Martina Rosenberger
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:33:55 -0800
Thank you, Alexander, for sending this e-mail directly to the list and for bothering so much for the topic. I did not get any cc sent copy via the list and could only guess with the answers what was going on. I have another question. As you have seen more than one Preston in your work: were there differences between the brass cases? If they had a "production line" look, I assume none. Were the threads always the same? Were they in the same condition or were there problems with some of them (rust, oxidation, anything...) This will not help with the dating, but gives a clue to the way of making them........ Thanks Martina "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Thanks very much to everybody's remarks on my last posting. > > Stuart, I too think that both those dates (1734, 1743) are too early; even > ca.1765 for the J.N. Preston's with a key-box seems a bit earlyish ... but I > don't know what their reason is for such attribution, it's up to them. > Working out dates for the watch-key mechanisms is certainly even more > tricky, unless of course the instrument is precisely dated as is the case > with Hoffmann's (and, possibly, Liessen's). One way, I suppose, would be to > analyze the exact composition of metals used, i.e. for the brass (outside > fittings) and iron (threads). There must be somewhere some sort of database > for historic metals (like that huge depository of all brick types ever used > in buildings in the UK); clock people would certainly know more about this. > Hoffmann's watch-key tuners certainly look more 'rustic' than those of > Preston's which are more of 'production-line' type. > --- > Brad, I must confess that I've never been deeply interested in EG, so I'm > not really an expert here. Over the last ten years I did some minor and > major repair work to a good dozen or so of EGs (among them several > Prestons). Prestons are nicely made (as regards their place in the history, > anyway), some for a more others for a less discerning customer, again with a > more 'factory-like' approach. For example, the wood (both on the back and > soundboard) is often stained before it was varnished - a clear sign to > achieve quick finishing job. On the Hoffmann,on the other side, the varnish > is of much better quality (transparent but intensive in colour at the same > time) which makes you think of more like violin maker's work (I actually > suspect that he was a violin maker in the first place). However, you > shouldn't take this judgement of my for granted, this is only my strictly > personal opinion. > > I'm not a dealer so I've no idea where to find EG best in the UK but they do > pop up from time to time on small and not so small auctions here (I know > about this from a friend of my who sometimes has an odd one for sale). > --- > Gregory, well at least we moved a little bit ... > > --- > Alexander > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stuart Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <mailto:cittern@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:09 PM > Subject: Re: [CITTERN] Re: Preston tuner history > > > > Alexander Batov wrote: > >> I doubt the instrument under question has been discussed in the light of > >> this particular thread (i.e. 'Preston tuner history') but never mind, > >> Stuart knows best ... I virtually took this instrument all apart after > >> Taro acquired it from Art Robb, so it was quite an experience. > >> > > > > Alexander, > > > > I just said that this instrument has been discussed before! Not that there > > was nothing more to be said. > > > > David Kilpatrick used to contribute to this list. He made a contribution > > to my webpage about a cittern in Poland. If you scroll down to the > > 'Comments', his is the third and he has some remarks in the third > > paragraph. > > > > http://tuningsinthirds.com/Zacher/ > > > > I think David discussed this on the cittern list. Both dates seem > > improbably early. How old would Preston have been!? I think he was > > talking about this site: > > > > http://www.usd.edu/smm/pressler4.html > > > > but I can't see anything about dates for the watchkey mechanism. > > > > > > Stuart > >> Perhaps not many on this list have got this book: European Stringed > >> Instruments (Catalogue, Part 3) by Elizabeth Wells and Christopher Nobbs, > >> Royal College of Music, London 2007 > >> > >> I was looking for something else in it but came across this on p.97: > >> > >> (quote) John Preston (d. 1798) also made Spanish guitars and violins, and > >> established a flourishing business firm (Preston and Son, after his son > >> Thomas joined in 1789). Preston claimed the invention of the watch-key > >> tuning mechanism in an advertisement of 1778 (Humphries and Smith, > >> p.263); no patent is recorded and surviving dated instruments by other > >> makers such as Rauche (see RCM 333) show that watch-key tuning was in the > >> use in the 1760s; it is likely that Preston was using it then too. (end > >> of quote) > >> > >> Well, now we know that the watch-key tuning mechanism was in the use in > >> the 1750s. So what did 'Preston Inventor' invent still remains to be > >> answered. > >> > >> Alexander > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Brad McEwen To: Alexander Batov ; cittern list Sent: Monday, > >> December 03, 2007 1:15 AM > >> Subject: Re: [CITTERN] Re: Preston tuner history > >> > >> > >> Well, I certainly haven't had sufficient information on this and have > >> been looking froward to hearing more. > >> > >> Brad > >> -- > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > --