Two Ceccherini bowls

[Martin Jonas]

Here are a few photos of my two Ceccherini bowlbacks, one with a conventional single top (below), which I've had for a few months, and the other with Ceccherini's unique double-top design (above), newly-acquired this week and now cleaned and set up. The second top is suspended about one centimetre below the main top, similar to a Virzi. It's a wafer-thin spruce plate with the grain running at right angles to the main top. It's stiffened by and suspended from two braces running at an angle to the strings so that they form a jaw opening towards the soundhole and coming closer together towards the tailpiece (although they never cross or even get particularly close to each other).

With the single top, there is a tensioner similar to the more common de Meglios, whereas the double top goes with four brass hooks holding the strings down. I had envisaged that the hooks go down to the second top, helping to drive it. However, from feeling the underside of the double top, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Interesting to note that the single top Ceccherini has a significantly smaller sound box: it's about seven millimetres narrower and about one centimetre more shallow.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

This view shows the different construction, with the double top on the right.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

The backs of the bowls. Not much difference here, except for a darker colour and engraved tuners on the double top.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Two labels and pickguards.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Finally, the label of my new one. This also shows the very tight grain on the spruce top, much closer grain than on the other.

Martin

[John Bertotti]

Looks great how do the sounds compare between the two? John

[Michael Lewis]

Martin, is the bridge floating or glued? with the hooks directly behind the bridge creating a rather extreme break angle I would think the bridge might possibly be glued.

[Martin Jonas]

John/Michael,

Thanks for the questions. The bridge is floating, same as on "normal" bowlbacks. As with many of the fancier Neapolitans, the two round pearl markers either side of the bridge are fixed to the top and they indicate the original bridge position intended by the luthier. As you can see on the last photo, the current optimum position for correct intonation is still spot-on between the markers, so there does not appear to have been any significant movement in the top at all.

I think the idea of the hooks (and of the downholding bar on the other one and on the similarly constructed de Meglios) is to increase the string break angle in order to drive the top harder. However, this is not as extreme as it might look on the photos: these bridges are very very low indeed, with saddle heights well below a centimetre, and so the hooks only bring the string break angle a bit closer to what one would get with the higher modern bridges anyway. The upward break angle at the hooks is fairly minor.

Regarding the tone, I have been playing the double-top model fairly extensively over the past three weeks, and the tone (which was pretty good to start with) has opened up very nicely indeed. They are both very light, very responsive mandolins with great sustain, and the playability is equally good on both (same neck profile, nut design, fretting, similar action, etc). However, apart from that, they are not particularly similar in tone. The single top has a distinctly dark tone, mellow, best when played softly, with a tendency to become a bit boomy when driven hard. Not a particularly loud mandolin, but a very smooth and melodic one. The double top is much brighter, with a more complex sweet tone which has a slightly amplified quality to it (presumably the effect of the resonator-like second sound chamber). Somewhat surprisingly (considering that a common complaint with Virzis is that they supposedly reduce volume), this is a significantly louder mandolin, which keeps responding more and more the harder I play it. With a soft touch, it's melodic and smooth, with a harder drive it's bright and piercing, but never shrill. Great fun to play, and I think it may still not have finished waking up.

I am intrigued by the contrast between the two, which may well reflect different intentions by Signore Ceccherini (orchestral and soloist models, presumably). It's difficult to pick a favourite, and luckily I don't have to, but at the moment I'd say the double top is slightly ahead, on the strength of its greater dynamic response. Both are head and shoulders above my de Meglio, which is itself a perfectly respectable mandolin by a "name" builder in good playable condition.

Martin

[Bob A]

Regarding the difference in size, my very ornate Ceccherini measures approximately 205mm across the top, at the cant. (It does have the double top).

It has a light tonality, with perhaps less volume than yours may have. I suspect the carved ribs and various inlays increase the mass of the instrument somewhat, to the detriment of the sound.

I've often wondered just how much of an effect the string trees would have on the sound; it seems to me that the tension increase on the bridge would be countered by the upward pull on the string trees, more or less cancelling each other out. Of course, it would seem to move the center of force to a point between the bridge and trees. This may have the effect of increasing the effective footprint of the bridge, without substantially increasing the mass. I suppose the only way to find out would be to test the same instrument in both configurations. Seems like too much trouble, to me, but it might prove interesting.

