Restoration and repair

[onthefiddle]

Following some recent discussions here, and in particular a suggestion made by Alex, I think that there may be enough interest in approaches to restoration and repair to justify a thread.

Rather than the good the bad and the ugly (sorry I couldn't resist it) the question is hopefully more like - what techniques do we consider good, what bad and what might be acceptable in the case of neccesity?

I think to start with we need to try to define restoration and repair:

Generally within the trade restoration is regarded as being the high ground - there should not be such a thing as a badly restored instrument, though there are plenty of badly repaired ones around. Restoration involves the finest of techniques and the highest of ethics. Everything possible is done to preserve the originality of the instrument, all work involved in every detail is reversible, no compromises are made in the effort made to achieve a perfect result.

Repair is a much broader term. There are indeed ethics of repair, though these do not appear to be held universally - these basically once again state that everything possible should be done to maintain the originality of an instrument, and that all work should be reversible. Repair however exists in the real world - where it is not always economical to go to extreme lengths, using long elaborate techniques on for instance a low end American Conservatory, or a Lignatone Mandolin.

Because of its much broader defintion there can obviously be such things as bad (or indeed ugly) repairs. An obvious example of this would be a crack which has had epoxy resin rubbed into it, or a cracked peghead which has been glued with PVA and had a metal plate screwed over it.

Things aren't always as clear cut as these initial examples though.

Because of the concerns of reversibilty and maintaining originality some techniques which may have been widely accepted in the past (restoration has been developing for about the last 150 years) may no longer be widely accepted. For instance some Violin repairers about 200 years ago used to drill small holes either side of cracks, and stitch studs to the instrument through the holes in order to avoid removing the front. Others would saw down the length of a crack with a fret saw and then put a new piece of wood into the slot that they had created. Strad certainly thought nothing of making a new front for his own instruments if it was cracked - of course he was Strad, and these were his own instruments you may well say!

Of course if anyone else was to make a new front for a Strad much of the world be aghast! Which brings me to the subject of originality. Beyond the example already given the other most common way in which the originality of an instrument is compromised is through stripping and re-varnishing. Quite commonly the process of removing the original varnish also causes other damage to the instrument, particularly as it is often removed by sanding. Often this is done because the person is not aware that it is possible to repair damage to the finish through the process of retouching, or because they don't appreciate the look of an aged and worn finish. In the latter case they should really have bought (or commissioned?) a new instrument.

Other techniques have been abandoned because the passage of time has shown them to create as well as repair damage. For instance it was once common to cleat cracks with vellum. This is obviously easier and so cheaper than using studs made of spruce or maple - as the vellum won't need to be fitted, trimmed or shaped in anything other the most basic of ways. However the vellum moves (tensions and loosens) a lot with changes in humidity, and it is quite common to find two later cracks running up neatly either side of a crack cleated with vellum.

The final classification is the acceptable - when should it be acceptable to ignore the concerns of originality and/or reversibility? This a classification that should only ever affect the very cheapest of instruments which would not be economic to repair properly.
However, as most of us are aware, bowlbacks are undervalued instruments and it's possible that a bowlback might fall within this monetary bracket when the quality of it's construction should place it well above the risk of this treatment.
Personally I think in this case the true value of the instrument should be borne in mind. There are signs that this differential in the values of instruments is starting to dissapear, but in comparison with other stringed instruments bowlbacks are still undervalued. This may mean that until the true values of these are reflected monetarily the best that many fine old instruments can hope for is to be kept in a stable condition in a stable enviroment. This is certainly a more desirable short term solution than subjecting them to devaluing irreversible repairs, in order to more quickly bring them into playing condition. There is not such a shortage of instruments that this should be necessary.

This is a very large subject area, that I cannot possibly cover in a single post such as this, but it's a basis for a discussion at least.

What do you think of the standards of reversibility and originality? Have you encountered situations that would challenge this approach?

I look forward to your comments and observations!

Jon

[prayerbone]

thats torn it,now no-one will read my thread ..for a minute there i was standing on the shoulders of giants lol..thks for ur advice jon ..aj

[Martin Jonas]

Jon's interesting post ties in with a practical question I posted yesterday over in the picture forum. I repeat it here:

Incidentally, I will get my Rinaldi back later this week when my mother comes over from Germany. As I've mentioned before, the top on the Rinaldi has been refinished by somebody in what looks like a cheap orange wood stain (not a proper instrument finish, I think), whereas the orginals have an unfinished look, like yours and like one of my Ceccherinis (the other has a very fine wax-like finish). What do you think -- are they actually unfinished, or is it some very thin clear finish? I'm thinking of stripping the inappropriate finish off the Rinaldi and leave the wood open, but I'm unsure of how to do that. It looks too set to be stripped purely mechanically and I'm reluctant to get out the white spirit.

