Restoration as compromise

[Geo Kloppel <GeoK@aol.com>]

The introductory post from violinmaker David Van Zandt has prompted some
thoughts:

           The violin is perhaps the extreme example of how far traditional
restoration technology can be taken: new blocks, new necks (of different
length, no less!), new bassbars, new linings, new patches under crack-repair,
cleats, bushings, doubling, hot-sandbagging, watercolors, new fittings, and
of course lots of new varnish - what have you got? Why, beautiful, sensitive
 restorations of gorgeous old instruments!  (Please, I mean this very kindly,
admiringly. I hope you're laughing. )  Instruments with the most horrible
kinds of wear and breakage are routinely restored to excellent condition in
violin shops.

          Violin bows, on the other hand, are necessarily held to a different
standard. Many of the commonest types of cracks simply can't be
satisfactorily repaired, because at some future time the area must be heated
to perform routine straightening or camber adjustments. Grafts which expose
new wood anywhere in the bow are also regarded more negatively, so that hand
wear cannot be repaired without detriment to the perceived originality. I
suspect there is a contagion-effect here: cracked bowshafts are bad news,
therefor repair of other types of damage is also more suspect.  A fairly
common bowmaker's approach to serious frog damage is simply to make a new
frog and put the old one in storage, not because restoration is impractical,
but because the loss of originality is unacceptable, even though the amount
of original surface disturbed may be minimal.

             It seems that the sense of what sorts of compromise to the
originality of the object are acceptable may be  determined as much by
considerations of practical utility peculiar to the instrument as by direct
concern for its preservation. I don't suppose anyone is surprised by this,
but I'm wondering if others on the list could provide examples from other
groups of musical instruments, or wish to say more about this.

Geo Kloppel     <geok@aol.com>