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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.