What's the opinion on this -- I wouldn't dream of stripping an original finish, but how does reversing a previous invasive alteration fit into Jon's scheme? And once the ethics are settled, how should I go about doing it, if I should do it at all?

Part of my thinking is that this is a nice enough instrument, but not quite what I think it could, and should, be in terms of tone.

I'll post photographs (in a different thread) once I have it back in my hands later this week.

Martin

[onthefiddle]

Hello again Martin!

I wouldn't dream of stripping an original finish, but how does reversing a previous invasive alteration fit into Jon's scheme?

As long as this can be done without further damage to the instrument I have absolutely no problem with this.

Obviously there are a whole range of different changes that can be made to an instrument over its lifetime, some of these could be highly desireable to reverse, while others would be at the option of the instruments owner. For instance I'm not advocating that every instrument which has had it's setup and possibly neck altered to suit different times (as has happened with some much older types of Mandolin) should be returned to it's original condition, but I can certainly see how this might be desirable and have no ethical problem with this.

In the particular case of your Rinaldi Martin, I am concerned that you describe it has having been "refinished by somebody in what looks like a cheap orange wood stain" - this might not be something to attempt to reverse yourself, though it may be reversible.

How to remove the varnish element of the finish is very much dependent on what that varnish is.

I think it wasn't uncommon to refinish the fronts of Neapolitan Mandolins, the soundboards of which were sometimes finished with a very light wax based finish, perhaps with a light sealing coat on the spruce. This type of finish on the soundboard comes from the Lute making tradition. I'm fairly sure that I've seen an old advertisment from an American dealer for (Vinaccia?) Mandolins, which proudly proclaimed that they overpolished the fronts of all these imported instruments to help them withstand the rigours of the North American climate. Perhaps one of our North American brethren has also seen this advertisment and can confirm. Of course the advertiser may well have been right - and so there may be very good reason for leaving such instruments as they are in many cases. Refinishing can affect the tone of an instrument though.

I look forward to seeing your pictures Martin!

Jon

[Bob DeVellis]

In my own musings on this general topic, I've classified approaches to vintage instruments according to different levels of modification:

1. Conservation. This is what museums often do. The intent is to arrest any further deterioriation in the instrument but not to reverse what has already happened. Often (although not always) the playability of the instrument is not a primary conern. It is regarded more as a histoical artifact than a musical device. There are variations in the "conservativeness" of conservation, of course, but what I've described is the purest form.

2. Preservation. This approach recognizes that musical instruments are intended for playing music. When absolutely necessary, the smallest possible interventions needed to make an instrument functional are performed.

3. Restoration. The goal here is to bring the instrument back as close to possible to its original condition. To the extent possible, the work should be done in the same manner as it was originally (e.g., finishing by the same methods). Questions arise as to when "leaving it alone" or "fixing it" actually result in a closer approximation to "original." Whether to refinish or not is a good example.

4. Modernization. In this category, an instrument is modified to incorporate later features of similar instruments. Because there has been relatively little change in bowl-back mandolins in the past century or so, this category is less common among that type of instrument than among other types. For example, replacing a non-adjustable bridge on a teens Gibson with an adjustable one from the '20s would be an example of simple, reversible modernization. Replacing tuners would be a bit more drastic. Changing the neck angle would be rather drastic.

5. "Improvement." This is often the nightmare scenario when someone decides to alter an instrument in a way that he or she considers an improvement but that disregards both the original state of the instrument and modifications to later examples of the same style instrument. Putting a cast tailpiece or a humbucking pickup on a Calace would be examples.

Although we're all likely to agree that #5 should be a punishable offense, and most of us may be uncomfortable with #4, our preference among the other alternatives will vary with personal temperament and circumstances. Personally, I'm no big fan of #1 because I think that instruments should be played. But I can imagine some instruments that are so historically important that conserving them should take priority over playing them. I tend to come down somewhere between preservation and restoration, but closer to the former. If it needs to be done, that's fine. But if it just makes it prettier or marginally more servicable? Depends on the instrument. The more historically significant, the less I'd be inclined to do. If it's old but easily replaceable, then something closer to restoration seems okay to me, although I'd never be inclined to make it "look like new" just for cosmetic reasons.

Although these categories are somewhat arbitrary, I find them helpful because, for any given instrument, it's possible to assert what one's goal is -- what category should apply. Then, as individual modifications are considered, you can ask yourself if they're consistent with the categorization. Of course, you can decide to recategorize, but the initial classification does provide a way of testing whether some change is consistent with your original intent.

Just my thoughts, for what they're worth.