[Eugene]

I've been admiring your beautiful pair of Ceccherini mandolins since you posted the pictures, Martin; I just haven't had anything useful to add. I still really don't have anything useful, but thought you might be interested that "Golden Era" virtuoso Leopoldo Francia endorsed Ceccherini. You should take up some of his compositions for amusement.

[Martin Jonas]

Eugene -- that's an interesting bit of information. I have to say that I know nothing whatsoever about Umberto or his mandolins. The only things the labels tell us are that he seems to have sold exclusively through Voigt in London and that he won a prize in 1881. Otherwise, no serial numbers, no model numbers, no years. So, this is the first info I've had that goes beyond the label. You don't happen to know of any further details about the Ceccherini model range, and how my two (or Bob's more ornate one) might fit into it? Or the years during which he was active? I suspect that my single top is older than the double top, but I don't actually know this. I'll have a look for Francia compositions: maybe I'll find them uniquely attuned to the tonality of the Ceccherinis...

Bob -- I'm not so sure the forces would cancel out. Both of the contact points, at the saddle and at the hooks, provide an acoustic coupling of the top to the strings and the firmer the couple, the better is the top driven. Still, I suspect that the actual effect is fairly minor, which may explain why so few other luthiers bothered. As it happens, on one of my D-strings there was no visible upward deviation at all, and I've now raised that string a bit at the tailpiece to get it to deflect at least a little bit, seeing that this was the luthier's intention.

Looking at the photos, I apologise for the quality: I reduced them in file size by increasing JPG compression, which has led to some ugly artefacts. I should have resampled them instead. I did that for the last photo, which looks much better than the others. I'm not sure if I can replace the photos with better quality files by using the "edit" function: I'll try.

Martin

[Eugene]

Eugene -- that's an interesting bit of information. #I have to say that I know nothing whatsoever about Umberto or his mandolins. #The only things the labels tell us are that he seems to have sold exclusively through Voigt in London and that he won a prize in 1881. #Otherwise, no serial numbers, no model numbers, no years. #So, this is the first info I've had that goes beyond the label. #You don't happen to know of any further details about the Ceccherini model range, and how my two (or Bob's more ornate one) might fit into it? #Or the years during which he was active? #I suspect that my single top is older than the double top, but I don't actually know this. #I'll have a look for Francia compositions: maybe I'll find them uniquely attuned to the tonality of the Ceccherinis...
Indeed.

On the instruments themselves, I don't know much of the make outside of seeing a few instruments carrying Ceccherini labels. There was a person in somewhere in South America who once sent me images of a very ornate Ceccherini double-top mandolin, but I fear those images might have been lost in some computer mishaps over time. All the pieces I have seen seem pretty typical of Neapolitan instruments of the late 19th c.

[Martin Jonas]

Regarding the difference in size, my very ornate Ceccherini measures approximately 205mm across the top, at the cant. (It does have the double top).
That makes yours larger than either of mine: my two are 193mm and 200mm at the cant. In other words, he must have had at least three different moulds.

Martin

[Finklestein]

Martin

I have been doing quite a bit of research on Ceccherini bowlbacks recently for my local circle's newsletter. I adore bowlbacks, and my Frignani is my pride and joy! You might be interested to know that I read in Concert magazine about 8 months ago (I think it was an Article by Dr Simon Mayor)there are several late 60s German-built copies of Ceccherinis on the market at the moment - I hope you haven't bought one of those! It is apparently relatively easy to tell the difference, but I can't remember how at the moment.

Anyway, they certainly look like a beautiful pair.

Congratulations on your new aquisitions and fine taste! I confess to being a little jealous (unless they are the German ones!).

Lee Finklestein

[Martin Jonas]

Lee --

Thanks for your message (and welcome to the Cafe!). I'd be very interested in both the article you mention and in the results of your other research. Do you think you could lay your hand on it? As I mentioned above, I know very little about the maker other than what is apparent from the instruments and from photos of other instruments that have popped up on the web at various times (such as here (http://sinierderidder.free.fr/pages/mandolines.html) and here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3750953793)).

My single-top is most certainly older than the 1960s (the strings that came with it were already older than that), and the double top could only be a 1960s rebuild if they were more properly called "forgery": the label has all the original references (including the Alban Voigt address), and a signature from Signore Ceccherini, the workmanship and decoration is very similar between both instruments, there are real ivory tuner knobs (can't see them being used in a 1960s German copy), the correct patent stamp, vintage-style bar frets (unheard of in 1960s instruments) and, perhaps most tellingly, both instruments have a maker's marking scratched onto the underside of the bridge and a matching marking written in pencil onto the place on the top where the bridge goes. Both instruments have resurfaced separately in UK auctions (where Alban Voigt traded and where one would therefore expect most genuine Ceccherinis to be located) following house clearances. In view of these factors, I'd think it's fairly unlikely that either of them is a copy. The copyists would in any case also have needed to duplicate the fabulous tone. Nevertheless, I'd be obviously most interested in knowing what the article you mentioned describes as the telltale signs, just quell any doubts that might remain.

Martin

[Finklestein]

Martin,

Thank you for your kind welcome! I have lurked here for a while, but was only moved enough to post following display of your Ceccherinis.

I was trying to track down the magazine but I couldn't find it in my home but my ex-wife (Marie-Anne Downing - you might have heard of her if you've ever been to a bluegrass concert in Oklahoma) has a copy. She don't want to send it to me but I can ask her to scan it, but anyway I must have been thinking of some other mandolin. I really don't think your gonna want to do this, but anyhow, to see if your mandolins are the real McCoy you have to sand off about 1/16" from anywhere on the neck. The German copies patina
changes rapidly over that depth, whereas the genuine Ceccherini's patina stays virtually the same colour. I guess this method is only ever used by people who strongly suspect their Ceccherinis are fakes.

From what you say, your mandolins sound kosher. In any case, late 60's German fake or not, you should enjoy them, they're beautiful!

[Martin Jonas]

Lee --

Thanks for the follow-up and for trying to get hold of the artivel. Very interesting info, but: Urghh. I don't think I'll be doing that anytime soon. I'm not so sure I understand the test, as the surface wood on the neck is a veneer anyway: is the article referring to the actual neck wood, underneath the veneer, and suggesting that Ceccherini used a dark wood (similar in colour to the veneer) whereas the copies used a light wood (like in the attached Angara & d'Isanto neck)? If so, then at least my single top is in the clear: there's a small piece of veneer missing from the back of the headstock and the wood underneath is plain-figured, but the same colour as the veneer.

I'm still puzzled why anybody would go to such lengths to forge a Ceccherini. It's one thing to try to build copies of a historical mandolin for modern players, but quite a different thing to imitate all the appointments, labels, frets and hardware to the extent that the definitive test for authenticity is a destructive removal of the neck veneer. And if you were forging a historical mandolin with the aim of fooling collectors (rather than as a player's instrument), wouldn't you aim for the most lucrative ones? I mean, Ceccherinis are well-regarded, arguably underrated, and I love mine, but surely in terms of market value, they've never been as prized (and priced) as, say, an Embergher or a Vinaccia.

Martin

[Eugene]

I can't imagine relatively recent efforts to fabricate fraudulent Cechherini mandolins. #I can imagine relatively recent efforts to emulate Ceccherini's style; however, in the case of entry- to mid-level instruments by a relatively prolific Neapolitan builder like Ceccherini, putting a Ceccherini label on your modern efforts at emulation will cause it to be worth less than it would be as a newly produced piece! #That doesn't provide much incentive for forgery. #Before Seiffert, the better German shops seemed to be very interested in producing good, working-class instruments in the style of Italian builders, especially Embergher from what I've see. #I have not seen one that made any effort to pretend it is what it is not. #After such pieces are a few years old, depreciation would make them worth less than original Ceccherini mandolins. #It is possible that a later owner would place a fake label in a rapidly depreciating recent mandolin to make it seem a bit older. #Still, such stuff should be relatively easy to spot.

The case would be different for the very finest bowlback mandolins by the most prestigious shops. #I'm certain there are fraudulently labeled Embergher, Calace, and Vinaccia...possibly even imitations of the very fanciest Ceccherini...mandolins out there, but this is not the case here. #Those pictured here are beautiful examples of mid-level instruments. #Can you imagine somebody being able to produce this kind of work in modern times for the prices you paid, Martin?

[Eugene]

Well, I was typing as you were posting, Martin. Pardon the redundancy.

[Finklestein]

Martin,

I understand your concern over possible forgeries and that fairly destructive method, but please don't get upset with me about what I read out - I only wanted to help... My daughters are always telling me I am a doom-monger and always look on the black side - you would too if your
daughters shacked up with the guys they have!! But I'm sorry if I've caused you any unnecessary concern - your mandolins are beautiful whatever their provenance.

I see your point about the veneer, Martin, but I think 1/16" would be less than the thickness of the veneer. Perhaps the copies have a veneer of even a whole neck piece made of a paler wood that had been only surface stained -
that would explain the big difference in color over such a small depth. I'm only guessing here, but I have seen something similar on a poor Vinaccia copy during my research.

As to your other point, and the one Eugene made, well, I'm not sure, but I reckon that they were becoming more and more sought after in the 60s and were suspected of having increased value over the following decade. I remember as a young man in the 60s me and my buddies were desperate to get a hold of one. But by that time they had obtained an image of only being bought by buskers and bar singers because they were inexpensive for such a fine instrument, which I think is why they are so undervalued now - maybe you disagree. Unfortunately now as then, there is so much prejudice in music and everything else you buy. And even though they are well regarded as you say, for many collectors and musicians, Ceccherinis will always be a poor man's instrument. Its a damn shame.

Anyway, I can't agree more with Eugene - definitely the best value mandolin for the beauty, sanded or not!

[Martin Jonas]

No problem, Lee, I do appreciate you passing on the information (and am still keen to know more). Eugene and I were just trying to figure out how it fits into the bigger picture.

Being a recent buyer, I'm not really complaining about them being undervalued (which they clearly are): I wouldn't have been able to lay my hands on them otherwise! As I got them for playing, not for collecting, I'm not too worried about future value or collectability either.

Martin

[Jim Garber]

I have been doing quite a bit of research on Ceccherini bowlbacks recently for my local circle's newsletter.
Please, Lee, share with us some of what you found out about Umberto Ceccherini. For instance, I would be interested in his concepts for the double-topped design and what he was trying to accomplish. I also would be interested in his relationship with other Italian makers, notably DeMeglio.

I also have my doubts that any German Ceccherini copies wouldbear little resemblance to the genuine. As Eugene mentioned, the German copies of Emberghers, among the most desirable of the Italian makers, bear only superficial resemblance to the actual ones.

Jim

[dave17120]

Hi Martin, I'm a bit new to this, so you'll have to excuse any mistakes. I was very interested in your single top string tensioner, as I am trying to renovate an old bowlback, with marks that suggest it once had one. See picture, assuming I can get it loaded. I got this wreck with no furniture at all, so have no idea what the gismo is made of, how big it is, how it is attached, if there is anything under the soundboard, how it was adjusted, and so forth. My instrument looks very very similar to yours, but has a label saying Bellini.
Perhaps you might be able to help with a few details? And why am I doing this???? Well its not for the money!
Thanks, Dave

[Jim Garber]

Dave:
You have a long road ahead of you on this project but it should be fun. Welcome to world of the bowl.

Attached is a pic of a 1898 deMeglio (from an eBay auction this fall) which yours resembles. There seem to be many of this type of bowlback around under different names. You can get an idea of the pickguard and the typical bridge and string tensioner.

Jim

[Jim Garber]

Here is a full view of a 1904 deMeglio.

Jim

[Martin Jonas]

Dave,

I agree with Jim that yours is more likely to be a de-Meglio clone than a Ceccherini; the two have some similarities but there are also farly significant differences. Mandolins that are virtually identical to the entry-level de Meglio (Model 1A) surface under a lot of different names, and there is some uncertainty over which ones were actually built by de Meglio, but sold under the name of various distributors, and which ones were imitations built in other shops at the same time. I have a de Meglio (or a very close imitation) under the name of "Carlo Rinaldi" and the photos of that one compared to my single-top Ceccherini are here (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=18412;hl=rinaldi). This should give you some idea of how yours probably looked like originally.

As Jim said, you have long road ahead of you on that restoration. They are very nice mandolins when in playable condition, but as there are a great many de Meglios and de Meglio-clones out there, you needn't be afraid to ruin an invaluable masterpiece in the process.

The tensioner is made of ebony, with two metal screws holding it to the top. I don't think the height was ever intended to be adjustable, despite the fact that the two screws have a slot for a screwdriver in them. If they used to be adjustable, they have long since seized on my de Meglio/Rinaldi as well as my Ceccherini.

Regarding the bracing underneath the tensioner, your bowl may have the side vents that are typical of the de Meglios (the Ceccherini doesn't have them), and looking through there with a string light shining in on the other side should give you an idea of how the tensioner used to be supported. My de Meglio/Rinaldi has a thin central brace running between sound hole and tailpiece along the seam of the two halves of the top. Then there is a short cross brace underneath the tensioner, mirroring its length and position, with small additional wood blocks in way of the two screws. In all, a fairly elaborate bracing arrangement to counteract the forces that the tensioner puts on the top. I should, however, say that I've seen several playable de Meglios without the tensioner, and it doesn't seem to harm the tone or the playability too much, so restoring this element may not be crucial to your restoration project. Getting that nasty top crack repaired and replacing the pick guard, tailpiece and bridge are probably higher priorities.

Good luck!

Martin

[dave17120]

Jim, thanks, I do have the tortoiseshell, which was in pieces, and looks very like your first picture. It is now rebuilt, see attached. The bridge photo will be very helpful, but the questions about the tensioner still stand though. Thanks, Dave

[Eugene]

The bridge in the first de Meglio image posted by Jim looks far too heavy and likely is a semi-gross effort at a later reproduction/replacement. I'd suggest you use any other bridge image in this thread as a template for yours, Dave.

[dave17120]

Martin, many many thanks for the info about the tensioner, I will be working on it tomorrow. As for the cracks, they were actually complete splits, that part of the sound board only being held on by the side. I have now re-inforced it underneath, for which I had to remove the piece, and whilst it was off I managed to have a good look inside..... no extra woodwork I'm afraid. (not entirely happy with the crack filling though, still too visible!) And yes you are absolutely right, it does have side vents.
Thanks again, Dave

[Martin Jonas]

Dave,

These are very impressive progress photos of the repair -- you clearly know what you're doing with those. You seem to have managed to lighten and even out the colour of the top considerably, without it looking fake or heavy-handed. Have you sanded the top down and then sealed it? It looks much better than the refinishing job someone did on my Rinaldi/de Meglio. Good to hear that you have the pickguard; I wouldn't relish the prospect of fashioning a new one. The decoration on yours is a similar motive than on the de Meglios, but less filigrane than others I've seen, with a thicker metal stem.

I agree with Eugene that the bridge in Jim's first photo is rather chunky. As far as I can see, original de Meglio bridges were virtually identical with Ceccherini bridges, so you can just look at the photos in this thread. The saddle is made of a simple length of round brass rod (fretmetal or silver alloy on the fancier ones), about 2mm across, with one side flattened, and it sits on a flat ledge, not (as one might think) in a groove. The bridges are very low indeed; it is perfectly normal to have the top of the saddle at around 7 to 8 millimetres above the top, depending on the thickness of your fretboard.

Let us know how you're getting on -- it's fascinating to see a restoration like this in progress.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Further to my earlier description of the internal bracing, I should add that the longitudinal central brace as well as the short cross brace I was describing are really only thin strips of wood, maybe two to three millimetres high. Nothing like the main cross brace at the sound hole.

Martin

[Jim Garber]

Yes, I did notice that the bridge on the first DeMeglio I posted was rather crude and probably not original. As Martin and Eugene noted, the birdges should have that brass rod saddle.

I envy your project. You obviously have the skills to restore this mandolin and while not a seriously rare one will give you the insight to attempt others and understand the structure.

Jim

[dave17120]

Well er...... what can I say, thanks for the encouragement, guys. When you are working on your own in a small workshop, you never quite know how to judge your efforts. One other thing I need to know about the tensioner though, is how are the strings actually attached? Do they go through it or under it? If under, are there any grooves or similar to keep them in place? If through, is it through holes in a solid piece, or between an upper and a lower part of the tensioner? Thanks, Dave.

Ps the little brass piece to the bridge.... would that sit loose (as it were) on the little shelf evident on the 'too chunky' bridge perhps?

[Martin Jonas]

The tensioner is just a smooth bit of ebony. The strings go under it, no grooves. The only element of the entire bridge/tensioner arrangement that sets the string spacing are the "teeth" at the tail side of the bridge. String tension is enough to keep everything in place.

The brass saddle does indeed sit loose on the ledge, held only by the string tension and through friction at either end (the length of the saddle should be exactly the same as the length of the ledge). No groove, no glue. With the strings off, you can prise the saddle loose with little effort.

Martin

[Jim Garber]

I found this pic in my jpeg collection. It is a closeup of a 1900 Ceccherini bridge. One piece of the bridge is missing but you can see the brass saddle.

Jim

[jasona]

Well er...... what can I say, thanks for the encouragement, guys. When you are working on your own in a small workshop, you never quite know how to judge your efforts.
Careful there Dave. The *might* be encouraging you so *they* can have another competant bowlback luthier to repair all of their eBay "rescues". Seems they complain about the condition of most bowlbacks only slightly less that the length of time it takes to get them back from the (sole?) luthier...

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[jasona]

(very interesting series of images, by the way)

[Martin Jonas]

As it happens, that last photo of Jim's is of my double-top Ceccherini when it was on Ebay. Since then I have replaced the missing piece of the bridge, cleaned some dirt off the soundboard and polished up the tarnished saddle (which on this one turned out to be a silver alloy, not brass, though you can't tell this from the photo).

I have now got my calipers out and taken some measurements of the tensioner on the single top Ceccherini, to give some guidance to Dave. I hadn't looked that closely before, but now I notice that the ebony piece is flat on top, but round at the bottom, where the strings go, although I don't think that it matters much. The dimensions are:

Length of tensioner bar: 49.5 mm
Width of tensioner bar: 6.2 mm
Thickness of tensioner bar: 3.5 mm
Distance between screws: 26.6 mm
Distance from bottom of tensioner bar to soundboard: 3.0 mm

The last measurement may of course need some adjustment for yours, as it depends on the height of the saddle for optimum action. As I needed to lower my saddle a lot to get a good action, my tensioner ended up so high that it wasn't doing any tensioning, and I added some rubber pads to the bottom of the tensioner to extend it downwards.

Martin

[dave17120]

Martin, with reference to your comment..... 'You seem to have managed to lighten and even out the colour of the top considerably, without it looking fake or heavy-handed. Have you sanded the top down and then sealed it? It looks much better than the refinishing job someone did on my Rinaldi/de Meglio.'..
thanks for those comments, all I have done so far is some careful sanding, I don't do anything else with them till I have done everything else. This one came up nicely, but some of them don't. I guess it may be some thing to do with the kind of dirt on them. I have found the 'greasier' more-handled ones are never so evenly coloured. Dave
PS I'll let your know how the bridge and tensioner turn out.

[dave17120]

Brilliant Martin, thanks for the measurements, Dave

[Martin Jonas]

I've just taken a few close-ups of tensioner and bridge, which I hope clarify the function and dimensions. These are all from the single-top Ceccherini. Because of some warping around the soundhole, this one needs a bridge height (saddle to soundboard) that is even lower than is normal for Neapolitans -- only 4.1 mm -- to get a playable action. Its original saddle height as built would have been around 8 mm, and with that height it wouldn't have needed the rubber pads under the tensioner.

This first photo is the side-on view.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Next one: Seen from the tailpiece. Seen this close, the rubber pads are a bit unsightly, but they're normally pretty well hidden.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Finally, the view from the soundhole. This one shows the brass bar pretty clearly, and you can see that it just sits loosely on top of the ledge.

Martin

[Finklestein]

Folks,

Thank you for your interest. #Before I answer any further questions, I thought I would show you my Borner, built in Germany in about October 2001. #Its made of single moulded high temperature nylon with 18/10 stainless steel blades and a 30º "V" blade in the European style, the transverse blades rising 3mm above the "V" blade. #You can see on this model a characteristic orange patina on the main guiding surface, which suggests that it has been used to cut extremely high quality carrots, definitely carrots with beta-carotein content of over 350ppm. #I could bleach the surface if I wanted, but I suppose if people see the stain, they know I am using only top-quality carrots.

You can see on the reverse side of the mandolin the finger-grips which were allegedly moulded on David Hasselhoff's optimum digit spacing and curvature, and the genuine nylon rivets holding the blade portion to the main body.

I was given this as a present, and it has given me many years of extreme pleasure.

Lee Finklestein.

P.S. Apologies to everyone, and Happy Christmas to Dr Jonas!!

http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/friends....3494880 (http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/friendsreunited.asp?wci=membernotes&member_key=3494880)

[dave17120]

Thanks Martin, this is gonna work a treat. See following photos of the tensioner, made to your spec but drilled to my hole spacing, and the first bridge fitting after some preliminary shaping, scaled from your photos. Now I have to bevel the foot, and lose about 4mm of the bottom, lower the saddle for the tubing a bit, (I don't have anything smaller than 4mm), and finish making the bridge and polish it, so it looks less like a piece of coal. A ways to go yet, but all in all, an excellent start. Thanks, Dave

[dave17120]

And next....

[dave17120]

And finally.....

[jasona]

Question: isn't the reversed tension on the top of down at the bridge and up at the tensioner bad for the wood? Do Ceccherinis suffer from warpage as a result of this configuration?

[dave17120]

I don't know who invented it, but its on other mandolins than Cecherrinis. If it bends I'll let you know!!http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Martin Jonas]

Dave: That's looking pretty good. At the moment, the upwards break angle at the tensioner is rather steep, but once you've lowered the bridge by 4mm, that'll be much more reasonable. Your bridge looks fine as well, but I'm a bit concerned about your saddle. Specifically, that you've described it as "tubing". If that's a piece of hollow 4mm brass tubing, I'd be worried about whether it'll introduce off-vibes and also whether you'll be able to flatten one side sufficiently to get a good acoustic coupling to the bridge. What I use is a 2mm solid rod, not tubing. The rod I use is made by K&S (http://www.ksmetals.com/HobbyMerchandisers/tube_wire.asp) and I got it at a modelmaking supplies shop in Liverpool. A 20cm length of it was 70 pence (about $1), which is enough for quite a lot of trial and error. On the saddle I've made for my de Meglio, I've sanded about 0.3 mm off one side of the rod to create a flat surface to sit on the wood ledge. The diameter and the extent of flattening is similar on the original Ceccherini saddles.

Jason: We already had a brief discussion of this topic earlier in this thread. This style of tensioner was used moderately widely in Neapolitan mandolins. They're most commonly associated with de Meglio, but were also used by a number of other builders. I've seen about seven or eight mandolins with tensioners, and none of them had any warping in that area. Presumably that's because the bracing pattern was designed for this type of load and also because there really was only a fairly gentle upwards break angle in any of the examples I've seen, corresponding to a similarly gentle force on the top. I have a sneaking suspicion that the main beneficial effect is actually to suppress sympathetic vibrations, similar to the Weber Wood Nymph. In order to be sure of the overall benefit (if any), one would need to do some side-by-side comparison with and without, which I haven't done.

Martin

[Martin Jonas]

Speaking of the use of the tensioner, here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10179&item=3772795498&rd=1) is an example of how not to thread the strings through them.

Martin

[jasona]

That is painful. Restorable do you think?

[Martin Jonas]

The tensioner is of course only a matter of restringing. Otherwise, it's difficult to assess the merits of this mandolin from the photos. The soundboard crack on the treble side looks nasty and the back of the headstock looks like it had splintered in the past and then crudely reglued. There may be another reglued crack at the joint of headstock and neck, and if so, the entire headstock may have broken off at some stage in the past. This may however just be the edge of the neck veneer coming unstuck, which would be much less worrying. I can't see anything specifically wrong at the neck joint, but as the seller gave us a close-up of that area, there may be a flaw there. As this is the most critical part of bowlback integrity, I would want to know more about it. The bridge is a reproduction, and has a bone insert instead of the original brass. No clear image showing the height of the action, but from extrapolating angles on the close-up of the shield, it might be a bit high (possibly related to the repro bridge, which would be fixable, or the neck joint, less so). On balance I'd say it's likely to be more hassle than it's worth unless you want to get it to try your hand at bowl repair, like Dave.

