Don't do this! (But then again, you probably wouldn't.. also posted on TB)

[Eric Swanson]

Yes, "gutted" expresses my feelings pretty well, especially right when it happened. Thanks for your empathy.

I got a referral to Jerry Pasewicz, as one of the few people who would do well with the restoration. I spoke with him a couple of times; he certainly knows his business. Moreover, his firm has been a joy with which to work:

http://www.trianglestrings.com/store...content&page=4

They are busy, so it will be a few months until my bow moves up the line for restoration.

He offered rebuilding the frog (which was crushed), to match a Morizot pattern or making a new one and saving the old pieces for a future restoration. We discussed pros and cons for each option. I opted for the new frog.

He says that it will play as well as new, because the stick didn't break. I look forward to seeing it again. He also says that the stick damage, when steamed, filled, and finished, will be virtually undetectable.

The bow will come back to me, with the new frog, haired, and recambered, before he does filling/refinishing on the stick. If the curve/action is right, he will then finish up the cosmetic part of the work.

Bless him, his talent, and his skills. I'll report on the results.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

Yes, "gutted" expresses my feelings pretty well, especially right when it happened. Thanks for your empathy.

I got a referral to Jerry Pasewicz, as one of the few people who would do well with the restoration. I spoke with him a couple of times; he certainly knows his business. Moreover, his firm has been a joy with which to work:

http://www.trianglestrings.com/store...content&page=4

They are busy, so it will be a few months until my bow moves up the line for restoration.

He offered rebuilding the frog (which was crushed), to match a Morizot pattern or making a new one and saving the old pieces for a future restoration. We discussed pros and cons for each option. I opted for the new frog.

He says that it will play as well as new, because the stick didn't break. I look forward to seeing it again. He also says that the stick damage, when steamed, filled, and finished, will be virtually undetectable.

The bow will come back to me, with the new frog, haired, and recambered, before he does filling/refinishing on the stick. If the curve/action is right, he will then finish up the cosmetic part of the work.

Bless him, his talent, and his skills. I'll report on the results.

The bow will hold it's value MUCH better with a RESTORED Original Frog. On vintage Bows with Replaced Frogs you can expect about a 40% devaluation for not having it original. For repaired/restored, maybe 10-20% depending..

If the Stick was broken and it's just getting pieced together then the value is not an issue. Just play it.

[Eric Swanson]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

The bow will hold it's value MUCH better with a RESTORED Original Frog. On vintage Bows with Replaced Frogs you can expect about a 40% devaluation for not having it original. For repaired/restored, maybe 10-20% depending..

If the Stick was broken and it's just getting pieced together then the value is not an issue. Just play it.

Interesting point. I went back and forth with Mr. Pasewicz, over a few days, on that very issue. I was concerned about both being a good steward for the bow and with resale. I was also concerned with his opinion as a craftsman, as to which would yield a more "sound" bow.

He said, that in this case, the devaluation would be a "wash." The original frog had nickel mounts. The new frog (with matching nut) would have silver mounts, hence, higher value. He also said that a modern frog and nut would yield a more structurally sound bow, in his opinion.

Thus, in either case, he estimated a drop in value of about 15%; either with the restored frog and nut (with nickel) or the new frog and nut (with silver)

He also, with some humility, said that while the repaired frog would look almost as good as new, in a few years, there may be even better adhesives/technology for such restoration efforts. He talked about the significant advances that have happened in the world of epoxies, within the last few years.

He was willing and able to complete either option. The new frog will actually cost more than a rebuilt one. It seemed as if it would yield a more stable bow, however, of similar (but, as you say, reduced) value.

I am certainly no expert on these things. I am only sharing the little information/perspective I have on this particular case.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

Interesting point. I went back and forth with Mr. Pasewicz, over a few days, on that very issue. I was concerned about both being a good steward for the bow and with resale. I was also concerned with his opinion as a craftsman, as to which would yield a more "sound" bow.

He said, that in this case, the devaluation would be a "wash." The original frog had nickel mounts. The new frog (with matching nut) would have silver mounts, hence, higher value. He also said that a modern frog and nut would yield a more structurally sound bow, in his opinion.

