> From: David Kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:53:17 +0100 > To: "Roger E. Blumberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: cittern <[email protected]> > Subject: [CITTERN] Re: Pedro Cabrals answer > > Roger E. Blumberg wrote: > >> I just looked again at Ron's Preston. >> http://fernandezmusic.com/Images/Andrade%26Preston.gif >> >> That really is a substantial chuck of metal! I do see how it would impact >> the sound. >> >> Wonder why the Portuguese neglected to copy that most important bit from the >> English models (if that's indeed where they got their inspiration from). >> >> Do you have a picture of yours I could see? (Ron's is in pretty bad shape). >> >> >> > Mine is in fairly good shape, unrestored as far as I can tell except for > some peculiar woodwork adding an odd shaped headstock in place of the > Venetian gondola-end normally used. > > http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/guittar.html > > I have updated the text, but not the photos. My instrument now has some > good bone string pins, kindly made by a London-based enthusiast for me, > along with a replacement pearwood bridge which I have not been able to > use mainly because before doing so, I would need to get the neck > carefully straightened, to allow a lower action. It has a slight twist > which effectively means the bridge has to have an angle, and the action > must be rather higher than could be possible. > > Because I have changed computers and web accounts etc since this - free > - work of craftsmanship done for me, I have lost the name and details of > the restorer-luthier who did this, as I would wish to credit him for the > help. The dilemma with this instrument is that the overall condition is > actually so good (unlike Rob MacKillop's amazingly war-scarred Smith & > Broderip!) and the build quality looks 'drawing room' rather than > functional; it could be expertly restored and French polished to a > condition almost as new, and it would not be impossible to replate the > mechanism and clean the rose, and make a correct headstock. It would not > take much work or expense to see what a brand new English guittar at the > end of the 18th century looked like hanging in the shop, and the woods > are lovely, as you can see. > > Yet this is entirely the wrong thing to do and it's best just to leave > it as it is! > > David >
Thanks David. Nice to see some examples of variation among makers, e.g. yours and Preston's. Now I'll have to hunt down a picture of Rob's -- if any of his stuff is still online? Ron was nice enough to send me some close-ups of his Preston too. Both yours and his have a strip of hard bone or ivory at the binding, 3 or 4 inches long (replacing the binding) where the strings wrap over the edge. That's the kind of workmanship I would expect (absent from Ron's other instrument). The end-pins on both of your instruments have a symmetrical and evenly spaced center-staggered layout, whereas the hole pattern on Ron's Guitarra is trying to compensate for and match the ultimate final string spacing at the bridge (and nut). The details of both of your brass roses are interesting too, both have music instrument iconography included in their design. What are the two grommet-like things embedded into the top at the tail remnants of? Are they part of some original hardware? Cool. Thank you both. I've seen Doc's instrument on the web as well, his is very pretty too. Thanks much Roger To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