Martin

[dave17120]

Well, I finally finished. Some one said, let us know what you find out and how you get on….. so you can see where I started earlier in this thread.. big split, yes, but NO bridge and NO string tensioner. What did the latter look like and how did it work???
The mandolin is a ‘Fratelli Bellini’, and very similar in style to the de Meglios, and this is what it looks like now.

[dave17120]

The effect of the tensioner is not too clear…. It seems to me that the sound is slightly fuller with better sustain, with the bar in place….. but how much of that is purely subjective I don’t know. The bridge and bar are based on Martin Jonas' pictures and measurements. This includes a brass rod on the bridge, which I had not seen in place before on several mandolins using this style of bridge. Unable to find a solid rod, I have used a hollow one, smaller than the original tried, which proved too big. The sound is fine I think, but I will follow up the link for the solid rod, thanks. Dave

[dave17120]

The extent of the string angle at the tail I have to play with, until I find on optimum position that sounds good. Finally many thanks Martin, for all your knowledge and measurements. The mandolin has now been resurrected and sounds fine. I just have to ignore the repaired split, which wasn’t as seamless as I had hoped. Oh well…. You can’t win ‘em all!

[dave17120]

Oh yes, finally.... I did have to sand a bit off the bottom of the brass tube, as it kept squirting out.

[Bob A]

I'd think a hollow tube would be a poor transmitter of vibration. You might find a couple inches of silver wire at a jewelry supply house. My Ceccherini has a silver bar rather than the usual brass. I doubt there's much tonal difference between silver and brass; they used silver because it's a very ornate instrument. (The nut is also silver, nicely file-worked).

As far as that's concerned, I'd consider a short length of copper wire if brass bar stock is unavailable. A little soft perhaps, but cheap ans easy to come by.

[Martin Jonas]

For my Ceccherinis, it's a reddish brass for nut and saddle for the single-top, but silver for both for the double-top, the same as with Bob's. It's quite common for these saddles to fall out or be removed by previous owners (they're not firmly attached), so it's not so surprising that you would have seen several examples without the saddle.

Good work on the restoration, Dave, it looks good. A very thin non-glossy finish (or even exposed untreated wood) would have looked more authentic, but considering the condition when you got it and the relative lack of collectibility of these mandolins, the main concern should probably be playability and tone, rather than authenticity.

It's an ongoing debate as to how many of the mandolins of this type that have labels other than de Meglio were imitations by other builders and how many were made in the de Meglio workshop but sold under other names. The former may be tonally inferior, whereas the latter are probably no different than "genuine" de Meglios. No way of knowing in which category your Bellini, or indeed my Rinaldi (which has had its own non-authentic refinishing job), belong.

Martin

[dave17120]

With reference to the finish, its Tru-oil, so its fairly thin, and I can take the shine off the top a bit more easily enough I think. Thanks for the comments.
If I may be cheeky, as this seems to be a haven of roundback knowledge, in a world almost completely absorbed by archtops..... have you got any ideas about the best way of patching a hole in a round back..... sorry, another patient at the mandolin hospital.
You should be able to see in the photo, some of the wood is missing. It is approx 4mm wide at its widest, and nearly 100mm long. Its difficult to tell, but I think all the missing section is from the top of the two ribs. I don't really want to have to rty and get this rib out and replace it?! Any suggestions?
(PS I know about not being cost effective, I'm doing this for the experience really)
Or should this be in the repair section???

[Martin Jonas]

Dave --

that's not a type of repair I would ever try my hand on myself, so I'm afraid no pointers from me. I suggest you post a request in either the Builders/Repair forum or the Classical forum (which doubles as a forum for discussion of bowlbacks). The skill required for this specific repair is probably reasonably close to that for flatback repairs, so the professional luthiers in the Builders forum are probably you best bet, even if they don't normally work on bowlbacks.

If the finish you've used is just thin Tru-oil, then much of the glossiness in the photos may well be down to the flash. That shouldn't be a problem, then. This type of Neapolitan mandolin do typically have much more matte finishes than the American bowlbacks of the same period.

Martin