[Eugene]

Hey, I like these thoughts. One rare case where I can get on board with category 5 would be in the situation that an instrument had been badly repaired and lost an original component. In such a case, I could see replacing a bad replacement with an "improvement" (although the offender of the original bad repair would have earned a spanking). for example, I once owned a production Martin style 2, their most abundant Neapolitan-type mandolin and nothing extraordinary. Somebody had replaced the fingerboard with a 17 fretter that featured occasionally diagonal, poorly seated, and poorly spaced frets. Dan Larson built me a re-replacement aping the Martin inlay aesthetic, but extending to 29 across the soundhole, nothing quite like anything Martin ever did. Because I did not have the original fingerboard, and the replacement had to go, I didn't take issue with making the instrument as versatile as possible through "improvement." Again, such cases are relatively uncommon and I would not condone the destruction of original components for "improvement."

[Jim Garber]

It is funny that in our little world of mandolins these days (and other vintage fretted instruments) there is such a concern or originality. I was talking to a friend who works at the Metropolitan Museum and he showed me one of their Stradivari violins. Ironically, most of the Strads in existence would actually fall into category 5, since they have had their necks lengthened as well as the angle changed. There are some Strad instruments (I think very large violas) that have had the bodies cut down. I guess in some ways this falls more into category 4, not 5 that they were modernized , tho I would say that the latter example is category 5, not 4.

As far as I know there are very few Stradivari instruments, in fact 17th century violins, that were completely original.

Jim

[onthefiddle]

Hi Bob (sorry, I can't seen where I got Dan from?),

I agree with most of your points. My major difference is in category 3 - re-finishing is very rarely involved in a restoration as it compromises the originality of an instrument. The only circumstance I would include it is in restoring an instrument after it has suffered from category 5 - when someone else decided to "improve" an instrument by stripping and revarnishing (or even painting on occassion).

I wouldn't say that a restored instrument should "look like new" - personally I like to see the mellowness of age on an instrument, though this is perhaps an area that isn't strongly defined in restoration i.e. when do you stop?
In retouching I concentrate on protecting the instrument, and removing ugly damage to the finish, such as ugly scratches and gouges. I would normally do no more with wear than perhaps make it a little more mellow and provide the instrument with necessary protection. I have been asked to completely retouch some beautiful old instruments over 250 years old, but I have always managed to get my customers to rethink.

Your example is particularly interesting Eugene, as we know this modernisation of Neapolitan mandolins, from a Romantic fingerboard to an extended Concert fingerboard, does occur, though not as much as has happened with the modernisation of Violins. Many restorers (including myself) are now busy "re-baroqueing" previously modernised Violins. In your particular circumstances I think I would have made exactly the same decision as yourself, for the same reasons.

I was just about to post this when you posted your reply Jim!
Yes, there have certainly been things done in the past to old Violin family instruments that would never be done now, including the "cutting down" of large tenor Violas to Alto size. Some things that have been done to fine old Violins literally come into the category of "criminal damage" because they were comitted with fraudulent intent. Thankfully in this more enlightened age such things should not happen, or would be recognised immediately if attempted.

Jon

[Jim Garber]

A friend of mine is a violin maker of some repute. He called me once many years ago because he was preparing a rather high-profile Strad for auction and had the top off. So I went to his walkup apartment and held that top in my hands as a rather religious feeling came over me. My main observation tho was how much repair/restoration was done to this instrument. We talk of the provenance of owners/players but how much is known about the number and nature of the luthiers who have taken apart and put these back together in order to make them playable.

These topline violins are especially intersting to me, since, more than not, they are intended to be playing instruments. Very often, in order to do so they are even regraduated, which, I assume, is also part of modernizing from the baroque era.

Jim

[Bob A]

I've gone thru repair processes with a few instruments. My interest is in playing the instrument, while retaining as much as is practical of its originality. This has led me into undefined territory.

Some carved-top instruments (especially my Gibson F4) have endured some shrinking of the back, resulting in problems like opening of the back seam, or the separation of the back plate from the rim (usually a few inces of opening, around the tailpiece). Solutions range from simple regluing of seam to the insertion of a long thin spline between the purfling and the edge of the back: this results in a small gap where the end of the purfling just fails to meet the next section, but adds enough wood wo be able to match the back with the rim. Perhaps not the ideal solution, but effective and nearly invisible, unless you look for it.

Bowlback repairs have been rather more extensive. A top crack on the Larson brothers Stahl instrument (adjacent to fingerboard on bass side) was to have been approximated and cleated; it ended up requiring a thin spline. The area was French polished, and id noticeable only because the finish is a bit less aged looking than the surrounding area.

A Vinaccia was found, with problems like the bridge being glued to the top, and the instrument shrinking to the extent that the main transverse braces had punched thru the trim at the sides of the instrument. I believe they were shortened, and the side trim reglued. Noticeable, but not bad. The top was French polished (beautifully); little eye-typedots were fashioned by hand and glued inplace as bridge position indicators. (These are of the period and in thee style of instruments of the day, but were not originally there. In addition a little triangle o.f MOP was carved and glued tot eh back of the neck, where the veneer leaves a little ridge at the back of the peghead. Again, not original, but a nice touch. While perhaps inappropriate, I find these mods charming and in keeping woth the spirit of the instruments of the time).

