" Name That Bass " aka "This OLD Bass"

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Can you explain to me what you see as similar, except that it's a shade of orange and worn in spots? I'm not being facetious; I just can't understand how anyone can see a strong similarity - inferring I suppose that it could be in fact the same varnish - from two small photos taken in different light?? Educate me.

Actually, both Basses were 'shot' in the same room. One on the floor and one against the door. The carpet is almost the same shade so the lighting was similar in each pic. Matt, it's also not just the color. It's the layering with the Gold under the Red giving that orange-red glow. Same basic idea in both Varnishes. The Top of the Hill has had many more repairs then the Back and Ribs. The 'over varnish' has darkened the original color quite a bit. Also, being a smaller Bass by comparison, it has been used quite a bit rather then being stored away due to its cumbersome size like the MB.

Also of note are the C-bouts. While one is Violin and one Gamba, they both have similar curves (long and slightly shallow), especially in lower section. The extra curve needed for the Violin corners should be overlooked and imagined as a Gamba.

Age wise, if the Hill which is confirmed is from the 1780s, then how old does the Mystery Bass look in comparison. The Back and sides on the MB are of a softer variety of Maple than used on the Hill. Perhaps it was imported wood.

The FFs though are completely different in thought. The Hill being of the Amati pattern and the MB more Strad like. See below and compare for yourself;

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by David Powell

You know, I really like the Pecanic TP and I am in general a big fan of these. However, I lean a bit toward the older one for this bass. For one thing, you will have a nice ebony FB and it looks good when the two match color wise. Secondly, the Pecanic might stand out too much as being new. The old TP has a lot of character and that goes with the bass better. I wouldn't say old is always better, but here, I'm thinking maybe so.

I also see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass.

By the way, I failed to post the length measurements of each TP. The 3-stringer is 14 5/8" long. The MPM is 14 5/8" over the top of the 'G' but shortens towards the 'E' as seen in the pics. For the G, they are about the same size but the 'E' after length would be way different. Whatever that means, we will never know unless I try them both on the Bass and compare. At this point, I will just try the 3-string and ;leave it as-is unless a problem arises.

[David Powell]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Can you explain to me what you see as similar, except that it's a shade of orange and worn in spots? I'm not being facetious; I just can't understand how anyone can see a strong similarity - inferring I suppose that it could be in fact the same varnish - from two small photos taken in different light?? Educate me.

Varnishes and finished wood are notorious for being difficult to photograph accurately, however, the same varnish will always photograph the same way under the same light, in my experience (given the same film or in these days, the same digital camera). I have photographed quite a bit of finished wood professionally, so I have years of first hand experience. One of my clients was Signature Interior Woodworks. They were often tasked with matching a new finish to an old one. This was difficult and getting the two to look the same in a photograph was practically impossible even if the two looked similar to the eye. Vary the light source and it might get better or worse.

What is fairly determinative in this case is that many finishes that appear similar to our eye will not appear similar at all when photographed. Cameras just don't see things the same way our eyes do. The dye peak sensitivities of film or digital cameras are not at the same frequencies as those of our eyes. This means that if two things look the same to our eyes and look the same to a camera or to film, it is even more likely that the substance is the same chemical formulation. Chromatography is a process by which color absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances. This is an abbreviated explanation, but covers the concept.

You asked for an education!

[Michael Harrison Jr.]

I really like the cocobola TP, but I think the 3 string TP would look best on that bass.

[Ken Smith]

Here's the other TP that Mike made for my converted 5er I used to have. Sorry in advance that I don't have a close-up of it. I don't remember now if it was Cocobolo or Macassar Ebony which was from my own stock that I supplied to him.


He makes great Tailpieces.

[Michael Harrison Jr.]

very pretty.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by David Powell

What is fairly determinative in this case is that many finishes that appear similar to our eye will not appear similar at all when photographed. Cameras just don't see things the same way our eyes do. The dye peak sensitivities of film or digital cameras are not at the same frequencies as those of our eyes. This means that if two things look the same to our eyes and look the same to a camera or to film, it is even more likely that the substance is the same chemical formulation. Chromatography is a process by which color absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances. This is an abbreviated explanation, but covers the concept.

