If you look at the picture of the top side of the keybox, the spacing is more clearly shown by the exits of the keyslides - it looks right in that picture.
All in all, it is a very nice looking instrument, to my way of thinking very proper for the period, simple maple and spruce for the soundboard, no purfling or bindings, a nice solid and straight finish with good joinery. The peghead seems a little off, but I am not enough of an expert to know - in every instrument I have seen with that kind of spindled peghead support, the head has been round, this being a little different intrigues me, as most of the pegheads on my instruments like the rebecs and citole are different shaped, and that is something that keeps them interesting to me to build (yes, I would have been a lousy medieval production worker, I like to change things up far too much). It's a nice slim instrument, but fairly large for it's type, would, I think, have a relatively good volume in spite of its physical 'shallowness'. At least I hope that is so, because my new MCPW (mighta, coulda, possibly woulda) gurdy, the conjecture based instrument we were designing on the list a little while back, is also shallow but has sound chamber volume by being a little large. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 5/15/2007 at 6:35 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>What other use could the builders have for putting in a tirant pin >without >>a chien and bridge except for aesthetics? >> >>Chris Nogy > > > Same reason as what looks , on my small screen , to be equal size >equally spaced keys ? > > Again , I sincerely hope I am wrong . > >Henry Boucher >Québec
