new back?

[kurt ratering]

hello all,
the shop recently aquired this old beauty , and as you can see the back is pretty toasted. on an instrument like this, old and with what i feel is some potential but obviously nothing special, would replacing the back de-value it significantly? thanks, kurt

[Anselm Hauke]

i would repair it.
for me a new back would devalue the bass.

how does it sound?

[kurt ratering]

i dont know, ive only seen it in this shape. but, for some reason i get a good vibe from it.

[Anselm Hauke]

Originally Posted by kurt ratering

..... for some reason i get a good vibe from it.

me too! looks like it would sound good

[Eric Hochberg]

Originally Posted by Anselm Hauke

i would repair it.
for me a new back would devalue the bass.

I agree, unless a new back is absolutely necessary.

[Aren Winebrenner]

That's a tough one. I just went through a nearly identical situation myself. I had picked up a Germanic shop bass that looks nearly identical, that was very distressed-everywhere. I removed the old, carved in bass bar, fixed more cracks than I care to count, doubled the top due to earlier epoxy/nail/bondo repairs, made a soundpost patch and made new blocks all the way around.

The back was seriously warped in the bottom half. The button was gone. It had cracks everywhere and the edges on the lower bouts were destroyed. I went so far as to starting a new back for it. When I got to the point that I was almost ready to put the new back on, I stopped. I couldn't do it. It's stupid, but I was honestly losing sleep trying to talk myself into saving the trouble and just putting a new back on it. In the end, I couldn't deal with it and went ahead and started fixing the old back.

Fast forward to the present - the old back has been flattened out, has new edges, a new button, braces have been installed and its back on the bass, ready to be finished. I don't know if, monetarily/time wise, it was worth it, but I'm glad I did it. I don't think I would have felt right making a new back and scrapping the old one. I couldn't have destroyed it and it would have sat around, acting as a constant reminder to me of a job 1/2 done.

Fix the old one! Just my amateur $.02. Good luck!!

[kurt ratering]

yeah, the edges on the back are trashed: purfling cut all the way through in alot of places. the back is less than 3mm thick, at least on the edges. the big crack on the back is almost 6mm open at its worst with no chance of coming together. i guess my concern is spending the time and effort needed to fix it, only to have it not come out well, not be very stable, and replacing it anyways.

[Ken Smith]

Un-do everything and totally re-build the back. The value of this bass will be about half if the back gets replaced. I have seen much worse and the restored product was a joy to look at.

[kurt ratering]

well i guess i have alot of work ahead of me then! thank you all for your input, i appreciate it.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I vote to replace the back. It will be a better instrument as a result. Basses of that type sell based on sound, not pedigree.

[kurt ratering]

wow! now im back to square one, thanks Arnold ! in your opinion (Arnold) how much would a new back devalue this bad boy? i must admit that i do like the new back option better, because im not sure how to handle the break angle breaking all the way through...

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I would say not at all. A potential customer for a bass of that ilk would be more put off by a Frankenstein back which is pieced and patched all over the place.

[Martin Sheridan]

It looks very repairable to me and I can't see why it would hurt the sound.

[Ken Smith]

From a structural standpoint I can see why Arnold prefers the 'new Back' route. For 'vintage' reasons, I prefer a high grade restoration. Flatbacks repaired or 'new' can have problems by design vs. climate alone. I would rather maintain an old repaired back than wait for a new one to implode. I have seen Flatback failures in both new and old so my vote is to keep the bass as original as possible.

[Matthew Tucker]

You often see old basses with just the top piece of the break replaced; usually a piece of purfling is run into the joint to make it look intentional.

Perhaps, if the upper part is the worst, and the lower part of the back is relatively sound, you could just replace the top piece and button? Butt-glued against a suitable brace, it will be just as strong as the ribs are glued to the blocks ...

Actually, to me the picture of the top part doesn't look so bad from here; if you can't bring the crack together, you could glue in a maple fillet to fill the crack, cleat behind, a new brace, a pufling strip across the break and its almost as good as new. Well, maybe not new ...