You asked for an education!

So what you are saying in an abbreviated way is that because in two small digital photographs the varnish looks a similar colour to you, even though you have not seen the originals to compare or contrast (as Ken has), and even though your eyes are looking at a digital photograph (which is different to the way your eyes see it anyway) you can still see a really strong similarity in the varnish of the MB and the Hill bass, and this is equivalent to chromatography in that absorption or reflection is used to definitively identify substances, leading you to believe that it is quite likely those two varnishes are the same chemical formulation?

[David Powell]

What I am saying is, of course, what you quoted.

I am not saying that Ken's by eye comparison and my comparison of two digital photograph (size is not important where colour is concerned) is equivalent to chromatography. It is based on the same principle though much cruder. To me the varnishes look similar.

[Ken Smith]

I moved David's post and all the related replies about his Bass to the German School section "Another mystery bass?". Please follow that thread over there.

If any of what I moved belongs here as well in your opinion, please feel free to copy n paste it and re-post it here as well.

[Ken Smith]

I just tried something interesting here. I drew in violin corners on the Back here and cut it out. I curved in the upper bout above the corner and the lower bout below the corner making violin corners. The upper corners are more pronounced than the lower corners but it has Violin corners now on my pics.

Can anyone here photo shop violin corners in and post it here? This is the Back and try also to do the top. Looking at it with corners make it looks so different.



When I have time, I will ask my son Mike to help me post what I have done as well.

[Ken Smith]

I talked with Biase earlier today and he sees the original golden varnish under the over-varnished dark red on the Scroll. What does this mean? Well I have updated our opinion to read; "The Maple Scroll, although varnished over in dark red is most likely original to the Bass as it matches in character as well."

[Ken Smith]

I just posted this in the Yankee thread but it actually ties both threads together as Yankee was one of the origins guessed on this Bass and by more than one person.

Can anyone here post a good scanned pic of the Elgar Calvin Baker Bass so we can compare it here. I am mainly concerned with the FFs.

Here is my post from the Yankee thread;

Has anyone here ever seen a Bass by Calvin Baker? There is one pictured in the Elgar book and looks like a German Gamba design.

C.Baker trained and/or worked with Asa White. I have seen a Bass that was by Asa White the same day I dropped off my Mystery Bass at Biase's almost 4 years ago and only vaguely remember the Bass. It was a small 3/4 or 5/8 and had a dark varnish and a Flatback.

I have mentioned before that the Scroll on the 'White Bass although smaller to match the Bass was nearly identical to my Scroll which is on a full sized Bass.

Although my Bass has some English features as well as an early French style outline, American has also been guessed on it several times but with no match other than the White Scroll and by the way, the FFs on the C.Baker Bass which look close.

One of the reasons I never considered New England as a real possibility was became I have never seen an American Bass as European looking as mine. The thing to know here is that the Boston and NY school of Violin makers were mainly European immigrants that trained in Violin making before coming to USA. Both Asa and Jay White though were trained by their father John who made about 12 or so violins and is noted as the first Violin Maker in Boston but an amateur. Jay and Asa are I think credited as being the first professional makers in that area. The Gemunder Bros. George and August came later. George from France and August from German. Both initially trained by their father in Germany. George also worked for Vuillaume before coming to USA.

One thing that concerns me is that many of the Basses in the Elgar book are falsely listed. He accepted pictures in the mail with any named attribution and published it as fact. The 5-String Gagliano Bass is actually an English Bass and has been sold at least twice since as an English Panormo by one of the sons. One of the large d'Salo Basses listed that's in a Canadian Museum is old Brescian but not d'Salo.

Can anyone here post a good scanned pic of the Elgar Calvin Baker Bass? (not the William Baker, that's English and it's the real deal as well)

[Ken Smith]

Ok, false alarm I guess on the American thing and probably on the French theory as well.

Recently, the main String instrument appraiser from one of the leading Auction houses dropped by Biase's shop and saw my Bass being worked on.

