voboam sound-board

Add a Comment

Comment by Akira Sakamoto on July 24, 2011 at 22:31

I see. Thank you again for taking your time!

Comment by Peter Forrester on July 24, 2011 at 22:24

Scalloped sides were first noticed on lutes several years before I noticed them on the Kilmarnock guitars.  I think I am correct to say that most luthiers and lute historians now accept their authenticity, find them advantageous, and use them on new instruments.

Comment by Akira Sakamoto on July 24, 2011 at 21:05

Correction:

"...and thus it could not be historical" should have been "...and thus it might not be historical".

Comment by Akira Sakamoto on July 24, 2011 at 20:55

Thank you for the further explanation. I asked the question because a credible guitarist/lutenist noted that he hasn't seen any sample of historical guitars or lutes that has scalloped sides and pointed out that scalloping is more recent method for higher string action and thus it could not be historical. He has several original baroque guitars (including highly decorated Sellas) and use them in his cocerts quite often.

If the Sellas guitar from Charles van Raalte collection has an added transverse bar, the top should have been removed. Would it be possible that the scallop was added then?

Comment by Peter Forrester on July 24, 2011 at 10:43

It is several years since I visited Kilmarnock, but points of interest about the guitars are:

 The Sellas has been altered to a 19th? c. 6 string length by altering the bridge position, but without, I think, shortening the neck, in order to achieve a "modern" mensur.  It is now around 685 mm, but seems to have originally been 40 - 50 mm longer.  Marks of its original position just above the decoration can be seen in the museum photograph.  The bridge is now of course a 19th c. pin bridge, and there is an extra transverse bar almost immediately underneath it.  Otherwise just two, original, bars as in my chitarriglia photograph.  And the rose has been removed.  

The Stegher (dated 1621 - not as the museum date!) seems in almost unaltered condition.  String length 738 mm, so probably originally at a nominal d'.  There has been some work to the side/ belly joint around the lower bout, which I can't now account for.  It could have been to lower the action; an intended alteration to chitarra battente, later reversed (though the soundboard seems never to have been 'cranked'); or just a loose soundboard.  There is over-the-top inlaid decoration to the belly which cannot have been good for sound, and may be the reason that its condition has been preserved.  I suspect that the bridge is a rare original example?  Perhaps somebody who has seen the guitars more recently can comment further?

Neither guitar was built as a chitarra battente.  They are both rather good examples of typical Italian 17th c. guitars.

Comment by Akira Sakamoto on July 24, 2011 at 0:48

Thank you very much for the detailed info! The photos of the guitar on the internet are, of course, too small to discern the 2mm scallop, so the real-world experience should help a lot.

Comment by Peter Forrester on July 23, 2011 at 13:26

I was able to measure it on the Matheo Sellas guitar in Dean Castle, Kilmarnock (van Raalte collection I think - you should be able to find photos on the internet).  Here the scallop is from just above the rose to the bridge and is approximately 2 mm deep.  Some is also present on the Stegher guitar in the same collection, but irregular and maybe affected by some correction to the action.

Comment by Akira Sakamoto on July 23, 2011 at 12:11

I'd like to ask another question:

Can the scalloped side views be seen on historical instruments?

Comment by Peter Forrester on July 22, 2011 at 18:27

The large area of unsupported soundboard is fairly standard for most of the 17th c. in both Italy and France.  However, compared with a lute, the soundboard is comparatively thick, especially down the centre-line - approaching 3 mm in some instruments - which substitutes for barring to a large extent.  Nevertheless there is as you suggest a tendency for the soundboard to sink next to the bridge.  Most guitars (and lutes) have the sides "scalloped" in side view, perhaps 2 mm depth, between the bridge and upper bout.  This does seem to alleviate sinking.  Many guitars have had extra transverse bars added, and they seem to have become standard by the end of the century.

 

It is of course the large area of fairly unsupported soundboard which makes guitar sound.

 

The third bar next to the neck is standard on Voboam guitars.  I deliberately placed one in my Choco copies because I knew that they would be used extensively for punteado music and would want a good strong treble.  Exactly how it works I'm afraid I don't know, but certainly some stiffness in the shoulder area seems to help.  The angled bar in the Italians also does this - I was just trying to make sure!  

Comment by Edward C. Yong on July 22, 2011 at 7:07

question - does not the complete lack of barring in that large area around where the bridge will be mean that the soundboard may sag in the area in front of the bridge? no chance of the soundboard collapsing and the lower bit pulling off? 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page