In this mando world where there is a strong pull to copy a Victorian role-model, it seems to me that it is very important to be clear on what your goals are with each build. The component elements then follow to meet the parameters of the design goals. I've found the niches in the car world to be a good way to think about building philosophy --
1. Historic Copies -- Building a bench-copy of a specific instrument or a generalized imitation of a specific period of instruments.
2. Historic References -- Riffing on the Victorian designs with a few little twists.
3. Everyday Drivers -- Built to look good, play well, not stand out.
4. New "Resto-Mod" -- Using a period look with modern amenities and guts to take advantage of technological advances
5. Rat-Rods and Show Cars -- Combining quirky period elements to create something new and eye-catching. Sometimes design ideas trump or overshadow tone, playability, range of response.
6. Hot Rods and Race Cars -- Refined modern lines and excellent power and response. Accepts that some basic parameters of early instruments are essential but can be refined and modernized. The goal is to maximize player comfort, range of response, power, and efficiency using every innovation available.
7. Super/Ultra Car -- No expense spared on design and component costs. Power, coolness, and bling are pushed to the extreme.
I would suggest most builders in the bluegrass-affiliated world are doing #1, 2, and 3 . . . and so the components should align with the historically correct materials.
Most of the modern established builders like Ellis, Mowry, Austin Clark are actually doing something like the Resto-Mod cars -- using modern technology, components, and building techniques to improve performance while maintaining a mostly historic look.
I, personally, am obsessed with building "hot-rodded race car" instruments, so the design and component questions all turn back to maximizing how the instrument "hits the road running" for maximum sustained comfort, power, speed, and innovative style.
There are aspects of the tone, response, and geometry of the Gibson/Loar Era instruments which I believe essential for instruments to play in a way that experienced players expect, but from there, my goal is to be looking forward, not back to the Victorian mind-set. For example, I love the balance and strap-holding efficiency of the scroll, so I often include that element, but look for ways to have it augment the design and playability goals of the instrument.
So, when it comes to binding and finish, it seems that first thing to be clear on is -- what do you like, want, and need? What, exactly, are you trying to achieve with each build? The component elements must follow those goals.
Steve
Bookmarks