When this person saw the Bass he commented how beautiful it was overall and also how nice the FFs looked. He agreed with Biase that it's definitely some kind of English Bass but that's all I could get.

I asked Biase on the phone how good this guy's eye was for instruments and origins. Biase mentioned that he sees thousands of Violin family instruments from Violins thru Basses and appraises them for Auction so he knows a bit about them.

So, I guess the majority of the opinions from 'informed' people (several British Dealers/Luthiers, Biase who is working on it, a top Auction appraiser and a few others) agree that it's Olde English..

[Ken Smith]

For those of you that have been following the Thread of Mystery and massive Restoration I would like to give an update as to the Porgress of this olde English Bass.

I spoke with Biase last week and the body of the Bass, Top, Back and Ribs are all glued up together and repaired internally. Now he is doing the final measurements for the Block-cut and Neck-set. This will determine the String length and playability of the Bass. He still has to do the Neck-Graft but that will come after he has a correct Block to fit it in.

Here are some pics as a reminder of how the Body looked before it was disassembled. The After Pics will be posted when all done. The outer touch-up work is the last of course so although the Body is done, the Bass itself is nowhere near being completed, just further along, much further!

[Ken Smith]

I visited Biasie in NYC yesterday to inspect the progress and go over the final measurements of the Neck and String Length alterations. The Neck Graft for the Scroll is well under way and he even put some matching Varnish on the Maple Cheeks I had added. It looks like it belongs now so I was happy about that.

I looks as if we will not be doing any cutting to the Top or Back around the Block other than converting the Dovetail joint to a Mortise and deepening it. Some of the Top was cut under the Fingerboard area to accommodate the deeper Neck-set which before hand just sat on top of the Block and not in it.

The FFs are extremely wide and the old Bassbar we left in was set in a bit from the upper Eye rather than up against it. This Bass can actually take a 3/4 sized 150mm Bridge and sit mostly over the entire 'bar. If we use a 165mm Bridge like the one used before on the Bass is will sit slightly over the center of the 'bar. I would prefer the wider Bridge being that the Bass is so wide. If the 'bar was out further towards the edge of the upper F-eye, it would need something closer to a 180mm Bridge blank.

I expect to have this Bass in my hands to play and break-in over the summer. Somewhere along the way I will decide if I want a C-Extension on it. If it's a Bass I am going to use myself in the Orchestra then I will have the Ext. put on. The Graft is set so that the outer Scroll edge is even with the plane of the Neck under the Fingerboard joint which seems just right for the Extension to be fit around the Scroll.

After 4 years we now believe this Bass to be English and no longer a big Mystery with the exception of the actual maker and date. Because of this I have changed the name from 'Mystery Bass' to 'Olde English'. I have also altered the Webpage quite a bit on this as well as deleting all the question and answer stuff with the various 'blind' opinions given from around the world. This Thread as well as the original TB Thread says it all so the original information and search is not lost. Here is the link to the updated 'Olde English' page.

[Matthew Tucker]

Can you share any pictures of the back bracing/blocks/scars on that bass? I'd be very interested to see that.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Can you share any pictures of the back bracing/blocks/scars on that bass? I'd be very interested to see that.

Matt, the Bass is all glued up now and just waiting for the Neck. I have never taken any pictures of the inside of the Top or Back. I did however take some pics of the Ribs while apart and posted them on my Website. The Neck Block was Shimmed internally so there would be room to cut a deeper mortise and save the existing Block. The Tailblock is the same as well, not replaced, touched or altered.

In this pic you can see the Tailblock which is relatively small as well as some of the Cornerblocks;


All of the Corner Blocks remain as well as the 'low' Bassbar and X-Brace that was in the Bass when I got it. Biase did however add some block wood in the X-area to beef up the center of the Back. He said the Tonetap was better afterwards than before.

The area in the Back by the Tailblock had virtually no wood left at all. He had to inlay a supportive piece inside, a piece outside flush with the Back and then cover it with a decorative bottom wood plate which I supplied from my maple stock (not shown). Most all of the internal repairs were done conventionally.

