to improve tone. Most well-made basses are in pretty good shape from day one as far as plate thicknesses. With those, the initial attempts to improve the sound will include string change, soundpost adjustment, fingerboard and bridge set-up, tailpiece change, etc. If all that fails to bring good results, and dis-assembly is on the menu, the bass bar may be altered or changed, linings reduced, and/or lumps removed. Complete top and/or back regraduation is more or less the last resort, unless the instrument is so obviously overly-wooded as to make it a clear necessity. An example would be a Claudot flatback I worked on several years ago. The top table, very strong spruce, measured 12mm thick in the center and 9mm around the edges. There's no way a heavy bass with a top that thick can make a reasonably good sound.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Lest one assume that every repair/restoration job includes regraduation, I just want to point out that it is far from the first thing considered when trying to improve tone. Most well-made basses are in pretty good shape from day one as far as plate thicknesses. With those, the initial attempts to improve the sound will include string change, soundpost adjustment, fingerboard and bridge set-up, tailpiece change, etc. If all that fails to bring good results, and dis-assembly is on the menu, the bass bar may be altered or changed, linings reduced, and/or lumps removed. Complete top and/or back regraduation is more or less the last resort, unless the instrument is so obviously overly-wooded as to make it a clear necessity. An example would be a Claudot flatback I worked on several years ago. The top table, very strong spruce, measured 12mm thick in the center and 9mm around the edges. There's no way a heavy bass with a top that thick can make a reasonably good sound.

Ok Arnold, so a bigger bass like this French Claudot at 12mm-9mm, what were the approximate finished thicknesses when all was said and done?

I want to point out to others (Arnold, you can agree or correct me) that the size of various basses being not created equally, the graduations need to be different for a 3/4 as compared to a 4/4.

When my Mougenot (a French Bass for the most part) was recently opened by your (Arnold's) esteemed colleague Jeff Bollbach, I asked about the graduations because from the outside looking at the f-hole thickness, it looked quite 'healthy' to say the least. He mentioned that for a bass of this size (a 4/4 by Europe's standards, 7/8 here) that the Top should be thicker for its length ad width. Also, this bass being a 'makers instrument' and not a factory French production, it was done as it should be with proper and thoughtful graduations as you would find on a hand made Vuillaume.

So, the Claudot I assume from what I have seen was a 7/8ths by our local language? What were the final numbers if you recall them?

I mainly want to point out as mentioned above that size in length and/or width will alter the needed thickness as much as the density of the wood and its arching as well.

Oh, and to make a bass sound better without any repairs at all, the first thing one should try is lessons and a lot of practice. You would be surprised how much better a bass sounds when played rather than sitting in a case. Also, played correctly is so much more pleasing to the ear..

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Ok Arnold, so a bigger bass like this French Claudot at 12mm-9mm, what were the approximate finished thicknesses when all was said and done?

Ken, I'm not comfortable talking numbers on something I worked on 10-11 years ago. I have personal preferences for the tap tones I get from a bass top, combined with ideas about general thicknesses, but every instrument is going to be a bit different. I don't want to encourage someone to use my numbers as a rule, nor do I wish to totally give away the recipe for my "secret sauce".

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Ken, I'm not comfortable talking numbers on something I worked on 10-11 years ago. I have personal preferences for the tap tones I get from a bass top, combined with ideas about general thicknesses, but every instrument is going to be a bit different. I don't want to encourage someone to use my numbers as a rule, nor do I wish to totally give away the recipe for my "secret sauce".

"secret sauce"? Is it spicy or mild?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by wayne holmes

Arnold, good info and well said. Later this evening, I will hear the Romanian...the bass you helped me with several weeks ago. Tried everything first, then re-graduated the top... I don't know how it will sound. I'm hoping that it surprises me.

Just over 4 years ago I acquired my Hart bass which we thought was a Fendt at the time. The day I went to look at it I had my Dodd bass with me and compared the two. The Dodd bigger and deeper sounding on the bottom and the Fendt? (so we thought but now a Hart) was not as powerful on the bottom but the top 2 strings, especially the G (with OLD strings on it) sounded so smooth and sweet it could have passed for a fine old Italian pedigree. The Hart/Fendt was in terrible shape. The top split all over, old cracks re-opened, the center of the back split up the center seam 80% of its length and the back ear the sound post violin corner totally off and open wide. We put a couple of spool clamps on the corner to string it up and play a few notes. You could hear the glue popping in all the top cracks as we tuned it up and that was scary. Arnold said, "just for a few minutes or it might explode!". So... after playing a few notes myself and then Arnold playing, me listening.. we let the string tension back down and put the bass aside in a corner to rest for a few months waiting for the Gilkes to be done and completed before putting this one under the knife.

When the top came off, it was evident that someone had been in there and took some wood out in the upper and lower bar area. Too much to be exact so wood had to be added back in at both ends aka breast patches and a sound post patch as well due to a crack and sinkage in the middle. After the Top was fully pressed out to its original shape nearly a year later the new wood was graduated down and feathered back in to the original wood disturbing as little as possible. The back and ribs were all off as well and worked on while the top was pressing out. Arnold, sorry to bring up this nightmare again. Hopefully you will be able to resume normal sleeping in a few weeks after reading this personal mind jerker..

Ok, so slightly over 2 1/2 years ago (1 1/2 years after buying the bass) I picked it up and took her home. The bass sounded kind of rough at first on the G string as the new wood added in the bass (includes the Top build-up, half-edging, rib repairs, cross braces (2 only) and back center seam inlay and studs, neck block expanded inside, lower block replaced and one corner block replaced) needed time to break in and become 'one' again.

Now when playing it the bass takes about a half hour to warm up and then.. smooth as silk. As sweet as just about any old Italian bass I have played and the bottom end much more powerful than when I first tried the bass in a total state of dis-repair. The bass is even and with a huge dynamic range from pppp to ffff. The better the player, the better the bass sounds and I have watched several top orchestra pros play this bass in my immediate presence.

Why am I tell you all of this? Well, when you fix and./or alter a bass, the older the bass is, the more time it might take to sound like it did before or better. A new bass being fixed or altered doesn't need so much time for new wood to match the original new wood. A bass 150-250 years old getting new wood has a huge difference between the ages of the original and the new wood added thus needing more time to gel together tonally.

This is just my personal opinion from personal experience of owning old basses before and after major surgery.

Have patience with your project and its results. It might sound better immediately as it often does BUT, it might take time to mellow out as well with the new wood gelling with the old.