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

I would rather maintain an old repaired back than wait for a new one to implode.

Surely, that comment doesn't apply to a flat-back replaced by a luthier who knows what he or she is doing??

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Surely, that comment doesn't apply to a flat-back replaced by a luthier who knows what he or she is doing??

Matt, in all due respect, living here in the northeast, Flatbacks do not do as well as Roundbacks. Ask any Repairman and he will tell you. Older basses have as good or better chance of survival. If already old with repairs around the instrument then we know where the instrument has relieved its stress from. If a new back or new bass, we are yet to find out but we will no doubt in these parts.

I am not making guesses here when I put statements like this on line. Having played and owned scores of Basses around New York and more recently Pennsylvania, both Northeastern US States, I can tell you from 40 years of 'adult' experience what Maple does in this climate. Even in building Electric Basses we see problems with Maple movement in usage. With a Flatback being so long and wide as a whole, it is bound for movement and if something in or on the Back doesn't give, it gives somewhere else.

Roundbacks are not immune either and this problem is also not exclusive to Maple. Out of about 8 older basses or so I recently brought over from Europe, two of them had Poplar Flat Backs. These moved no less when hitting the NE USA Winter climate than did any of the Maple ones. Another example is a Roundback English made Hawkes that lived for several decades in the South East of this country. It was restored here and then sold within a year to a professional player up here. Adjusting to the NE climate was evident each of the two Winters so far by seams popping on the Back and Top joints as well as one new Top crack from the Bass seam just not giving quick enough.

Unless a Bass falls down a flight of stairs, cracks in the Back like the Bass shown above is from movement and shrinkage. The amount of split is not direct evidence of the amount of shrinkage but rather the amount of stress relieved when it 'does' crack. Maple has irregular grain and does what it needs to do. When attached in case of a Bass, it takes its hostages with it at times like when the Top or Ribs split from the Back moving and 'not' coming apart first.

Old Basses? Fix them when you can. New Basses? Hope for the best. New parts on old Basses? Only when the old part is no longer repairable.

On some of my Basses, we tried a different Back Brace system to allow the back to 'float' more within its destined movement and therefore survive these 'seesaw' Winters we have over here.

I am talking to Arnold now about a 'new' Bass for myself and possibly a being modified copy of my Storioni. Still, we are even discussing making it with a Flatback but with this other type of bracing system. A Roundback moving when new will either pop a seam or a split a Rib or even the Top if the first two do not give first. Knowing that going forward I am just as confident with a Flatback made from old seasoned wood and this new bracing idea.

My vote once again Kurt is to fix the Back you have. It will match the bass better and once fixed, will look better than a New back and make that bass much more marketable to professional players. Try the new Bracing system that Arnold uses when the Back is up to that stage of restoration.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

To amplify Ken's point above--the main problem is that flatbacked basses usually have crossbars running 90 degrees to the back wood. This is considered a no-no in woodworking, because wood expands/contracts mainly across its width, and cross-grained joints will blow themselves apart when the weather changes. (Or, if the joint does not fail, cracks and warpage will be the result.) Crossbars are the reason flat-backs fail.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

To amplify Ken's point above--the main problem is that flatbacked basses usually have crossbars running 90 degrees to the back wood. This is considered a no-no in woodworking, because wood expands/contracts mainly across its width, and cross-grained joints will blow themselves apart when the weather changes. (Or, if the joint does not fail, cracks and warpage will be the result.) Crossbars are the reason flat-backs fail.

Sounds like Job security to me Maestro..

I have seen a new maker doing this still and 'way' over bracing the Back as well. These are not very expensive basses. When they fail, the owners will be 'buying' the bass all over again..

I think a person should be very experienced in making basses before he starts building them. This way, 'mistakes of the future' might easily be avoided..

[Ken McKay]

You can prevent future cracking by proper cross grain gluing, done at proper relative humidity, when glued with overly dried back wood, with a dome shape. Plus, you have to know your wood! Live and sleep with it is best.