On the upper portion of the Back there was a very fine split starting at the upper Bout edge under that added Neck Button plate on the left (G side) and running thru that dark
horizontal scar and down a bit from there. The crack would not go together flush so on this he used a Violin repair technique as he explained. He sliced a sliver of wood from an area inside the Back near the crack and inlaid it outside where needed so that the wood and rays/grain would match up and not be visible after touch-up when turning the wood as the Flame moves in the light. He then inlaid another piece inside the back to fill the area used for the graft and then put a Patch over that as well. He also antiqued the new/old wood inlay thru that dark scar so it wouldn't be visible to the naked eye. It looked great when he showed it to me and I was quite impressed as well that he went the extra mile to do it the hard way which in the long run, was the best way.

All the pictures shown here were from before the Bass ever left my shop for this restoration over 4 years ago. I will post new pics when it's all done, I promise!

While I was there yesterday I got to play on a beautiful Bass by Paulo Antonio Testore. The Scroll however was not Testore but was told (and I agree) that it's from a much finer maker. He pointed out the details and said it's like Guarneri or Ruggeri, Cremona School. The Scroll was at least as old as the Bass (early 18th century). Then, to take some measurements and do some comparisons we used one of two big Giuseppe Guadagnini Basses he has and made comparisons for string length measurements and various stops. Then he pulled out a Violin by the same exact maker to show (and teach me) the similarities. The Arching was the same as far as curves go as were the FFs and Corners. Biase is also an international Violin dealer on a large scale. He always has several classics in his Violin, Viola and Cello stock as well as a few really great Basses. Although my trip was for my Bass in repair, it quickly turned into a lesson on Vintage Classic Italian makers and their traits. I have known Biase for my entire adult life and he is about 10 years my senior as well. I am truly grateful that he accepted this job. I have learned so much from this experience in the last four years.

[Ken Smith]

Here is a Bass with a very similar outline to mine;


What do you make of it?

[Ken Smith]

First off, what is the biggest Neck-Stand (from the Top to the underside of the Fingerboard) you guys have ever had or seen?

My Basses that were recently restored with the Necks re-set average from about 34-37+mm (1 3/8"-1 7/8+). I have heard of some using 40mm as a standard measurement as well.

My Big Bass was supposed to originally have the Shoulders Cut to get it down from a 44" String length to a 42" and then we opted for just a Block-cut instead. Towards the end of the restoration Biase lowered the Neck slightly into the modified Block and pulled the new Grafted Neck out at the heel to over 50mm. he just measured it over the phone and the current dry-fit is about 55mm or 2 3/16" out from the Top.

The Bridge was also placed on the upper most position that shows wear from before which sits just above the FF notches as seen here from the old scars;


Within the next week or so I will go into NY to meet with Biase and finalize the neck-Stand and String length. We are well within the 42" or less number now but I will do some final measurements when I get there. The Pitch he has the Neck at now is planned for about 10 degrees. I don't know if that is steep or shallow but I will have a look at it in a few days. I have no idea what pitches my other Basses are and I doubt any two are the exactly same as they all feel different when comparing the most recent 3 restored Basses, the Gilkes, Hart and Martini.

Because of several factors about this Bass like the long body length, the long original string length, the extra wide upper bouts and the Rib area at the Block that tapers down to 5 3/4" (from 8 1/2"), Biase feels that this Bass is now very playable without any cutting whatsoever. The Body and Shoulders of this old beauty has been respectfully preserved now 100% to its original build or at least from what we can tell.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

You mention a "pitch" angle of 10 degrees. Well, that's nice to know, but irrelevant as every bass will be different there. Some basses have setback in the neck block mortise, some are completely flat. Occasionally you encounter a bass where the block angles down in the front. So a ten degree angle on one bass may be perfect and on another be unplayable. What I'm saying is that pitch angle is not a measurement that can be used for comparitive purposes. Also, the amount of overstand you describe above is really excessive; the result could be shoulder strain (in the player) or even a split neck, as a huge amount of stressed end-grain wood will be hanging out of the body unsupported.