Thus, in either case, he estimated a drop in value of about 15%; either with the restored frog and nut (with nickel) or the new frog and nut (with silver)

He also, with some humility, said that while the repaired frog would look almost as good as new, in a few years, there may be even better adhesives/technology for such restoration efforts. He talked about the significant advances that have happened in the world of epoxies, within the last few years.

He was willing and able to complete either option. The new frog will actually cost more than a rebuilt one. It seemed as if it would yield a more stable bow, however, of similar (but, as you say, reduced) value.

I am certainly no expert on these things. I am only sharing the little information/perspective I have on this particular case.

Personally, I would go with the restored way BUT, I haven't seen the damage so I'm shooting in the dark here.

[Eric Swanson]

Turns out I misunderstood (not my first time, either ); the structural integrity will be the same, whether its a new frog or a restored one. I was talking with Jerry Pasewicz yesterday about it, as we were discussing the job.

In light of that, I am also inclined to go with a restored frog, just to keep as much original material in place as possible. My concern is that if the restoration doesn't happen now, the original frog may never be fixed. So, as the bow's current steward, I feel somewhat obligated to have it mended, rather than as a collection of broken parts.

Interestingly, Mr. Pasewicz mentioned that many players routinely have him make reproduction frogs, for daily use, so that they may keep their original frogs safe and out of harm's way. Perhaps, after I have the original restored, I will also go with the duplicate frog approach.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

Turns out I misunderstood (not my first time, either ); the structural integrity will be the same, whether its a new frog or a restored one. I was talking with Jerry Pasewicz yesterday about it, as we were discussing the job.

In light of that, I am also inclined to go with a restored frog, just to keep as much original material in place as possible. My concern is that if the restoration doesn't happen now, the original frog may never be fixed. So, as the bow's current steward, I feel somewhat obligated to have it mended, rather than as a collection of broken parts.

Interestingly, Mr. Pasewicz mentioned that many players routinely have him make reproduction frogs, for daily use, so that they may keep their original frogs safe and out of harm's way. Perhaps, after I have the original restored, I will also go with the duplicate frog approach.

Like I said, I haven't seen the damage so I can't comment on the usage part. If he mentioned it can be restored for less than making a new Frog then gee, it's a no brainier. Frogs don't usually get banged around and the Glues out there are stronger than the wood itself so it's a no brainier in my book.

[Thomas Erickson]

Originally Posted by Eric Swanson

many players routinely have him make reproduction frogs, for daily use, so that they may keep their original frogs safe and out of harm's way. Perhaps, after I have the original restored, I will also go with the duplicate frog approach.

I find this interesting - granted, I know little about fine bows and the preservation/restoration thereof, but I have to wonder about the value of a fine old bow (or instrument) if it isn't being used to create music. To me, that's a very stark line. Personally, I would not buy an instrument (or bow) that i didn't intend to use, if even minimally, because to me it seems like turning instruments into "commodities" is a disservice to our community in the long run.

[Eric Swanson]

Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson

I find this interesting - granted, I know little about fine bows and the preservation/restoration thereof, but I have to wonder about the value of a fine old bow (or instrument) if it isn't being used to create music. To me, that's a very stark line. Personally, I would not buy an instrument (or bow) that i didn't intend to use, if even minimally, because to me it seems like turning instruments into "commodities" is a disservice to our community in the long run.

I probably expressed the idea badly. It happens with me sometimes.

What Mr. Pasewicz said was that some players have a reproduction frog made, and fitted to their bows, for daily use. This occurs most often with expensive bows that are out in the world, being played, in harm's way.

[Thomas Erickson]

Originally Posted by wayne holmes

Once again, Thomas, you make a lot of sense. Is preserving the original frog and using its twin---would that fall into the kludge zone of things?

Nah, not really - It just seems to me like making music with a good old instrument or bow, and repairing/maintaining it through its life, is more in line with "preserving" it, as opposed to taking pieces off and leaving them in a drawer someplace so they don't get damaged. I mean, if we're too scared of hurting these things to take them out and play them, then why are they really so valuable? And I don't mean to be critical or anything, of course - I can't fault someone for being concerned for the safety of a nice instrument or bow!