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

[Ken McKay]

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

[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.