I have two low-end Salsedo mandolins. One, purchased from an Italian "luthier", was, I think, sanded (top only) and lightly finished; the other, an ebay purchase, has been varnished by an idiot. I'd love to have the overlay of varnish removed and the original finish restored as best as can be, but it'll have to wait until I find someone with the skill, time, and opportunity to address it. (By the way, the "sanded" Salsedo remains a delight to play, and is one of my favorites. (I hasten to say that while I suspect sanding, I'm not certain).

While it is worthwhile to have a core of "conserved" antiques for the study of luthiers, Most owners are not museum-keepers, and would prefer to have a functional instrument. And in fact, function is perhaps the strongest argument for longevity. An instrument capable of delighting the ear of a musician will stand a better chance of surviving the passage of time than will an accumulation of mandolin parts, loosely connected, however elevated its pedigree.

So. I (and others who will be reading this) have a style 6 Martin in need of work to be rendered playable. Given the small number of these instruments extant (and I think there were only about 140 made) it might behoove me to have it "conserved", but in truth I'd rather have it made playable. And perhaps someday it will be; hopefully in my playing lifetime (I'm 57, getting a bit hard of hearing (tinnitus) and with less flexibility in joints and mind than I was a decade ago. If this resto doesn't happen in the next decade or so, it will do me little good).

From where I sit, the problem is more on the order of finding a luthier with both time and talent to effect the desired repairs, than on making delicate judgements regarding the extent and nature of same. Pragmatism rules, though not without qualms. (Some of the qualms relating to luthiers. It's all very well to tell them what you'd like: getting work done will more often than not require letting the luthier have his head, and hoping that the end result will be approximately what the owner had in mind. I've noticed that artisans have their own way of looking at a job, and will do what they will do).

[onthefiddle]

Regraduating is another regret of the past - the current ethics of repair and restoration are firmly based on a long practical background! Personally, the biggest restoration that I am currently undertaking is dealing with the after effects of the regraduation of a very fine old eighteenth century Violin. The regraduation probably took place in the early nineteenth century, and would be regarded as unethical now.

I have a very interesting book called "Il Manoscritto Liutario Di G. A. Marchi, Bologna 1786" (the contents are bilingual - alternating pages of English and Italian). This is the thoughts and theories of a Violin maker who was responsible for many of these early regraduations. He wrote it in his old age, and at a time when the demands of players were changing - interestingly he bemoans the (then) current taste in Violin tone, and this leads him to question the practice of regraduation.

Bob (A) - I have tried to make a distintion between the two main areas of my own work, and bobd has further expanded this discussion very usefully with a much wider range of categories. I don't think either of us would describe ourselves as conservators though. This is the advantage of my "repair" category - not every instrument is either worthy, or physically available to undergo a full restoration, nor every player able to afford the expense of restoration. A good luthier should normally be able to give a range of options to bring an instrument back into playing condition (all of them reversible), or if some major work is essential - prioritise the work to be done, at least in order to minimise the immediate expense.

As Jim has highlighted with his examples - there has long been a need for an ethical approach by professional luthiers in the practice of restoration and repairs. This started to develop, at least in England and France, in the late nineteenth century - too late for many instruments unfortunately. Standards have dropped at times in the intervening period also - this has always happened when there has been a shortage of professionally trained luthiers. A very large proportion of work being undertaken by professional restorers today is undoing work that was done either in these lean periods or before an ethical approach was widely adopted. I know that there is currently a shortage of professionally trained luthiers in North America , as I was working on your side of the Atlantic not long ago. Most of my work there consisted of undoing more recent "repairs" many of which had only worsened the condition of the instrument, I could recognise many of these "repairmens" work at first sight. Beyond the workshop that I was working in there were only a handful of genuinely competent luthiers within many hundreds of miles, and these weren't always the most prominent "luthiers" in their immediate areas. Thankfully this is no longer the case in Europe, though there was a great shortage (at least in the UK) following World War II. I'm not entirely sure why this has occurred - there are certainly some very fine luthiers in North America, and there is certainly no shortage of work for anyone entering the trade. Considering the amount of training involved, and dedication required there are certainly more profitable professions. Money is not the underlying reason that any luthier I know took up their profession though!

Jon

[Bob A]

Ahh, regraduating. There was a guy in upstate New York, about a half century ago, who had an insurance business, if I remember aright, and a sideline in finding and regraduating and scalloping braces in various old instruments of the period. (We'd call them "vintage" now, but that was then). He was more or less responsible for the ultimate collapse of any number of fine olf guitars and mandolins.